Floor Statements

Thank you very much, Congressman Rohrabacher. I really appreciate both yours and Congressman Manzullo's leadership on this patent issue. It's definitely an issue that's very important.

Tomorrow, the House is expected to consider the Patent Reform Act of 2007. I strongly oppose this bill. It's fundamentally flawed.

There are nearly 300 large, small businesses, associations, universities, and labor unions from a wide diversity of industry and perspectives that have raised serious concerns about this legislation.

H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, as you heard earlier, has been described as, I quote from one of the quotes, ``the most sweeping changes in America's patent system since 1952.''

Yet, the House Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 1908 to the floor of the House after holding only one public hearing this Congress and despite bipartisan and widespread cross-industry opposition.

At a time when America's innovators, manufacturers, and laborers need strong patent protection to compete internationally, the net effect of this bill will be to weaken patent protection by making patents less reliable, easier to challenge and cheaper to infringe.

H.R. 1908 is a severe threat to American innovation, American jobs and American competitiveness, and ought to be opposed.

Hundreds of companies and organizations around the United States have written to Congress to raise serious objections about this legislation. And you heard some of them earlier: manufacturers, organized labor, biotech, nanotech, pharmaceuticals, small businesses, independent inventors, universities, economic development organizations, and the list goes on.

Foreign companies are watching this legislation, and the reason why they are watching and eagerly looking at this legislation is they want to attack U.S. patents, as evidenced by the recent article in the Economic Times, India's second largest newspaper.

We are compromising many of our industries by passing this legislation. Many stakeholders of the United States patent system have complained about the process surrounding the Patent Reform Act.

Only one hearing has occurred on this bill in this Congress. Tomorrow we are prepared to vote on this bill without ample time to review the two manager's amendments designed to address some of the complaints that have been raised about this. And this actually is violating the pledge made at the beginning of this Congress to allow Members ample time to review legislation.

Patent legislation is very complicated. It's very technical, and we need that ample time to review it. So at this point in time I would urge my colleagues to defeat the bill tomorrow and send it back to the Judiciary Committee, because we do have to make some changes in patent reform. I'm not ultimately opposed to it. We have to make changes. But this legislation is not the way to go.

So with that, I want to thank the good gentleman for yielding time to me and, hopefully, we'll be able to get the problems corrected with this patent reform law.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give just one example why this investment is important to our Nation.

The Module Ballistic Protection System, developed at the University of Maine, is made of light, strong-as-metal wood composite panels that are inserted into tents to protect our soldiers over in Iraq and Afghanistan. This life-saving technology would not have been possible without the initial investment from the wood utilization funding.

In fact, this funding spurred advances in many different industries. It creates jobs and, in some cases, it will save American lives. This funding benefits the entire Nation.

I urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment.

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.

Investment in Wood Utilization Research at these locations including the University of Maine supports education and economic development across our country.

The funding encourages students to pursue careers in advanced wood science and engineering at a time when international competition in these fields is growing. This type of research is important to a growing number of industrial applications and to our national economy.

At U-Maine, every dollar appropriated to the Center generates an additional $7 in economic output. The research has promoted important advances in fields as diverse and important as biofuels and advanced wood composites.

I want to highlight one program in particular that was born from this funding. The Modular Ballistic Protection System, developed at the U- Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center, is a series of lightweight, strong-as-metal, wood composite panels that are inserted into tents to protect our soldiers from mortars and other incoming fire in Iraq and Afghanistan. This lifesaving technology would not have been possible without the initial investment from the Wood Utilization funding.

I appreciate the gentleman's intent but I believe it is misguided. In offering these kinds of amendments, the gentleman has frequently asked: what is the federal interest?

Well, in this case, it is clear. This is a project with national implications that helps our competitiveness, our industries, and our national defense. It is an investment that the federal government should be making so that America can lead the way in a variety of important R&D fields, create jobs, and in some cases, save American lives.

We do not pick any winners and losers here with this project--in fact, we all win with this research. So I urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Speaker, as reflected in the Record, on July 25 and 26, I was on a scheduled leave of absence for a family funeral. If I had been present, I would have voted in the following way:

On rollcall No. 727, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 728, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 729, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 730, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 731, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 732, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 733, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 734, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 735, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall No. 736, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 737, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 738, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 739, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 740, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 741, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 742, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 743, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 744, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer for their leadership on the Committee and for moving these four bills forward to help our veterans. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Miller for working with me on the veterans' health care bills we are considering today.

I will limit my comments to H.R. 2874, although I support each of the bills we are considering today. H.R. 2874 was passed unanimously by our Committee. It represents a bipartisan effort to address a variety of issues facing our veterans.

Section 2 of H.R. 2874 supports therapeutic readjustment programs to assist veterans in their long physical and mental journey home through a new grant program. Veterans already participate in these programs without any financial assistance or guidance from the VA. It is my hope that this new grant program will increase the number of veterans using these rehabilitative options and that this will enable VA and providers to better assess the benefits of these programs to veterans.

Section 3 authorizes funding for transportation grants for rural veterans. Access to care is a significant challenge for rural veterans. This program will provide grants to VSOs to implement innovative ways of overcoming this challenge. This section was authored by Mr. Salazar.

Section 4 provides permanent authority for VA treatment of participants in the DOD chemical and biological testing conducted by Deseret Test Center, including Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). This permanent authority was requested by the VA. Section 5 extends collections authorities for the VA until 2009. This extension was also requested by the VA.

Section 6 authorizes the VA to provide expanded readjustment and mental health services in areas determined by the secretary to be underserved, especially peer-to-peer outreach services, for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans.

Sections 7 and 8 come from Congressman Patrick Murphy's legislation, H.R. 2699. It is no surprise that Congressman Murphy has taken a leadership role in helping our Nation's veterans, and I thank him for his work. There are as many as 200,000 veterans on the streets each night. This is a shame on our Nation that must be addressed. The provisions from Congressman Murphy's bill are critical to ending this shame and helping these veterans find their way home.

