Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Is it proper to ask that the Members be ordered to stay in the Chamber and that the doors be sealed? Recorded Vote

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Michael D. Pfingsten, the U.S. House of Representatives guest chaplain for today. Mike is a Lutheran pastor of 19 years; and he and his family have joined us from Harvard, Illinois, where Rev. Pfingsten is pastor of St. Paul Lutheran Church. Rev. Pfingsten earned his B.A. in History at Concordia College and Masters of Divinity in History at Concordia Theological Seminary. On this day in 325 A.D., Christian bishops gathered to discuss the essentials of the Christian faith at the first Council of Nicaea. I am delighted that Rev. Pfingsten, a man who can truly appreciate the significance of this day, was able to lead us in prayer.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, the science and technology and math education fields, they are inseparable, tremendous assets to our economic strength and national security. These disciplines are critical to ensuring our global competitiveness, and the demand for knowledge- based jobs is growing. From 1994 to 2003, the proportion of the work force working in STEM fields jumped from 17 percent to 23 percent. Furthermore, if trends in manufacturing continue, over 40 percent of factory jobs will require postsecondary education by 2012. I spend at least half of my time in Congress working on manufacturing issues, one of the founders of the manufacturing caucus, and serve as co-chairman, along with Congressman Tim Ryan from the State of Ohio, and this is obviously a bipartisan effort in order to encourage more education of people who will be qualified to play a more meaningful role in the field of manufacturing. The skyrocketing cost of college education have made access to this type of education more and more difficult for many of our brightest students. This bill seeks to correct the problem. It creates a web portal of public and private science, technology, math education scholarships, loans, and grants that are available. And the database would be searchable by field of study, demographics, and level of study. By placing all of these scholarships in one easily accessible location, H.R. 1051 greatly increases the chances that our students will be able to pursue these valuable opportunities. It is not without coincidence this bill comes up 3 to 4 weeks after the missed reauthorization wherein we set aside a certain amount of money to complete the huge web portal that would replace what agencies are doing in manufacturing and what programs are available. So this fits very tidily into that program, and I would encourage that the House adopt it.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 355 welcoming the Leaders from the Pacific Island nations to the Eighth Pacific Island Conference being held in Washington. I commend my distinguished friend and colleague, Chairman Faleomavaega, for introducing this resolution. The United States and the Pacific Island nations share strong economic and cultural ties that have endured the test of time. The triennial meeting of the Pacific Island Conference is an important event that allows the U.S. to reaffirm its friendship and ties with the 20 nations participating in the Conference. This year's meeting will take place in Washington, DC, for the first time. Our friends in the Pacific Island nations have stood by us steadfastly during the darkest moments of this Nation's history. A great number of the sons and daughters from the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau currently serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. They stand side by side with volunteers from American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, Guam, Hawaii, and other states to protect our freedom. America's ties with the countries in the South Pacific date back centuries from the early days when American whalers sought safety in Fiji and Tonga and continuing through to the Pacific campaign during World War II. To this day, Pacific Island nations represent some of America's strongest allies at the United Nations. I applaud the Administration and the East West Center for elevating the importance of this year's Pacific Island Conference to the highest level by holding it in our nation's capitol. I look forward to meeting with the Leaders during their visit to Congress.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chair, I will not use the 5 minutes, and submit my full remarks in the Record. This amendment is very simple. It authorizes $2 million for NIST to develop a software package so that manufacturers have basic information about all the Federal programs available to assist them, particularly in the area of research and development. It will provide a link so that manufacturers would know the latest status of all Federal R&D projects relating to manufacturing. I first realized the need for this software after speaking at a speaking engagement in Nashville, Tennessee. I was walking on the showroom floor and found a major manufacturer from Kansas City with a display that was very familiar to me. The display had a miniature spur gear mounted near the nose of Lincoln on a Lincoln penny. The EIGERlab in Rockford, Illinois has this exact same way of displaying their miniature spur gear. I asked the employees of the major manufacturer if they had heard of the micro machining work done at the EIGERlab. The Kansas City manufacturer had done its work by using an EDM. The EIGERlab had done its work using a milling process. Neither of these parties had known of each other. It dawned on me that I was the only person that knew these two places were making the exact same product, although by different methods, and both were being funded by the Defense Department. The story illustrates the need for software that allows users to monitor and track where and to whom research money has been granted relating to manufacturing and the status and purpose of the research. My vision for the system would be that the final product would be easily accessible on NIST's Web site. NIST would also be authorized by my amendment to charge a nominal fee for the use of the service, if they so choose, to establish and maintain the Web site. If a fee is imposed, I would encourage that the fee be as small as possible to reflect the actual cost. