Donald Manzullo

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, title II of the Democrats' energy dependence bill seeks to reduce global climate change by spending $1.2 billion to increase Washington bureaucracy. Instead of debating whether or not global warming exists and, if so, to what extent, we should all unite behind an effort to combat all forms of global pollution and promote the sale of U.S. environmental exports. Then we can spend more time and effort on cleaning up the environment rather than engaging in partisan disputes. Nevertheless, as the senior Republican on the Global Environment Subcommittee, I believe this title is fatally flawed for three main reasons: First, it combats air pollution, even though numerous reports and study show that conflict over access to clean water and contaminated food is just as important, if not more important, an immediate threat to the national and economic security. Therefore, we should expand the scope of it. The U.N. Development Program's Human Development Report of 2006 states that there is a growing crisis with respect to clean water. This bill does not address it. And if it is not addressed as a priority issue, it will inherently lead to greater insecurity around the world. Secondly, title II grows the size and scope of the Federal Government, adds more bureaucracies, more programs, more money. Title II also creates five other new programs or initiatives such as the new International Exchange Program at a cost of over $1 billion. Third, title II states that the U.S. should negotiate new binding greenhouse gas reduction commitments from all major emitting countries based on their level of development. In 1997, the other body voted 95-0 against such a commitment because economic dynamos such as China, India, and Brazil were not included. Title II also ignores all that our government is doing in the area of climate change, including spending $37 billion.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker I reluctantly rise today in opposition to the America COMPETES Act of 2007, H.R. 2272. I am a firm supporter of education and innovation in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Unfortunately, I cannot endorse a bill that creates 40 new programs and spends tens of billions of dollars. I devote a great amount of my time working on manufacturing issues. The congressional district I represent has over 2,500 industries. Manufacturing has several components, one of which is getting workers with adequate skills to be machinists, plus having an adequate supply of engineers and others involved in that aspect of manufacturing. At present I am involved in trying to solve workforce problems, which in turn, in many cases, depend upon people who have a good understanding of science, tech, engineering and math. I am a member of the Council on Competitiveness, a co-chair of the Manufacturing Caucus, and Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee Task Force on Manufacturing. As previous Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, I held countless hearings on competitiveness. I travel this country and overseas studying machine tools, manufacturing efficiencies, global supply chains, manufacturing financing, IP protection, export controls, etc. I've also lectured extensively on America's need to be globally competitive. In a good faith effort by both parties to make America more competitive, I believe we may be sliding a slope very few realize even exists. For example, this bill forgives student loans for individuals who teach math and science. While this is a noble idea, this sets the precedent for other vocations to receive loan forgiveness. When will we draw the line? Will we forgive loans for firefighters, policemen, federal government employees, doctors, and lawyers? Who decides which profession deserves preferential treatment? Extending the years of loan payment or perhaps reducing interest rates on critical professions in underserved areas may be a consideration, but loan forgiveness can put us on the road to ``free'' federal education for everybody. The price tag is unimaginable. Furthermore, today's bill is a composite of five different bills which have already passed the House. Attaching these bills together is not prudent legislation because it forces a Member of Congress to vote for or against the entire package even though he may have been in favor of a more modest approach. For example, I voted in favor of the authorizations for the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867) and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (H.R. 1868)--two agencies whose missions are vital to America's competitiveness. In addition, a third bill, H.R. 1068, updating research goals of the National High-Performance Computing Program, is also worthy and actually passed on a voice vote. However, these three bills were combined with: H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act and H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act. These two latter bills forced me to reluctantly vote against the whole package--especially since this combined bill contains $20.3 billion more than the five original bills and creates forty new science, tech, engineering and math (STEM) programs. I find this to be particularly wasteful when considering the fact that scores of current programs have not been found to be effective as evidenced in three separate studies by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the US Department of Education (DOE), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The GAO in October, 2005, issued a report stating that in fiscal year 2004 there were over 207 different science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs spending approximately $2.8 billion annually spread throughout 13 agencies. Only half of the