Section 7 expands and extends the successful VA program of referral and counseling for at-risk veterans transitioning from certain institutions. The program is extended to 2011 and expanded from six locations to 12. These services are largely directed toward incarcerated veterans. There were over 225,000 veterans in prison in 1998. I believe it is important that we make every effort to make sure that they do not return to prison.

Section 8 requires the Secretary to ensure that VA domiciliary programs are adequate in capacity and safety to meet the needs of women veterans. Homeless women veterans are an increasing proportion of the homeless veteran population. We need to make sure that facilities are capable of safely caring for this population and helping them get back on their feet.

Section 9 authorizes funding for the Secretary to provide financial assistance to eligible entities to provide supportive services for very low-income veteran families residing in permanent housing. This section comes from a bill authored by Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin.

Section 10 changes from 60 days to 30 days the required time for a homeless veteran to be in a VA program before they are eligible for dental care. Section 11 makes technical amendments to title 38.

Overall, this bill continues the ongoing efforts of our Committee and this Congress to address the needs of our veterans and their families. It is my hope that when we return in September, we can work quickly with the Senate to create an omnibus package that includes H.R. 2874, H.R. 2199, Mr. Miller's bill H.R. 2623, and other important veterans' health care initiatives to send to the President for his signature.

I believe this is a good bipartisan bill and I ask my colleagues for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation will provide the single largest investment in higher education since the GI bill, helping low- and middle-income students and families pay for college.

Unfortunately, too many Maine students do not obtain a postsecondary education because they cannot afford the dramatically escalating costs of higher education. This legislation is a historic opportunity to put education goals within reach for many students by increasing funding for Pell Grants, cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans, and increasing funding for Upward Bound.

While there are provisions within the underlying bill to protect small lenders, I will continue to work hard to ensure that the small lenders in Maine, including the Finance Authority of Maine (FAME), are protected in the final legislation. FAME has provided many Maine students the opportunity to go on to postsecondary education and it's important to ensure that they, and other small lenders, are able to continue to provide the best service possible for Maine students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the fact that Lewiston, Maine, has been recognized as 1 of 10 All-American Cities by the National Civic League.

Lewiston truly embodies both dynamic change and proud tradition and is extremely deserving of this award. Located in my congressional district in Maine, the city of Lewiston was first settled in 1770 by Franco-American and Acadian settlers, who came to Lewiston to find employment in the mills powered by the nearby Androscoggin River. Textile mills flourished as women from the surrounding countryside came for employment opportunities. The city continued to grow and expand, and by the 1950s, Lewiston had become the State's primary manufacturing center.

Unfortunately, the subsequent decline of textile manufacturing led to unemployment, decreased wages, and a need for new ideas and new industries. In the 1990s, the city began to focus on new downtown construction, bold development strategies, improved post-secondary educational prospects, expanded health care, and new cultural events. In 1992, the town acquired the Bates mill and redeveloped 500,000 square feet of space. Lewiston also joined in a partnership with Auburn, ME, for economic development, busing, 911 services and drinking water. In the downtown area, the Southern Gateway project established Maine's first fully-fiber optic community for telephone, cable and broadband services. University of Southern Maine has begun a new expansion which makes the Lewiston-Auburn College the fastest growing campus within the University of Maine system, while Bates College has been recognized as a best value college by a national publication.

Since 2003, Lewiston has invested $20 million in affordable housing to provide opportunities for families, and since 2000, it has seen $350 million in new business construction.

Today, Lewiston is thriving. It is home to almost 36,000 residents, and it is clear that her citizens are working together with great pride to continue building the community. Local institutions are deeply involved in helping Lewiston to grow and evolve. The Androscoggin Leadership Institute is helping the community to understand its current and future needs and find new opportunities for individuals to contribute. The local Thongragg Nature Center Project is now the largest bird sanctuary within New England; volunteers there ensure safe access to 5 miles of recreational trails. And since the city is now home to a large Somali community, the group United Somali Women of Maine has created a DVD that stresses the importance of education, changing roles of women, and the commitment to preserving their culture for the youth of Lewiston.

It is clear that Lewiston today is a center of business, volunteerism, education, environmental action, and diversity. The citizens are mindful of their proud traditions, and have made something very special in Lewiston, ME. Their achievements are truly something to commemorate, and I congratulate the city of Lewiston for their achievements and for the well-deserved recognition of this award.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening to talk about trade, Fast Track, and what it's doing to this country.

As a former millworker that worked over 28 years at Great Northern Paper Company, I know firsthand that the trade deals are crippling manufacturing in the State of Maine. We have lost over 23 percent of our manufacturing base alone since NAFTA came into effect.

But it's more than just losing jobs. You're losing the identity and the community as well. We had certain labor market areas in the State of Maine that had over 33 percent unemployment rate. A lot of small businesses went under because the anchor of the community went under, it filed bankruptcy. The high school, senior class, was not sure whether they would be able to graduate from high school because the mill paid about 80 percent of the tax base. They hadn't paid their taxes, and the accreditation was in jeopardy. Alcoholism, divorce rates, people were filing bankruptcy because of trade.

You can go anywhere pretty much in the Second Congressional District in the State of Maine, and you'll see a lot of empty factories that are no longer there. You'll see factories but you will not see the number of vehicles in the mill yard because of machines being shut down.

It's because of our failed trade policy. We have to change the trade policy. We have to make sure that when Fast Track is up at the end of this month, that we not renew Fast Track. I think it's incumbent on each Member of Congress to look at these trade deals and have the ability to amend the trade deals. I don't think we should be a rubber stamp to the United States trade representatives, and that's what we are, rubber stamps: Either vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' and that's wrong.