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chairman, I am proud to represent a district that has a county with the second highest concentration of manufacturing as a percentage its share of the local economy in the entire Nation. Only one other county in America with a population of 250,000 or less has more manufacturing than the county that surrounds the second largest city in Illinois--Rockford. I have made it my life mission to get to know all about manufacturing. I have visited literally hundreds of factories and small shops all around the world to enhance my education about this vital sector of our economy. I crafted this amendment because I have been frustrated during my time in Congress that no one has a complete picture of who is doing what in the Federal government concerning manufacturing. No one has a complete list of the federal programs available to help manufacturers, not even the Manufacturing Czar at Commerce. Right now, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is finalizing a report at my request to document all of the programs that deal with manufacturing. Thus far, they have informed me that there are over 280 programs spread throughout the Federal agencies that focus in some aspect on manufacturing. This problem is compounded further by a lack of transparency among Federal agencies in terms of funding that is approved for certain projects. Plus, manufacturers who would like to avail themselves of various Federal programs do not know where to turn for answers. You would think that somewhere a matrix exists that details what firms are receiving Federal R&D money and how it is being used, but I can tell you that it does not. Let me share with you one clear example. After a speaking engagement in Tennessee, I was walking the showroom floor and found a major manufacturer out of Kansas City, Missouri with a display that was very familiar to me. The display had a miniature spur gear mounted near the nose of Lincoln on a penny. The penny was enclosed in a plastic box with a magnified top so that you can see the gear. The EIGERlab in Rockford, Illinois has this exact same way of displaying their miniature spur gear. I asked the employees of this major manufacturer if they had heard of the EIGERlab and the work they are doing on micromachining. They had not. It dawned on me that I was the only person that knew these two places were making the exact same product and both were being funded by the Defense Department. This story illustrates well the need for software that allows users to monitor and track where and to whom research money has been granted related to manufacturing, and the status and purpose of the research. This software would allow users to input the material type or process being used and it would scan for all federal dollars being put towards the searched criteria. The purpose of this amendment is to cut down on the possible duplication of research going on even within the same agency. My amendment would authorize a $2 million dollar set aside for software to develop this system so that manufacturers would have basic information about all the federal programs available to assist them and also to provide a link so that they would be able to know the latest status on all of the federal R&D projects related to manufacturing. NIST could either develop this software system themselves or contract it out to someone else. My vision for this system would be that the final product would be easily accessible on NIST's web site. NIST would also be authorized by my amendment to charge a nominal fee for the use of this service if they so choose to help establish and maintain the web site just as the Department of Commerce does with other services such as in-depth market research for exporters. The fee could be a yearly subscription for frequent users or a per visit charge. If a fee is imposed, I would encourage that the fee be as small as possible to reflect actual cost. This is a very important amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. If this interactive software can be established, this will be a huge accomplishment, particularly for small manufacturers. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Small Business Lending Improvements Act of 2007. I strongly support the changes made in this legislation to the Certified Development Company Economic Development or 504 loan program. However, I have grave concerns regarding many of the changes made in this legislation to the other mainstay of the SBA's access to credit programs: the 7(a) guaranteed lending program. Specifically, Section 101 sets the stage to eventually reinstate the federal loan subsidy for the 7(a) program later this year. This provision requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to recalculate the subsidy rate each fiscal quarter so that if an appropriation is provided for sometime during the fiscal year, fees can be reduced for small business borrowers and lenders. While I believe this provision violates the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 because it requires the re-opening of the assumptions that comprise the credit subsidy model just for the SBA's 7(a) program as contained in the President's annual budget request, I am more concerned about its potential detrimental effects upon our Nation's small businesses. While I am all for lowering fees, it has to be done in a fiscally-responsible manner, particularly during these tight budgetary times. In short, Section 101 is unnecessary and will set the 7(a) program back on an unstable course, thus reducing its availability and attractiveness to potential