programs have been internally evaluated, with the reporting agencies stating the programs were effective and met established goals of attracting more students to study STEM courses, but, GAO added, ``some programs that have not been evaluated have operated for many years.'' These agencies made suggestions to GAO, but GAO concluded that before adopting any suggestions ``it is important to know the extent to which existing STEM education programs are appropriately targeted'' so as to make the best use of available federal resources. The purpose of GAO is to determine whether taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. GAO's language indicates there is no basis to make that conclusion because too many programs simply have never been evaluated for efficiency. The second study--a Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council conducted by the U.S. Department of Education in May of 2007--showed 115 evaluations were submitted for 105 STEM programs and only ten evaluations were found to be ``scientifically rigorous.'' The report went on to say that, ``[b]ased on the 115 evaluations, the ACC's review that despite decades of significant federal investment in science and math education, there is a general dearth of evidence of effective practices and activities in STEM education (emphasis original).'' The third study was conducted by the OMB through a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Analysis of 88 programs within the Department of Education and only four were proven to be effective. Among those programs whose results were not demonstrated was the Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnership program. This program provides grants to state and local education agencies to improve student's academic achievement in math and sciences. The program was not found to be well managed, and it did not establish performance measures. On the basis of the information provided by GAO, DOE, and OMB, I am surprised that we are considering the creation of 40 additional STEM programs. We should be evaluating and consolidating all existing STEM programs, and save money at the same time. Instead, the House of Representatives is adding more programs and spending tens of billions more. While I continue to remain a firm supporter of U.S. industry and competitiveness, I believe that there are better ways to accomplish this than spending billions of dollars on new and unproven programs while hundreds of programs continue with little or no accountability. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Motion to Recommit, which still spends too much money, but as opposed to the combined bill reduces the overall spending of the combined bill by $20.3 billion.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the modification placed at the desk in order to make a technical correction.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the question of the gentleman from Minnesota, conservation is different from trying to meet an EPA mandate. You can do a tremendous amount of conservation programs for $60,000, but EQIP programs, by their very nature, cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's the problem. The problem that we have here is that the $60,000 limitation goes into effect. Money may not be available for farmers to be able to meet environmental standards. So this really is a pro-environmental vote. I don't really want to talk about geese. I am talking about cattle. But this all applies to chicken farms and the tremendous runoff that we have. By allowing this amendment and removing the $60,000 cap, this will increase the number of environmentally protected areas in farming across the country. That's the reason for it. It costs no more money, and you might want to spread these programs across the board. I can understand that on conservation, but not on these mandated programs that are title II. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. The problem is that the EQIP program is already being doubled in the amount from $1 to $2 billion, where the caps are being lowered to $60,000. This is not a conservation. The purpose of this is so that cow manure and pig manure and chicken manure don't flow into the rivers and the streams. That's the problem with the Chesapeake. It's the chicken manure that's destroying the Chesapeake. When you have the EQIP cap, that means less chicken producers will be able to afford retention systems in order to comply with EPA. So this is a pro-environmental vote, and there is plenty of money because the chairman recognizes the fact that the total amount has been doubled. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the payment limitations of the farm bill go from $2 million to $1 million. Under the EQIP programs it goes from $450,000 down to $60,000. This is not for wealthy farmers. This is not for factory farms. These are for the little guys that I represented when I practiced law in Ogle County, Illinois, for 22 years. If we had a program like this, the money would have gone a long way. But even with a modest herd of 300 head, it costs several hundred thousand to build a retention system or a methane digest, if you want to go into doing that. Our methane digesters in our district, the one that has 500 dairy cattle, they are able to run a city of 500 people, of 500 homes; thus, it conserves electricity from the nuclear plant and also from coal-burning facilities. The problem is getting onto the grid and getting a reasonable price. I was a chairman of the Small Business Committee. When I practiced law, the guys that use this, these are all little guys around me. We don't have people with thousands and thousands of cattle in northern Illinois. So I would suggest that for the small business farmer, to make this program go even further, that we should allow this amendment.