I have two colleagues here this evening who have really taken on this trade issue. They know firsthand from their own district what trade means to their constituencies. They know what it's done to the United States of America, as a whole. We have lost over 3 million jobs. We have to do better. We must do better.

I think the last election, when a lot of candidates were talking about trade, they are ready, the American people

are ready for a new direction. It's my hope that this Congress will give a new direction, will change that flawed trade policy, the flawed trade model.

I would like to recognize Congresswoman Linda T. Sanchez from the west coast of California, who has started the House Trade Working Group that also Congresswoman Betty Sutton has been very active on, and it's an issue that is very important to all of us here in our constituency.

I recognize the Congresswoman from California.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments, and I hope that the American people are listening, because this is extremely important. We are heading into what I call a perfect storm. We have the largest budgetary deficit in our history, with over 45 percent owned by foreigners. We have the largest trade deficit in our history, almost 7 percent of the GDP.

We cannot sustain those types of deficits and maintain our Superpower status here in this country.

With that, I recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, who is a freshman Member, who is very, very knowledgeable on trade issues, a labor attorney, and has done a phenomenal job working with the freshman class, bringing the freshman class the materials that they need to talk about trade for those who needed the materials.

I really appreciate your willingness to step out there your freshman year to really talk about trade. You understand the problems that trade has caused your State in Ohio, and we look forward to hearing your remarks this evening, Congresswoman Sutton.

Thank you very much. You're absolutely right when you talk about Fast Track, and we'll get into that a little bit more, because I know Congresswoman Sanchez has to go to another meeting, and I know she's been to Colombia a couple of times, so I'll be interested in hearing what she has to say about her trips to Colombia.

But before she does, before I yield time, I'd actually like to give a quote. And it's not very often I quote Pat Buchanan. But I saw this quote and I thought it was worth quoting. It says, ``The trade deficit is a malignant tumor in the intestines of the U.S. economy.'' That's absolutely right. We have to start dealing with our trade deficit. And one way, one of the issues we have got to deal with is, as you mentioned Congresswoman Sutton, is not to renew Fast Track, which is extremely important. Let Congress do our job that we're elected to do, representing our constituents.

I did have a chance to actually meet the President of Colombia a couple of weeks ago. I had an interesting conversation and asked several questions about the brutality and the murders that are happening in Colombia with trade unionists, and I'm looking forward to his response to some of the questions that I have.

But right now, I'd like to yield to the Congresswoman from California, who actually had a couple of trips over to Colombia. If you'd kindly let us know what happened and what we can do.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman Sanchez. You're absolutely right, and that's one of the problems with Fast Track and why this Congress should not renew Fast Track. Even if we did have a say in these trade deals, as you mentioned, particularly with Colombia, I'm not sure that even if we had the ILO standards in the agreement that that would help as far as the murders and the assassinations that are going on in Colombia. I've met with several elected officials on different occasions from Colombia, and they're scared for their lives. There's one senator that actually sleeps no more than two nights in a row in the same bed because he's been threatened with his life.

And we've been told, or I've been told in those meetings that they want to set an example, the paramilitary, and they force some of the other labor folks to go out there with actually, they told me that they actually beheaded a trade unionist. And that's wrong. So no matter what we do on trade deals, like you, Congresswoman, I want to see results before I agree with any trade deal with Colombia at all. We have to get back to changing that model.

I'm very pleased actually to see another colleague from the great State of Ohio who has taken a great leadership role since he's been here on trade but also has introduced major legislation that will help deal with one of the components when you look at the flawed trade model. And he's also a member of the 30-plus caucus now, I guess, something caucus, congressman Tim Ryan.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan. And you are absolutely right. This is more than jobs and the economy. It is a moral issue. And as I mentioned earlier about some of the problems that I have even seen in my district, my hometown, when the mills shut down because of unfair trade deals, it is a moral issue. And I hope that the churches do get involved in this issue.

I yield to the gentleman.

Thank you very much. That is a very good point that you mentioned because the very mill that I worked at, we had six paper machines. Four are no longer there. They were unbolted and shipped overseas. So that is absolutely right. People might not think they are going to unpack the machinery and move them overseas. It has happened. I have seen it happen, and it will continue to happen unless we change the flawed trade model that we have been operating. And part of that component that is absolutely right is the currency manipulation with China that we have to address.

And as Mr. Ryan had mentioned, we have Mr. Ellison here, who is also another freshman Member of the freshman class who is very interested in the trade issue. So I yield to Mr. Ellison.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ellison brought up a very good point. There has been a lot of discussion over the past month about immigration, particularly in the Senate. We will be having our discussions here in the House. And that is part of the component when you look at trade. It is not a simple issue. And Mr. Ellison hit the nail right on head. If you look at immigration, what is happening, they are coming across the border because they want a job. They want a good job so they can provide for their family like any one of us would be doing for our family, provide for our family.

I was reading an article, actually, ``Since NAFTA, Winners and Losers.'' I will just read a part of this article. It says: ``As a bonus,'' talking about NAFTA, ``the predicted increase in jobs and prosperity in Mexico under NAFTA was expected to reduce illegal immigration. In 1994, when NAFTA was put into effect, then-Attorney General Janet Reno predicted that illegal immigration would fall by two-thirds within 6 years.''

And I want to quote the former Attorney General Janet Reno: ``NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal immigration in the long haul. If it fails, effective immigration control will become impossible.''

I want to repeat that again. This is the former Attorney General Janet Reno: ``NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal immigration in the long haul. If it fails, effective immigration control will become impossible.''

And that is absolutely right. We have seen what is happening since NAFTA. The same flawed model is in existence. It is going to take a real active role of the freshmen class and Members of this Congress on both sides of the aisle who really want to make a difference. A new direction, that is what we need, a new direction.