small business borrowers and lenders. The primary association with the expertise on the 7(a) program the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders (NAGGL)--is neutral on H.R. 1332 and has declined to take a position on the legislation. First, Section 101 is simply unnecessary. As the former chairman of the Small Business Committee, I never heard one complaint from any small business owner about the 7(a) fee structure. However, I heard dozens of complaints from small businesses when the 7(a) program was shut down or operated with severe constraints in 2002, 2003, and 2004 because the appropriations bill that contained the funding for the SBA did not pass in time. I frequently challenged the supporters of reinstating a loan subsidy for the 7(a) program to find me one small business that was not able to get a 7(a) loan because of the higher fees imposed after 2004. They were never able to produce me one example. Why is that? Because the so-called higher fees that went into effect in 2004 were at the same level as they were prior to 2002. What happened when the 7(a) fees went back to the 2002 level? Despite many dire predictions at the time, the 7(a) program grew and thrived because lenders and borrowers knew that it would be around for the long-haul. The 7(a) program no longer had to rely on the timeliness of passing an annual appropriation bill. The 7(a) program now operates on automatic pilot similar to how the other main access to credit programs at the SBA--the 504 and the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) programs--that also receive no annual subsidy and operates totally on user fees. October 1st--the beginning of the new federal fiscal year-- is no longer is a day of anxiety and worry for small business borrowers and lenders. Second, Section 101 will set the 7(a) program back on a path of instability. Unfortunately, this is a very technical and arcane debate where numbers and statistics are thrown around very casually. Some argue that H.R. 1332 will reduce fees up to $50,000 to small business borrowers. But then in the next breath, they argue that this bill will not modify the subsidy rate. Both cannot be true. It's important to remember that the main goal of the Democratic proponents of this legislation is to reinstate the loan subsidy for the 7(a) program. That's why the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that Section 101 will increase spending by $305 million in Fiscal Year 2008 and $2.265 billion over the next five years. Keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the President requested only $464 million in spending on the entire SBA in FY '08. If fully implemented, this bill would almost double the spending on the SBA in one year! The Democratic supporters of this legislation also wish to duplicate the 7(a) fee structure as it was in place between 2002 and 2004 in which there was a federal loan subsidy of approximately $100 million each year for a 7(a) program level of under $9.5 billion. However, there were only three fees temporarily reduced during this time period as part of an economic stimulus package in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Just like other economic stimulus measures, such as the 50 percent bonus tax depreciation, these 7(a) fee reductions were intended to only remain in place a short while until the economy got back on track. They were never intended to become part of permanent law. The upfront 7(a) borrower fee was temporarily reduced from 2 percent to 1 percent for small businesses seeking smaller 7(a) loans of under $150,000. For 7(a) loans between $150,000 and $700,000, the upfront fee was temporarily reduced from 3 percent to 2.5 percent. The 3.5 percent upfront fee on 7(a) loans from $700,000 to $1 million, which was the maximum loan guarantee limit at the time, was not reduced at all during the 2002 to 2004 time period. However, the annual on-going fee changed to lenders on the remaining outstanding balance on a 7(a) loan was also temporarily cut in half from 0.50 percent to 0.25 percent. Thus, at most, a fee structure that temporarily existed between 2002 and 2004 produced a maximum savings of $3,500 to a small business seeking to borrow $700,000. For a small business borrower seeking a loan of $150,000, the maximum savings was $1,500. Both figures are a far cry from $50,000. It is also important to remember that the upfront fee is rolled into the overall loan and amortized over the life-time of the loan. In other words, a borrower is not forced to come up with the entire upfront fee at closing. For the average small business 7(a) borrower, the fee change in 2004 only amounted to an increased payment of $10 per month. Thus, in return for an extra $10 per month, small business borrowers and lenders no longer have to worry about the 7(a) program ending or operating with various restrictions. However, if the 7(a) program is put back in the appropriations process, then there will be uncertainty if the program will be around for the long-term. Section 101 also allows 7(a) fees to fluctuate every few months depending upon whether or not Congress adds or subtracts money for a loan subsidy; thus harming long-term planning. This policy change also sets the precedent to reinstate the loan subsidies for the 504 and SBIC programs, which is the long-term goal of the Democratic proponents of this legislation. I'm also concerned that at a time when we should be streamlining government, H.R. 1332 creates three new lending programs at the SBA and makes one pilot program permanent. While I am sympathetic to the need to increase lending to rural areas, help health care professionals to open up shop in medically underserved areas, and assist veterans and reservists, the initiatives contained in Sections 102 through 105 of H.R. 1332 fundamentally undermine the ``zero'' loan subsidy policy in the 7(a) program. To fully implement these provisions, Congress will be forced to choose between higher fees for all other small business borrowers or an