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

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that will exempt the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, from a $60,000 payment limitation that this bill proposes for conservation purposes. This program provides farmers with financial and technical assistance to plan and implement soil and water conservation practices and has the full support of the environmental and farming community. This amendment is more of a technical correction, as all it does is return the EQIP payment limitation to its current level of $450,000 over the life of the farm bill. The amendment does not impact the increased payment limitation for direct payments. The amendment is narrowly tailored to only impact payments for EQIP- specific projects. Currently, 60 percent of EQIP payments go to livestock producers, who use those cost-share payments to establish environmentally sound structures and practices on their farms. Without these payments, these structures and practices in many cases will not meet EPA standards for environmental care. The problem with the proposed $60,000 limitation is that these EQIP programs are so expensive that the farmers, in many cases, probably in most cases in my district, won't choose to take it because of the cost. To give you an example, we have two methane digesters in my congressional district. Each of them cost over a half a million dollars. The farmer could get up to 50 percent and sometimes even more of the costs of that from the present EQIP program, but under the proposed law, he could only get $60,000. When I was in private practice, I practiced agricultural law and had to work with farmers to come into compliance with the EPA; and even though EQIP was not around at that time, the remedial measures that we took for runoff, et cetera, to be in compliance with EPA in many cases ran into the several hundred thousand dollars. This is what I'm hearing from the constituents that I represent, that they respect the fact that EQIP is there, but $60,000 simply would not go long enough or far enough. So our proposal is to return it to its present standard. It spends no more money. It makes money available to build these expensive facilities. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MANZULLO. Is it appropriate at this time to ask for a re-vote on each and every amendment just voted on?

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee for allowing debate on the Manzullo amendment to help the EQIP program. However, I'm deeply concerned about the Democrats' attempt to pit people who work for manufacturers against agriculture by a midnight tax increase against manufacturing workers. The offset to pay for part of the farm bill would strongly discourage future foreign investment in the United States. Nissan USA, owned by Nissan based in Japan, borrows money from their finance unit based in the Netherlands. Under our current tax treaty with the Netherlands, no tax is applied. However, under the Doggett amendment, a new 10 percent tax would be applied to this transaction, and the Netherlands would then most likely view this as an abrogation of our tax treaty and seek renegotiation or outright annulment, thus hurting our overall trade with the Netherlands. In the northern Illinois district that I represent, the one which led the Nation in unemployment in 1980 at 25 percent, 14,000 manufacturing workers lost their jobs, 200 companies closed up. I just lost another one yesterday. Nissan Forklift in Marengo, Illinois, would be hit with a 10 percent increase. They're not based in Bermuda. These are common American people, the ones who get up at the crack of dawn. They represent the manufacturing people of this country, and the Democrats are hurting them. Don't hurt my workers. Don't raise taxes on a bill you have had no hearings on because you don't know. You have to examine what it does to the everyday worker. The Japanese, the English, the Italians, the Swedes, the Germans have all saved manufacturing jobs in my congressional district. I know what I'm talking about. Vote against this rule. Vote against this bill. Vote for the American worker, who is glad to have his job because somebody came in and invested the money in American manufacturing. Don't lay off American manufacturers because of a bill that you haven't even researched.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege and honor for me to be closely associated again with the effort to reauthorize the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Along with now Senator Bob Menendez, former OPIC President George Munoz, and me--the 3Ms--we were able to rescue OPIC from oblivion with a resounding vote of confidence of 357 to 71 to reauthorize OPIC in 1999. OPIC represents the best of both worlds--the agency doesn't cost the U.S. taxpayer any money and it creates jobs and aids in economic development both here and abroad as evidenced by the Congressional findings section in this bill. I also want to commend Mr. Sherman for working with the minority in a bipartisan way in order to produce a bill that can receive overwhelming support. The bill before us today wouldn't be the one I would have written from scratch. However, I am pleased that as the bill has moved through the legislation process, the majority has been sensitive to the concern as to the practical effects of certain provisions in order to insure that OPIC can remain open for business in various markets. I also appreciate the willingness of the majority to continue to keep the lines of communication open. I also want to commend Mr. Sherman for including my suggestion in Section 17 to make sure that OPIC will always continue to have sufficient staff and resources to support small businesses. I also want to thank the majority for their willingness to add in report language a statement that the climate change initiative in Section 8 should not take away from other environmental remediation efforts by OPIC.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. I take personal offense to that. That's the name of the museum. Burpee was the name of an inventor of seeds.

Mr. MANZULLO. And after him. You should apologize. I accept your apology.