We need a new trade model. Part of that trade model will go to what Congressman Ryan had mentioned when you look at the China currency manipulation, when you look at the value-added taxes, legislation that has just been introduced, bipartisan legislation dealing with a value- added tax that we have to look at that accounts for a big portion of our trade deficit. In the United States, 94 percent of all U.S. exports and imports with trade deal with countries that have a value-added tax. That is hurting this country.

And for those of you who do not know what the value-added tax is, actually, for the countries who export their products to the United States, they actually have been rebating those companies the value- added tax to a tune of $217 billion in 2006. Plus if the United States wants to export their product over there, they are actually taxed to a tune of $110 billion. This has to change. This has to change.

And when you talk about Fast Track, actually during the several discussions about reauthorizing Fast Track in 1974, 1988, and 2002, Congress actually encouraged the USTR to change the value-added tax so we can be put on a level playing field. We have got to change the rules. This is one of the components that we can deal with in changing that rule.

I yield to Congresswoman Sutton.

Actually, I would like to follow up, Mr. Ellison, if I might, because I have in front of me, actually, testimony of the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, Ms. Moore, who attended our hearing in the Small Business Committee on June 13. And I will paraphrase. It says, ``Our work aims to increase exports by expanding market access for American goods, creating a level playing field.'' She also mentions, and it gets right to your point, ``In addition, we enforce agreements and resolve trade problems using a wide variety of tools.'' That is clearly not what's happening.

Yes.

Well, if you are tickling them with a feather, it's probably a feather made in China.

And I can tell you, the Trade Working Group has worked very closely with a variety of different groups, environmental groups, religious organizations, labor, business organizations, the United States Business and Industry Council, associations, small manufacturing businesses here in this country. And the United States Business and Industry Council has told me directly that the United States Trade Representative has turned away businesses when they've brought complaints to the USTR primarily because the dollar amount wasn't enough. And I can tell you personally that, as you know, I worked at the Great Northern Paper Company for a number of years, and when the company I worked for, when I was talking to the public relations before they filed bankruptcy, they actually went to the Department of Commerce and talked about trade and what it's doing, and the response that they got: Yup, you've got a great argument, but go spend over a million dollars and come back to us later on. Well, we couldn't hold on. They filed bankruptcy. They closed the doors at the time, and it is devastating. So they are not enforcing those agreements, and we continue to see a huge disparity in our trade policy.

Yes.

Well, I think a trade model definitely should look at jobs and putting us on a fair level playing field.

If you look at this Congress, particularly with the freshman class that we currently have who has been out there, very aggressively, talking about a new direction, we do need a new direction; we have to pause with all these trade deals that are currently going on. Even the former President, Bill Clinton, said we ought to pause on these trade deals to see what's happening.

I would yield.

That's true. He's the one that brought us NAFTA. But these issues aren't Democratic issues or Republican issues. These are issues that are important to the United States, important to our long- term future, and we have to look at changing that model. And it can be done in a bipartisan manner. Congressman Tim Ryan, who was on the floor, is sponsoring legislation with a Republican Member of this body, Duncan Hunter, on the currency manipulation. I am glad to see that a Presidential candidate is out there talking about trade, along with Dennis Kucinich, who is also talking about trade. We have the value- added tax, which is another piece of legislation which has strong bipartisan support, once again, Congressman Duncan Hunter, Congressman Walter Jones, myself and Congressman Bill Pascrell.

So these issues are not Democratic issues or Republican issues. These issues are American issues. And we definitely have to be more aggressive. We have to change that trade model. And we have to sit down and pause, and sit down in a bipartisan manner, no backroom deals. We've seen what these backroom deals have done in the past, and they don't work. We have to work open so the public can see what is going on and the real effect that we currently are seeing with trade deals.

Yes.

You are absolutely right. And I would like to close by once again quoting former Attorney General Janet Reno, and I quote, ``NAFTA is our best hope for reducing illegal immigration in the long haul. If it fails, effective immigration control will become impossible.''

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a woman from my home State of Maine who truly embodies the spirit of public service. Mary McAleney is a friend, a trusted advisor, an accomplished professional, and a wonderful person who has devoted her career to serving the people of Maine. Today, I congratulate her on a distinguished career and her upcoming retirement.

A native of Maine, Mary grew up in Vanceboro and attended St. Joseph's Academy in Portland. She is a graduate of Merrimack College in North Andover, Massachusetts. After teaching at Catherine McAuley High School in Portland, she worked in the Maine legislature and as a field organizer for the Maine State Employees Association.

Mary went on to serve for many years as Chief of Staff to Senator George Mitchell. While I was in the Maine Legislature, we had many opportunities to work together, and it was clear to me that she always had the best interests of Maine in mind. She was constantly looking for ways for the Federal Government to help Maine's people and businesses. But the way she went about it was important too--she always worked across the aisle to get things done for Maine. She set high standards for all who worked around her and served as a mentor to staffers, many of whom went on to serve Congressman John Baldacci or who now work on my staff. In this way, her legacy of professionalism, boundless energy, and commitment to public service continues to be felt in Congress.

Most recently, Mary served as Maine's Small Business Administration District Director. In that capacity, she strongly advocated for our State's entrepreneurs and always went the extra mile to support innovative small business development. Whether it was taking the lead on helping businesses affected by mill closures or simply providing first-rate customer service, Mary's devotion to serving our State's small business community was second to none. She cares about people and I could see that she enjoyed helping them realize their dreams.

Mary's commitment to making Maine a better place is an inspiration to all of us who continue to serve in public office. Her warmth and generous spirit are a joy to all who know her. I wish Mary the very best in her retirement: she represents the best of Maine.

Mr. Speaker, NAFTA held a great promise to provide workers in Mexico and the United States a livable wage. It simply hasn't lived up to that promise. Illegal immigration has increased.

The number of undocumented Mexican workers who live in the United States has skyrocketed in the NAFTA era from an estimated 1 million in the mid-1990s to about 6 million today.