even higher appropriation to subsidize these new programs. Knowing the perspective of the Democratic proponents of this legislation who fundamentally disagree with ``zero subsidy,'' these initiatives will put further pressure on Congress to reinstate an appropriation for the 7(a) loan subsidy. CBO estimated that these three specific proposals will cost the taxpayer $11 million in 2008 and $77 million over the next five years. These provisions also set the precedent for other well-deserving groups to request Congress at a later date to eliminate 7(a) fees for them and provide their group with a much higher 90 percent guarantee rate on 7(a) loans, further exposing precious taxpayer money to higher risk of default and loss. It will be very hard for a future Congress to say no to these groups once these precedents have been set in this bill. I enclose for the Record a copy of the Administration's position on H.R. 1332, which reflects many of my same concerns listed above. I am proud over what Republicans on the Small Business Committee were able to accomplish over the last 12 years to promote fiscal responsibility at the SBA while at the same time helping a record number of small businesses. When Republicans were given stewardship of Congress in 1995, Congress spent $213 million of the taxpayer's hard- earned money on the SBA to support a 7(a) and 504 loan program volume of $8.3 billion to reach 55,800 small business borrowers. In 2006, the SBA doubled that level of assistance to reach over 100,000 small business borrowers with a 7(a) and 504 loan program usage level of $19.1 billion--all at no direct cost to the taxpayer. We should not return to the pre-1995 days just to satisfy a philosophical desire to restore loan subsidy, particularly for a program that doesn't need it. The old adage applies here--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Again, NAGGL has not taken a position on this bill. In short, Mr. Chairman, the 7(a) program ain't broke and the ``cure'' in Title I of H.R. 1332 is worse than the ``disease.'' I urge my colleagues on both sides of Capitol Hill to oppose this well-meaning but misguided legislation. April 24, 2007. Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 1332--small business lending improvements act of 2007 The Administration has achieved significant results in expanding the availability of credit to small businesses. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has more than doubled the total number of guaranteed loans to small businesses under the Section 7(a) and Section 504 loan programs. SBA has achieved this growth while reducing program costs and taxpayer-provided subsidies. H.R. 1332 could potentially reverse this success by reintroducing or increasing taxpayer-funded subsidies for small business loan programs. The Administration therefore cannot support House passage of H.R. 1332 unless it is amended to delete provisions that would increase these subsidies and the need for appropriations and/or increased fees on other loan applicants. The Administration also opposes provisions in the bill that would: (1) duplicate rural lending activities currently performed by the Department of Agriculture; (2) have SBA refinance private debt, as Federally-backed credit should not supplant private loans; and (3) raise constitutional questions by establishing race or gender-based preferences without presenting a strong basis in evidence that these preferences meet constitutional, standards. The Administration urges Congress to strike these provisions.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556. This bill strikes the correct balance between the need to increase foreign direct investment and national security. Let me first make clear that I am a strong supporter of foreign direct investment, which represents the insourcing of capital and local jobs to America. The congressional district that I am pleased to represent has had several manufacturing facilities that have benefited, and some have been saved as a direct result of foreign direct investment. This includes investment from businesses located in Great Britain, Sweden, Canada, Israel, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Brazil and Italy. Even a Chinese enterprise bought a nonsecurity-sensitive manufacturing facility in my congressional district at a time when no other financing was available. These investments have been critical for saving and creating jobs in the 16th District of Illinois. While I very much am interested in maintaining full foreign direct investments, I recognize it is important for our national security to regulate the types of businesses that receive such investment. The bill before us ensures us that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, known as CFIUS, will conduct an extended review when a foreign government tries to purchase a company within the United States. The bill also mandates greater transparency by ensuring that Congress is informed of a CFIUS investigation in a timely manner. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and in favor of final passage.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our chairman, Mr. Lantos, has scheduled for March a hearing to discuss the different proposals relating to the handling of the war in Iraq. He has promised a lot of time for debate on all the different bills introduced in the House of Representatives, ranging from those that call for us to pull out of Iraq immediately, to those that demonstrate our presence there as part of a larger war, not against a nation, but against a movement, Islamic jihadis. They are everywhere and are responsible for attacks in India, Jordan, Israel, England, Egypt, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the Gaza, Morocco, Pakistan and in the United States and Iraq. Chairman Lantos wants to make sure that all sides are heard, that all possible alternatives are given an airing. But that is what is missing in the bill that the Democratic majority has given us this evening: it can't