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, this is a very immodest request that's part of an overall strategy to revitalize an economically depressed area of downtown Rockford. The City of Rockford led the Nation in unemployment in 1980 at 25 percent. We lost 14,000 highly skilled manufacturing jobs at many of our over 1,500 factories in the area. What this money does, it sets up a paleontology lab, which is an extension of Northern Illinois University, into the Burpee Museum of Natural History itself. This is astonishing because what it is doing, it's moving many of the assets of this great university to a city 30 miles away, and the reason that that lab has been created in Rockford is because of the incredible finds that were made by the university in terms of the paleontologist digs several years ago in Montana with regard to dinosaur projects. There are currently eight Northern Illinois University faculty and 13 graduate and undergraduate students working on various cutting-edge physical science projects at the Burpee Museum. Thus, the request is ready to be used to support these research projects by Northern Illinois University students and staff utilizing the laboratories at Burpee Museum in Rockford. With this assistance, Burpee Museum is becoming one of the foremost places in the world to study and view paleontology. What we lost with our manufacturing base we're trying to compensate for in an educational center and people coming to town in order to tour this great center. In fact, tourism is up by 7 percent as a result of the paleontology digs by the museum. Besides that, the Institute of Museum and Library Services would receive this money, but there is no way to get it through the regular budget. The rules and regulations simply do not allow this type of project to be funded by it. The Burpee Museum is a center for study. Students are coming from around the world. In fact, recently Burpee and Northern Illinois University co-hosted a scientific symposium. Almost 200 scientists from around the country and from China, Norway and Canada attended this important scientific meeting in Rockford. I spend, probably, 75 percent of my time working on manufacturing issues. I was born and raised in Rockford. This was a city that refused to die. This was a city that refused to give up. This is a city whose citizens came together and said we have lost so many manufacturing jobs, but we're going to find another way to keep our kids in town to allow them to have jobs there so parents can see their grandkids, and unlike many Midwest towns that gave up, kids just leave the area because of no opportunities. What we're doing here is the creation of this wonderful laboratory to study paleontology to help put Rockford back on the map again. I believe that this is extremely fair. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, the Institute of Museum and Library Services does not offer grants for conservation efforts such as what is going on at the museum. It's simply not available, and the issue is, do unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one in this city make all the decisions as to where the money is spent or do Members of Congress who are responsible to our electorate every 2 years have the ability to come in and say this is something worthy of the money that's going to be spent anyway. Because the Flake amendment does not save money. It just puts more money back into the hands of the bureaucrats to spend wherever they should. So I would obviously oppose this amendment, and I would encourage my colleagues also to vote ``no'' on the Flake amendment to strike these funds. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 966, which gives the Department of State the authority to re-hire Foreign Service retirees without harming their pensions through October 1, 2010 to temporarily increase more personnel to reduce the backlog on passport applications. S. 966 has already passed the Senate and it is time to send this bill on its way to the President's desk for his signature. I appreciate the expeditious consideration of this legislation to give the State Department another tool to help them deal with the massive increase in the number of passport applications. I hate to say ``I told you so'' but in 2005 I predicted this train wreck. When I chaired the Small Business Committee, I held a hearing on the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) in 2005 primarily to examine the effect of WHTI on small business. At the time, I said that because of the amount of commerce within the Western Hemisphere it ``may make it next to impossible to fulfill the statutory mandate to require this enhanced documentation.'' I recognize that Congress gave the Departments of State and Homeland Security a difficult mission to implement within a short time period. I was one of the 75 Members to vote against the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 that contained the WHTI mandate. However, since WHTI was implemented on January 23, my office has been inundated with frantic calls from constituents seeking passports to travel overseas. So far this year, my office has assisted 491 individuals with problems in obtaining their passports for travel. For all of 2006, my office helped just 51 constituents with passport problems. These calls are dominating the time of the caseworkers in my district offices. Although we have been 99 percent successful in getting people the passports they need to travel, it has not been easy. Our caseworkers spend countless hours on the phone each day with panicked constituents who face the prospect of losing thousands of dollars and missing out on dream vacations if we cannot help them. And it seems we are always in crisis mode. Many passports do not get issued until two to three days before departure, and that is done with a continual push from my staff. Despite constant