While many people talk about closing down the U.S.-Mexico border, few care to confront the root cause of this issue: the failure of the NAFTA model to provide sustainable livelihoods for workers in Mexico. Over 1 million Mexican farmers lost their livelihoods due to NAFTA-mandated agricultural policy changes. Wages declined for workers.

These are just some of the reasons why one in ten Mexican citizens have made an often dangerous border crossing to the United States.

NAFTA is a failed model. It is time that we change the model. We can't afford to keep approving models based on the same old NAFTA model. And that is what Peru and Panama are, agreements based on the same flawed principles.

Madam Speaker, it's a great pleasure that we are talking this evening about an issue very important to a lot of us in this Congress, and a lot of folks throughout the United States of America, and that issue is trade.

I would like to yield to a colleague of mine. We came in this Congress together, and she has been very active in the trade deal and has established with me the trade working group in this Congress, Congresswoman Linda T. Sanchez of California.

Thank you very much, Representative Sanchez. And you're absolutely right. These trade deals are a slippery slope, and we definitely have to make sure that we change that trade model.

As you know, I spent over 28 years at Great Northern Paper Company in East Millinocket, Maine, like my father before me spent 43 years, my grandfather before him for 40 years.

NAFTA has killed our community. We used to have over 4,500 jobs. It's little over 500 jobs. Small businesses have gone under because the economy has been devastated because of a trade deal. We had unemployment that was over 33 percent.

We had individuals who are proud men and women who worked in the mill, made good wages, good health care benefits, they ended up on the food line. They are so many people that went to the food bank that actually the food bank ran out of food. The whole State chipped in and brought food, churches, communities throughout the State to help the devastation.

And it doesn't end there. If you go 30 miles south, another mill had closed its doors. Another 30 miles south of that, another mill closed its doors because of trade.

Yes, they are getting trade assistance, but they want their jobs. And what are they getting trained for, if there's no jobs to get trained?

So this definitely has caused a huge problem, these bad trade deals in the State of Maine, and people are upset, and rightfully so; and that's why it's important for this Congress to get off that slippery slope and head for a new direction, start a new direction; and that new direction is changing that flawed trade policy.

And I agree 100 percent, it's more than just a couple of Band-Aids. We have to look at the broader aspect of trade.

And I really appreciate your ongoing commitment to do what's right for workers, to do what's right for small businesses in this country, and it's the humanitary thing to do as well. So thank you very much, Representative Sanchez, for your leadership in this issue, and I'll look forward to working with you as we move forward to deal with these trade issues.

I now would like to recognize a gentleman who I've really got to enjoy in this Congress, a gentleman who has really been a strong advocate for our veterans, who definitely has been a leader in that area on the Veterans Affairs Committee, but also a gentleman who is extremely interested in the trade issues, knowing what trade has done to his State in Illinois, Congressman Phil Hare.

Thank you for coming to the floor this evening. I look forward to hearing your remarks as they relate to trade.

Thank you very much, Congressman Hare. I really appreciate your leadership in this whole trade debate. It is very important, very valuable that we hear freshmen class, and the freshmen class has definitely been pretty vocal on the trade deal.

As I mentioned earlier, if you go anywhere in my district, you will see a lot of abandoned mills. What used to be vibrant, a lot of workers working there, they are no longer there today.

The other issue that is very important, and Congresswoman Sanchez actually touched upon it, is immigration. I know the Senate has been talking about immigration quite a bit. We will be talking about it soon. But before I vote for any immigration bill, I will look to see if they are taking care of the fundamental problem in immigration, and that problem is trade.

If you look at the reasons why a lot of undocumented immigrants are coming from Mexico to the United States, they are coming across the border to get a job. And the reason why they are coming across the border to get a job is because they are living in substandard conditions in Mexico.

Let's go back a few years to when NAFTA was passed. One of the arguments why we should pass NAFTA was because all boats will rise here in the United States and in Mexico. And by raising the boats in Mexico, the workers that come across the border illegally will stay because they will have their jobs, they will earn good wages, and there is no need to come across the border. As a matter of fact, at the time Madeline Albright made comments and encouraged Congress to support NAFTA because it will help solve our illegal immigration problems, and she went on to say if it doesn't solve them or help solve them, then we know it is a failed policy.

Well, it is a failed policy. It hasn't helped. It has gotten worse. And this is something, when we talk about immigration, we have to make sure we take care of that fundamental flaw, and that is with our trade deals. If it means voting against the rule when immigration comes up, I am prepared to do that because this issue is so important that we need to change the direction. We have got to get off this slippery slope if we are going to make this country continue to grow.

It is now a great pleasure to introduce a colleague of mine who is very familiar with labor issues, who is definitely taking on a leadership role, along with Congressman Hare from Ohio. Congresswoman Sutton has been a true leader.

I really appreciate very much, congresswoman, all that you have been doing. You are a tireless advocate for working people here in this country, small businesses here in this country, and I really appreciate the way that you have taken on this leadership role, and I look forward to continuing working with you on issues as it relates to trade and other issues.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

Thank you very much, Congresswoman.

I can see from your comments and from hearing your voice that you truly care about the people in your district. And that's what I think has been missing in this debate from some of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Some think, yes, we have a trade deal; if you don't like it, vote against it. Yes, that's the easy way out. What a lot of our colleagues do not understand is just what you have mentioned; these are people's lives. You've seen it firsthand, Congressman Hare has seen it firsthand, I've seen it firsthand, where people who have lost their jobs, who in

a lot of cases are up there in age, 50, 55, 60, that now have to change their lives, they have to try to get retrained, try to find another job. In the meantime, I know in my district, where we have over 33 percent unemployment, we have seen alcoholism and rape increase, divorce increase. The fact that students at high school, their dreams were shattered because they no longer had the means to further their education. We actually had a high school in my district where the senior class did not know whether they were going to be able to graduate or not because the mill that closed its doors paid 80 percent of the tax base, which they had not paid, so the accreditation was in jeopardy.