be amended. Can you imagine three days of debate without the opportunity to amend a bill? That implies the Democratic leadership believes they have a monopoly on truth and fear input from other Members of Congress. The bill we are debating today condemns the infusion of up to 21,000 more troops in Iraq. However, at a time when we should be excited about a new proposal calling for a major shift in our policy on Iraq, the bill we are debating condemns it. This proposal taps as its new leader Lieutenant General David Patraeus, who should be given an opportunity to succeed. Confirmed unanimously by the Senate, he has extensive knowledge of other wars and military conflicts and has resolved that America can achieve a favorable result in Iraq. The new policy is a shift in the rules of engagement and calls upon the Iraqis themselves to step up in responsibility and achievement. A Washington Post story dated January 12 of this year with the byline, ``Withdrawals could start if Iraq plan works: Gates,'' repeats the words of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 11, Gates said: ``If these operations actually work, you can begin to see a lessening of the U.S. footprint both in Baghdad and Iraq itself. Then you could have a situation later this year where you could actually begin withdrawing.'' Isn't that what Americans want, a plan of action with a new focus, stabilizing Iraq and bringing our troops home? But that plan is not being debated today, and that is why I am going to vote against this resolution. We live in extremely dangerous times. We know Iran is developing atomic weaponry. We also know that six other Arab nations are actively seeking atomic technology, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The stakes are onerous. That is why America's men and women in uniform not only deserve our support in the field, but also here in the House of Representatives, by allowing their opinions to be voiced through their Members of Congress. It is the least we can do for them.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I find it ironic. What we are trying to do over here is to save the taxpayers what could be up to $15 million, and we are accused of wasting the time and taxes of the American people by engaging in a debate to save $15 million. The purpose of the House of Representatives, the purpose of the people on this side, is to save money. This whole debate is about saving money. This could be easily resolved if the Speaker of the House would say: I am willing to take the smaller aircraft to land halfway in Kansas or Illinois or anywhere else, fuel up again, and head on to San Francisco. That would probably save the taxpayers $10 million. It would be a much smaller aircraft, and it would inconvenience her by about an hour to 1\1/2\ hours. This is what this is all about. But what really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that those of us who are engaging in debate, this is the type of debate that the American people want because it is the type of debate that saves them money. It is all about saving the taxpayers' money. If this is not the debate that should take place, I really don't know what should take place.

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

Mr. MANZULLO. You accused the Republicans of being a do-nothing Congress. The last 3 days Members of Congress have been here with all the lights burning. That costs more money. We got out yesterday at 2 o'clock in the afternoon for six suspension votes, which if the Republicans were in control, we could have done in 3 hours. It took you 3 days. And you know what, Mr. Chairman? I have heard complaints coming even from the Democratic side that they cannot understand what this calendar is all about because they can't see their children, they can't get back home to be with their constituents, and they wonder why they are here in the city of Washington debating for the last 3 days what could have taken place in 2 hours.

Mr. MANZULLO. Of course I will yield.

Mr. MANZULLO. I understand.

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

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

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, the congressional district I represent is home to two of the finest home style, thick-sliced potato chips manufacturers in the country, Mrs. Fisher's and Ole Salty's. I am pleased today to honor Mrs. Fisher's on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. Mrs. Fisher's was founded in Rockford, Illinois in 1932 by Mrs. Ethel Fisher. Eugene and Ethel Fisher began cooking potato chips in their basement on a two burner wash stove in order to make extra income during the Depression. From this humble beginning, Mrs. Fisher's now ships its product throughout the entire United States and is one of oldest chip manufacturers in the Midwest. Mrs. Fisher's is currently owned and operated by the DiVenti family, who were employees of Mrs. Fisher's at the time they purchased the company. Under the ownership of the DiVenti family, Mrs. Fisher's now employs 13 full time workers and has three shipping routes that make daily deliveries to Dixon, Rochelle, Freeport, Crystal Lake, and Janesville, Wisconsin. Generations of individuals in northern Illinois have grown up with Mrs. Fisher's, and I commend the DiVenti family for carrying on the great Fisher's tradition.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. 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. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. 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. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. 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.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. 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.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. 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. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. 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.