monitoring and advocacy by my staff, some constituents do not receive their passports within 48 hours of departure. The last resort for these constituents is to take a day off work and travel to downtown Chicago--about two hours away--to get their passports on an emergency basis. I am told that although these constituents arrive before the required 7:00 a.m. opening time, it generally takes all day to get their passports. Madam Speaker, you might not feel as bad if these were people who did not follow the rules and who waited until the last minute to get their passports. But a vast majority of the people who seek our assistance have done everything our Government asked of them. They applied for their passports well within the allotted time to receive their passports on time for their departures. And yet, their vacations and thousands of dollars of investments are in jeopardy. I applaud the State Department and DHS for trying to ease the situation last month when they agreed to allow people traveling to Mexico, Canada or the Caribbean to depart as long as they had receipts in hand showing they had applied for their U.S. passports. But problems still occur. Some have applied, but the State Department website indicates their applications cannot be found and thus a receipt cannot be secured. In addition, some of the cruise lines in the Caribbean do not accept these receipts. This situation causes even more anxiety for my constituents. I understand the goal of the WHTI, but its implementation has been difficult. It has caused unnecessary anxiety and enormous amounts of work for my constituents and my staff. We must come up with an alternative way to enhance our security or make severe adjustments in the way we manage WHTI so we don't leave high and dry the people who followed the rules to get their passports. That is why I applaud the prompt scheduling of S. 966 so shortly after the Senate passed the bill at the end of last month. I urge my colleagues to pass S. 966 so that the bill can be signed into law by the President as soon as possible.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of H. Res. 500, which condemns the establishment of a natural gas cartel. On April 9 of 2007, several gas-exporting countries agreed to form a natural gas cartel similar to OPEC. The cartel would be initially composed of countries that have nearly 70 percent of the world's reserves. Those countries include Russia and Iran. Though the U.S. currently is largely self-sufficient in natural gas, we are projected to greatly increase usage over time. That could result in a growing dependence on world supply. At that point, minor disruptions can lead to rapid price increases that could have grave consequences for the United States' manufacturing base. This could be particularly disastrous for the chemical and plastics industry and advanced composite manufacturers because they use natural gas as their feedstock. Soaring prices today in this country have already challenged their competitiveness. Unfortunately, in 2004 alone, increases in natural gas prices forced the closure of scores of chemical companies and cost roughly 100,000 well-paying jobs. If the United States loses our advantage in chemical manufacturing companies, that will be the demise of manufacturing as a whole. Because without chemicals, you cannot have a strong manufacturing base. With the chemical industry on a particular siege by the high cost of natural gas now, one can only imagine what would happen if an OPEC-type group got together and decided to gouge America and increase greatly the cost of natural gas. Natural gas materials are used broadly for defense products. Disruptions in the supply are detrimental to America's defense industrial base and therefore our ability to defend ourselves. We must not stand by and let yet another global extortion group, such as OPEC, take over and command the world's supply of natural gas. The purpose of this resolution is to send a strong message to the people involved in these international conspiracies to back off, that the United States will do whatever is necessary to make sure that the people who control the world's supply of natural gas do no harm to this country.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that we are this point in the legislative process to send to the President's desk a bipartisan, bicameral reform of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS, process. I first became interested in CFIUS reform when a Chinese state-owned enterprise was in competition with a private Italian and a Canadian firm to purchase a very sensitive machine tool division of Ingersoll Milling. The Chinese eventually decided not to attempt to buy the very sensitive machine tool division of Ingersoll but were able to purchase the non-sensitive production line division, which saved hundreds of jobs. It came up again when IBM decided to sell its personal computer division to Lenovo, partially owned by the Chinese government. It emerged again when the China National Offshore Oil Company, CNOOC, another Chinese state-owned enterprise, was ready to outbid a private firm to acquire Unocal. Let me make clear that I am a strong supporter of foreign direct investment into the United States. U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies employ 5.1 million Americans, of which 31 percent are in the manufacturing sector; have a payroll of $325 billion; and account for 19 percent of all U.S. exported goods. Foreign direct investment in the U.S. is important because in many cases it provides capital to purchase companies in the U.S. where there is no domestic financing or interest, thus saving thousands of U.S. jobs. Many foreign companies retained numerous firms and jobs in the northern Illinois district I am proud to represent including Ingersoll Machine Milling (Italy) and Ingersoll Cutting Tools (Israel) in Rockford; Nissan