These issues are extremely important to each and every citizen in the State of Maine, whether you're a Republican, Democratic, green or independent. But there are also issues that are issues we have to deal with collectively, they're not Republican issues or Democratic issues. No one is to blame. I think there is plenty of blame to go around. Actually, it was a Democratic administration that brought us NAFTA. Now it's a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, that hopefully we will change the model. And that's what it is about. And you hit the nail right on the head; it's not about being protectionists, it's about how do we want that trade model to look.

I hope that the presidential candidates, as they go around this country, will start talking about trade. I am very pleased with a couple of the House Members, Congressman Kucinich, Congressman Hunter, a Republican, who has been very vocal on China currency manipulation. He has legislation dealing with China manipulation, along with Congressman Ryan. Congressman Hunter also has bipartisan legislation with myself and Congressman Pascrell, who is a lead sponsor, on the value-added tax. He is out there, out front.

I want to know where the other candidates are standing because this upcoming election is going to be extremely crucial to where this country is heading. We have a lot of issues we have to deal with, the value-added tax, currency manipulation. When you look at the whole patent issue, what's happening with that. We have a huge trade imbalance. How are we going to bring that trade imbalance back into line? That's why, Congresswoman Sutton, I am very pleased to work with you because we're not only working as Democrats, we're working with our Republican colleagues across the aisle, we're working with environmental groups, labor groups. The business community, the United States Business and Industry Council, which has an association of small manufacturing businesses here in this country, has been very vocal on these trade issues, which is important because you have that business community and labor working together. That's what it's all about. Definitely there are those large corporations who have operations in India and China. These trade deals are nothing but a bottom line for them, but that bottom line for some of them could ruin this country.

We are heading for a perfect storm. We have the largest budgetary deficit in our history. We have the largest trade deficit in our history. We cannot sustain that type of deficit, either budgetary or trade, if we are to maintain our status, if we are to be a world leader. That is why it is very important for the American people to demand that those who are running for higher office, whether it's Congress or the Office of the United States President, they have to demand to know where they stand on these issues and be held accountable. Because so far, from what I have seen, there hasn't been much leadership in that particular area.

If we are going to fund education, health care, issues with childcare, taking care of our veterans, maintaining our super power status of military, we have to have an economy that allows us to do that. We cannot have that economy if we continue to outsource our jobs overseas.

I yield to the gentlewoman.

Thank you very much. This is, as you said, a very important issue. And we are on a slippery slope currently.

When you look at Fast Track, Congress is giving up our responsibility as elected officials, as a co-equal branch of government if we pass Fast Track. Congress has no ability to amend trade deals under Fast Track, and I think it's taking the easy way out. I do not believe that Fast Track should pass. I will oppose Fast Track because it is not a good deal for Congress and it is not a good deal for the American people. We have to look at how we can change that model.

We have talked, I heard earlier, about the issues of training. Well, if you look at what happens when a mill shuts down because of unfair trade deals, yes, they do get training, as I mentioned earlier, but what are they going to train for, particularly when you have mill after mill after mill close because of trade deals, there's not much you can train. But also, when you look at some of the benefits and some of the problems we have seen because of mill closures. In the Katahdin region, where I am from, when the mills shut down, a lot of individuals actually had to tap into their 401(k) plan just to survive. What happens when they file their income tax? They get

penalized because they had to tap into their 401(k) plan. That's unfair. That's unjust. When they applied for unemployment, guess what? They're taxed on their unemployment. Now, if you want to talk about giving tax breaks to anyone, it's those who are unemployed who actually should have the tax breaks.

You look at what has been talked about earlier as well, the labor and environmental standards that they say will be part of the cortex on Peru and Panama, that is yet to be seen. I think we have seen articles in the paper where the administration is starting to slip out of that deal to try to conjure up some other deal and say, well, we will put it in the side room and what have you. So it will be interesting to see what they finally come up with.

But no matter what you do on labor standards, when you look at the Colombian trade deal, some of our colleagues say well, there are some labor violations. Well, I like the way that they talk about ``some labor violations.'' They are talking about assassinations of trade activitists. That's more than just a labor violation. And to say that well, we will put the standards in the trade deal, that is not going to solve the problem.

I met with the President of Colombia and I told him right up front that I want to see results before I support anything. I don't want to see more verbiage in a trade deal to say that they will take care of the problem. If they want to stop these assassinations, they can do a lot more than what they are doing currently today. I met with several elected officials, individuals from Colombia, on a couple of different occasions. And when you look at how some of these people are being assassinated, on two separate occasions, with other Members of Congress, when I was talking to these individuals, what they have done is to set an example of someone who is a union activist. They have actually beheaded them in front of their neighbors, to set an example, and played soccer with their heads. And this is a country we are going to sign a trade deal? That is outrageous, and it is just disgusting to see that sort of thing happen.

Before I do anything on the Colombian trade deal, I want to see the number of trade unionist assassinations drop. I don't want to see writing, I want to actually see results. And that is what is so important, when you look at these trade deals; they are affecting people's lives. These people are more than just numbers on a paper. I wish some of our colleagues could really understand that. I don't think they do. Probably because they haven't been affected like your district, Congressman Hare, my district.

I think it is important for the American people, also, to really focus on what is happening here in Congress. Just because it's a new Congress doesn't mean that we are going to change in a new direction when it comes to trade. They want to see results like we want to see results, and hopefully we will see results in this upcoming debate on trade.

And there are some issues we can do right now without trade deals. We can pass the Currency Manipulation dealing with China, that can be done right now. We can pass the value-added tax issue, that is a disadvantage to businesses here in this country. That deficit alone is I believe $379 billion, a tax that is affecting companies here in the United States.

That is not fair. We have to deal with that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Well, thank you, very much, Mr. Hare, for your compliments. But we are here as a team. We are here to do what is right for the American people, whether you are an employee, whether you are an employer, because that is very important.

I know that you know as well as Congresswoman Sutton and a lot in the freshman class who actually ran on this issue, you have seen what it has done to your districts. You have seen what it is doing to our country. It is very important that those who are sitting here get out there and talk to the people who have been affected by this.

It is not that we have to pass trade deals because you want to be good on

business or vote against them because of labor. This isn't a business- labor issue. This is an American issue. It is an issue that is extremely important if we are to sustain our status in the world. We have to make sure that we have trade deals that are fair. It is not about being protectionist. It is about the rules of trade. That is what it is about, the rules of trade. And I think it is extremely important that the majority party and the minority party and the rank and file Members who are dealing with this issue look at it in a comprehensive manner.

We have to do several things, as I mentioned earlier, and there is a lot we can do next week and the week after without any trade deal. The currency manipulation, there is legislation dealing with that. There is legislation in dealing with the value-added tax. If those people who are very interested in trade, the so-called free traders, we can pass these pieces of legislation this month to say, yes, we are serious about trade, and here is a start. Then we can start looking at some of these trade deals that have been negotiated, the Peru and Panama trade deal, what has happened with Korea, and see whether or not we should enact those. But we have to start, and we have to start today.

We are a new Congress, a Congress to which the American people said that we want a new direction in this country. And we have to give them the new direction that they want, because I can guarantee you, in this upcoming election cycle, if we do not make changes in how we deal with the trade issues, we will be on a slippery slope. I don't want that to happen.

I think the American people deserve better. The American people deserve better, and the business community in this country deserves better. Hopefully we will be able to give them that.

Once again I want to close by thanking you very much, Congressman Hare, for your strong leadership, and you, Congresswoman Sutton, both in the freshman class. You're a breath of fresh air here in this Congress. I look forward to working with you as we move forward in this debate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard Pattenaude on the occasion of his being named chancellor of Maine's public university system, after 16 years of dedicated service to the University of Southern Maine. Richard's service to USM was extraordinary, and I join his many friends, coworkers and the students he taught in wishing him the best of luck in the next phase of his career.

Richard's service to public education began in 1972, when he took a job teaching political science at Colorado State University. His service to Maine's educational system began in 1991 when he became president of the University of Southern Maine.

Under his leadership, the University grew substantially in the classroom. Richard helped to add 12 new undergraduate, 5 masters and 2 doctorate programs to the course catalog, he rewrote the University's mission statement, and he led in the creation of the University's first and second strategic plans. Richard's influence extended beyond the classroom, however, and he made major contributions to improve USM's campus. He constructed over 75 million dollars worth of state of the art buildings and created more than 12 educational institutes-- including the Multi-Cultural Student Center and the Center for Entrepreneurship--which responded to community needs.

Richard was truly successful in living up to his motto during his time with Southern Maine--he ``worked hard, did well, had fun.'' His leadership as the University's president will be missed, but the school can rest assured knowing he will still be working diligently to make Maine's public university system better for future generations of students.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

H.R. 2199 is a bipartisan effort to address the challenges presented by traumatic brain injury and to improve the quality of care for our rural veterans.

TBI is considered to be the signature wound of this war. TBI is complex and frequently overlooked or misdiagnosed.

We also have very little understanding of the long-term consequences of TBI. We must make sure that the VA is doing all they can to provide for these wounded soldiers. This is only the beginning, we still have more work to do, but this is a good first step.

H.R. 2199 also includes two provisions to improve the quality of care provided

to our rural veterans. With so many veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan living in rural areas, and an already existing population of older veterans in these areas, we need to explore innovative ways to improve VA accessibility and quality of care, especially on mental health issues. You heard both from the chairman and ranking member as far as what this legislation does.

I would like to recognize the hard work of a group of Members on both sides of the aisle who helped craft this legislation. This truly is bipartisan legislation. I do want to start with my good friend, Mr. Miller of Florida, who is the ranking member of the Health Care Subcommittee, who has been extremely helpful in getting this legislation introduced and moved through the full committee; also, Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania, who has taken a real leadership role in traumatic brain injury, and for his focus on TBI with his legislation, H.R. 1944, which is included in H.R. 2199; Mr. Walz of Minnesota, for his legislation to establish centers for TBI research, education, and clinical activities, which are now also included in H.R. 2199, who also served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee; and Mr. McNerney of California, his legislation was included in H.R. 2199 to create the Committee on Care for Veterans with TBI; Mr. Donnelly, who sits on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, of Indiana, for his bill which was included in section 4 of H.R. 2199, to create an advisory committee on rural veterans; Mr. Welch of Vermont, for his bill and efforts to establish a pilot program for mobile vet centers, which are extremely important for rural areas; Mr. Lamborn of Colorado, for his amendment to include providing benefits outreach and assistance with claims for benefits as part of the mission of mobile vet centers. He also sits on the committee and was very helpful in making this bill a better bill.

So this truly has been a real bipartisan piece of legislation that took a lot of components of other bills that were through, that were introduced and we had hearings on, to be part of this bill.

I also would like to thank Ranking Member Buyer for his focus on this issue, and for his understanding of the importance of long-term research and the pursuit of the best practices for TBI care. He definitely has been very helpful with this legislation.

And, finally, I would like to thank and congratulate Chairman Filner for his strong bipartisan leadership on this bill and other veterans bills on the floor as well, and look forward to tackling other veterans issues as we move forward in the 110th Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2199.

Mr. Hare, I, too, would like to thank you very much for taking a leadership role in the freshmen class along with Ms. Sutton from Ohio. The freshmen class has done an outstanding job talking about trade issues, and I appreciate your leadership.