Forklift (Japan) in Marengo; Eisenmann Corporation (Germany) in Crystal Lake; and Cadbury-Schweppes (United Kingdom), which owns the Adams confectionary plant in Loves Park. In fact, Illinois is fifth in the United States in terms of the number of employees supported by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies per State. The House is now prepared to send a comprehensive CFIUS reform bill to the President because of the legitimate concern over a year ago of Dubai Ports (DP) World's proposed acquisition of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) management operations of 27 terminals at 6 major U.S. ports east of the Mississippi River. Many Americans were legitimately concerned about the national security implications of this deal. However, it was often overlooked that DP World is a state-owned enterprise, owned by the royal family of Dubai. What does it mean for our national interest when foreign governments acquire private sector companies in America? In the P&O case, the New York Times reported on February 24, 2006 that this sale came down to a ``battle between two foreign, state- backed companies''--DP World and PSA, which is part of the investment arm of the Singapore government. ``The acquisition price (for P&O) reflects the advantage that a number of the fastest growing companies enjoy--their government's deep pockets.'' Here is the key, Mr. Speaker--``DP World paid about 20 percent more (for P&O) than analysts thought the company was worth. Publicly traded companies that were potential bidders were scared off long before DP World's final offer.'' You would think this would be a factor in the CFIUS decisionmaking process, particularly after Congress in 1992 required a 45-day review process for acquisitions by state-owned enterprises in reaction to the proposed sale of LTV's missile division to Thomson-CSF, the American subsidiary of a French firm that was then 58 percent owned by the French Government. Yet, CFIUS initially declined to subject the DP World's proposed acquisition of P&O through the additional 45-day review process until pressured by Congress. I am pleased that H.R. 556 incorporates my main suggestion to mandate all proposed acquisitions of U.S. assets by a foreign state-owned enterprise undergo the more rigorous additional 45-day review process. The free market cannot work if foreign governments subsidize the purchase of U.S. assets. H.R. 556 will make absolutely crystal clear that in every case where there is a proposed acquisition by a foreign state-owned enterprise, it will undergo heightened scrutiny to ensure that there is no hidden agenda by a foreign government that could undermine our national security. We owe it to our constituents to make sure that foreign governments do not undermine our open free market system as a tool to advance their national interests. I congratulate the Chairmen and Ranking Members in both Houses of Congress for working together to produce a bill that will merit the President's signature. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 556.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor a group of students from Marsh Elementary School in Rockford, Illinois, for their selection as the winner of the 2007 Toshiba/National Science Teachers Association Explora Vision Awards. Each year, students in grades K-12 around the Nation compete in the Explora Vision program, which is designed to encourage students to combine their imagination with their knowledge of science and technology to explore visions of the future. Teams of students select a technology, research how it works and why it was invented, and then project how that technology may change in the future. They must then identify what breakthroughs are required for their vision to become a reality and describe the positive and negative consequences of their technology on society. I am honored to have these students in the district that I am privileged to represent. I support them wholeheartedly as they pursue different areas of technological research at such an early age. I hope that their experiences will kindle an interest in science and technology that could possibly lead to a career in these fields.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the amendment to reinstate the Mexico City Policy. This policy ensures that U.S. bilateral family planning programs are not conduits for exporting abortions internationally. Let me be clear from the beginning: the Mexico City Policy is NOT anti-family planning. In no way does this policy reduce the $425 million that the United States provides in family planning assistance. What this amendment does do is to put a wall between contraception and abortion, thereby preventing this Congress from making the American taxpayers an implicit partner in the aborting of unborn children. It sends the message that as Americans, we stand for the life and liberty of all individuals--those whose voices can be heard, and those whose voices cry from the womb. This Democrat-led Congress has voted to protect roosters from cockfighting and horses from slaughter. Doesn't it would seem logical that this Congress would stand up and protect the fragile lives of the unborn? But this Congress has shown that it is only selectively sympathetic to the furtherance of life. As when horses are killed, or roosters are hurt. But not when a tiny, human life is stamped out with the approval of our government. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to the SBA Entrepreneurial Development Programs Act of 2007. I am a strong supporter of Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs). These centers continue to do a lot of good work to promote job creation and small business development throughout our nation. There are three SBDCs that serve constituents in the 16th District of Illinois and they do phenomenal work in oftentimes a difficult local economic climate with limited resources. But I fear that the various SBDC bills we debate this week may kill the program with kindness. The bills all taken together proposes to create nine new grant initiatives within the SBDC program. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bills would add $122 million in additional spending in Fiscal Year 2008 alone and $365 million over the next five fiscal years. When you consider that the Democrat-controlled House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee recently provided a generous increase of $11 million for the regular SBDC program to reach $100 million for Fiscal Year 2008, these bills taken together proposes to more than double the size of the SBDC program. In an era of tight budgets, I don't think any program deserves a 122 percent increase. I am sympathetic to many of these initiatives. I am particularly supportive of making sure that Small Business Administration (SBA) employees do not interfere in hiring decisions of local SBDCs. I also support provisions in Section 207 to require more information, primarily through Internet Web-based technologies, about regulatory compliance to small business owners. But there are still significant outstanding budgetary issues. Throughout my tenure as the former Chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I tried numerous times to see the National Regulatory Assistance and the Native American Entrepreneurial Assistance SBDC initiatives, among others, become law. Last year, we reached a common- sense consensus that in order to get these new initiatives into law, the high $135 million authorization level for the overall SBDC program should be proportionally reduced. However, that consensus is not in these bills that we are debating this week. I find it odd that the ``pay-go'' fiscal conservative rhetoric of the Democrats is not met by reality. There are no spending offsets in these bills. Some of these initiatives also are duplicative of existing Federal programs. For example, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program administered by the Department of Commerce through local centers across the nation offers the very same services that are outlined in Section 203 of H.R. 2359. The National Veterans Business Development Corporation (or Vets Corp) offers the same services as those being proposed in H.R. 2366. I also have concern that some of the provisions in H.R. 2359 go beyond the mission of SBDCs, which historically has been primarily targeted at helping new or struggling small businesses. For example, Section 206 requires that SBDC grant recipients ``shall also attempt to negotiate lower health insurance premiums for small business concerns that seek the assistance of the recipient.'' In my view, it is not the role of SBDCs to get involved in the pricing health insurance premiums. Section 204 of H.R. 2359 establishes a new program to help transition so-called ``mature'' small businesses even though there is no definition of what the authors of this legislation mean by ``transition'' or ``mature'' small business. Again, I don't think it is the role of SBDCs to be involved in initiatives that could result in the closure of small businesses. I also fear that creating these nine new initiatives all at once will give false hope to SBDCs seeking to receive these grants. These initiatives will not start until a specific amount separate from the regular SBDC appropriation is allocated from the Appropriations Committee. In principle, this is a good policy to help insure that the money to run the regular SBDC program is not raided to fund these new initiatives. However, noting that the Democrat-controlled House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee just provided a long- overdue increase for the regular SBDC program, I seriously doubt that any of these specific SBDC initiatives will be funded at a significant level in the near future, further diminishing the expectations behind this legislation. Finally, these nine new initiatives create many hoops for local SBDCs to jump through in order to qualify for these grants. These bills will create a paperwork and accounting nightmare for SBDCs to keep track of various grants, particularly if they apply and receive multiple awards under different initiatives, for the programs they administer. In retrospect, it is probably best that Congress provides an overall increase in the appropriation for the regular SBDC program and then require that all SBDCs provide some services (even if it is to network with another specialized SBDC or another Federal partner such as a local MEP center or the Vets Corp) in the nine issue areas outlined in H.R. 2359, H.R. 2366, and H.R. 2284 as opposed to the micro-management approach as contained in these bills. Mr. Speaker, last year, I predicted that if Democrats took over control of Congress, spending on the Small Business Administration (SBA) would dramatically increase. Never in my wildest dreams did I think they would be so brazen. Elections do matter. Thus far this year, the CBO estimates that the Democrat-controlled House Small Business Committee has authorized $5.4 billion in new spending over the next 5 years--$1.379 billion in fiscal year 2008 alone. With these bills on the suspension calendar this week, proposed spending on the SBA will grow once again. All totaled, the CBO estimates that spending on the SBA will increase by nearly $5.8 billion over 4 years and $1.525 billion in fiscal year 2008 alone. To put this massive spending increase in perspective, the House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee recommends providing $582 million in total spending on the SBA in fiscal year 2008. I urge my colleagues to stand up for fiscal responsibility and to prevent mission-creep within the SBDC network by voting against these bills.

Mr. MANZULLO

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.