When I campaigned for office for my seat 5 years ago, the cornerstone of my campaign was fixing our broken trade policy. I firmly believe in order to address our trade imbalance, we have to change the model. It appears that the deal that was cut a few weeks ago by the administration and the leadership does not change that model. It is the same old NAFTA model with a couple of improvements. Americans don't want the same old model with a few Band-Aids. They want a fix. This election reaffirms that Americans are calling for an all-out new trade policy that puts our industry on a competitive playing field. Any deals between Capitol Hill and the Bush administration that fails to change this flawed model means that we are going to continue to see the U.S. trade deficit continue to rise, and it is going to destroy hundreds of thousands of our critical middle-class workers, our manufacturing base here in this country.

In Maine, we lost over 23 percent of our manufacturing base alone. The reason I know that, because they qualified for trade adjustment assistance. So trade has affected Maine very deeply.

This new deal, there are no unions, environmental groups, consumers, or small business groups support this deal, while all of the big businesses do. Some groups have remained neutral to find out what is actually in the deal. Those who have the most money to gain are praising the deal. Those who represent the working men and women of this country are not.

I am not the only Member of Congress who firmly believes that our trade model needs to be changed. There are countless others, especially those who are leading the freshmen class, believe we need a new model. They ran and fought for fair trade. They simply cannot go home and tell their constituents it is the same old model with a few improvements.

Adding new labor and environmental provisions is a step towards a new policy, but placing those provisions into a NAFTA-style pact is not going to solve the problem.

We also have concerns about those provisions and whether or not they are enforceable. There are those in this town who say it is a good deal because there are loopholes in the labor provisions. But since our membership has not seen the actual text of these agreements, how are we to know whether or not they are enforceable? From what we understand, the deal fails to address many of the damaging elements of the NAFTA model.

The deal does nothing to address the FTA's ban on anti-off-shoring or buy American policy. As you heard earlier, the deal does nothing to fix Peru's FTA terms that would allow Citibank or some other U.S. investors providing private retirement accounts to sue Peruvian taxpayers in Peru to reverse its failed social security privatization.

Does this deal fail to protect our intellectual property rights? No one knows.

But also when you look at trade, and trying to look at the globalization of what is going on around the world, there are other issues we have to address. The fact that there is a $327 billion disadvantage on U.S. goods because of the value-added tax, that has to be looked at. We have to look at the current trade deals that have been negotiated and see how we can bring the $800 billion worth of trade deficit back in line, because if we don't, we are heading on a collision course.

We have the largest trade deficit in our history. We have the largest budgetary deficit in our history. The debt limit was increased over $9 trillion with 45 percent owned by foreigners. We have to start addressing this issue. It is a serious issue, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from the freshmen class as well as my colleagues on the Republican side and the leadership to really put forward a trade model that will actually work for not only America, but for other countries as well.

I yield back.

I think that remains to be seen. I have been in negotiations before when I worked at Great Northern Paper Company. We put together ideas, but the devil is in the details.

I think it is very clear that the American people want a new direction. They want us to look at the rules of trade. We have to give them that direction because we as Democrats, we are in the majority in both the House and the Senate. There is no excuses, no excuses. We have to give this country a new direction as it relates to trade. We have to look at the trade rules, and now is the time to do it. It is not let's pass a couple of them and see how it works out. We have to take a comprehensive view on what we want for a trade policy. The American people, they want that. We are here. They voted the Republicans out. They fired the Republicans.

As we heard from our leadership, they haven't hired the Democrats. This is our time to show them that the Democrats can lead this country. We must lead this country, and what better way to show that we can by taking a global look at trade and trade policies and how it affects us here in the United States.

That is a good point. It is not only about the workers and unions; the business community is very upset. Those small businesses, the United States Industry Council, which is an organization which represents small manufacturers all across the country, are very concerned about these trade deals, and we have to make sure that we look at it globally. That is why I think it is important for those of us who have seen it firsthand, not read about it in the paper, but actually seen it firsthand, that we are part of this discussion because it is very important.

I have seen my fellow mill workers end up on the unemployment line. They ended up in food lines as well where food banks actually in Maine went dry because there are so many people applying or getting food at food banks because paper mill after paper mill had shut down because of trade.

Yes, we did get trade assistance, but that's not what they want. They want their jobs, and that's why it's very important that we do look at the rules of trade, changing the trade model so it's fair. It is, as Ms. Sutton mentioned, the American dream, and we have to bring that dream back once again.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 124) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 124.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 124 authorizes the use of the Capitol grounds for the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service. Over 150 Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2006 will be honored at this memorial service.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15 as Peace Officers' Memorial Day, and the week in which the date falls as Police Week.

The first official memorial service took place on May 15, 1982, at which 91 law enforcement officers were honored. Over the past 26 years, the memorial service has honored over 3,000 law enforcement officers from around our Nation.

Today, the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service on Capitol Hill has become one in a series of well-attended events during Police Week. Activities on Capitol grounds conducted under House Concurrent Resolution 124 will be coordinated with the Office of Architect of the Capitol, will be free and open to the public. I support this resolution and urge its passage.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Lewiston Maineiacs for their 4-3 victory over their Rouyn-Noranda Huskies, completing a 4 game winning streak and advancing the team to the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League President Cup Finals. Since 2003, the Maineiacs have brought crowds to the Androscoggin Bank Colisee, and they have enjoyed spectacular success this season.

Off the ice, the team's players and their mascot, Lewy, are fixtures throughout the greater Lewiston-Auburn community, visiting local businesses, promoting reading and academic achievement in the schools, and supporting youth sports for the area children and young adults.

The Maineiacs have had an excellent season and much credit is due to the hardworking players and their coach, Clem Jodoin. With a 50-14 record regular season record--the best in the league--the Maineiacs moved quickly through the playoffs and will play in the 2007 President Cup Finals this Friday.

I would like to commend the team for their tremendous performance this season and their continued involvement in their local community.

Go Maineiacs!