Michael Michaud

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Alden Wilson, who announced recently that he will be stepping down as Director of the Maine Arts Commission. Alden has been a fixture in Maine's cultural landscape for over three decades. Under Alden's leadership, the Maine Arts Commission has become an example for similar commissions in other states to follow. One of the keys to the Commission's success has been Alden's ability to bring together artists, community members, and policy makers to focus on common goals. The arts are a fundamental building block in our regional economies and are vital to our communities. Serving as director of the Maine Arts Commission for 33 years, Alden focused the group on the cultivation of Maine's creative economy. In large part because of Alden, Maine enjoys a vibrant arts landscape that spreads to every corner of the state. Alden leaves an organization with a strong vision and a record of success. I have had the joy of working with Alden during my time in the Maine State Legislature, and now, while serving in Washington. I wish Alden the very best in the future as he pursues new opportunities.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days Congress will consider the Peru Free Trade Agreement. I rise tonight to ask why are we in such a rush to approve a flawed and misguided trade policy. The Peru Free Trade Agreement doesn't enjoy the support of any of the constituencies which it's supposed to benefit. No labor unions vocally are out supporting this agreement. Why would they? The labor standards are unenforceable. It doesn't protect ``buy America.'' It promotes off- shoring of our industries. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is just like the NAFTA-CAFTA framework. NAFTA has cost Maine over 23 percent of our manufacturing base. The new labor environmental language will do nothing to improve the situation. The Bush administration claims that the agreement will improve labor standards in Peru and, in the next breath, Tom Donahue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce states that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with the ILO conventions.'' So why are we rushing to approve such a toothless measure? Why is Congress moving so fast to approve a trade policy which has not been subject to a full hearing since the deal was announced? The last hearing on the Peru Free Trade Agreement in the Ways and Means Committee was held in 2006. There are no environmental groups that are rallying support for the unenforceable environmental protections. That includes the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. So why are we not taking the time to consider the impact the Peru FTA will have on our environment, our intellectual property or privatization of Social Security? Even the labor leaders of major Peruvian labor organizations oppose this agreement. They urge Congress to vote ``no,'' claiming that it will weaken labor standards, encourage illegal immigration to the United States, and increase the rates of drug trafficking and violence. So who supports this agreement? Big Business. It's the large multinational companies who seek to profit off the backs of working men and women in our country. Remember back on May 10 when we heard about the new trade model? Well, if it's so new and great, then why aren't we hearing from all sides on the trade debate asking us to support it? There is a reason: there is not much new about it. It's the same old model with a little fancy title. I ask my colleagues to take a step back and consider this agreement carefully, demand the enforcement of the labor standards that conform with the ILO Conventions and environmental protection that might actually protect the environment. I ask my colleagues to consider the impact of this agreement and to question why we are moving so quickly to box ourselves into a corner. And I'm asking Members to listen to their constituents. All across this country, the American citizens are opposed to these bad, flawed trade deals. This is more of the same. We must have a new trade model. We have to start thinking globally of how we're going to deal with the globalization in this world today. So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peru trade deal.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman for yielding. The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 represents a vision for economic development in our Nation that will help Americans in the most distressed regions of our country. In the northern border region, we are seeing clearly persistent patterns of economic distress. If you look at the 36 counties that lie on the border or right next to the border between Maine and New York, you will find poverty above the national average, medium household income that is more than $6,500 below the national average, persistent unemployment through layoffs in traditional manufacturing industries, and most striking of all, a meager gain of only 0.6 percent in population between 1990 and 2000, compared to the 13 percent growth nationally over the same period. In short, Mr. Speaker, our mills are closing, our young people are leaving, and too many of our workers are looking for work. Clearly, this region has a common set of challenges and a compelling need for investment in new growth. Two days after I was elected to Congress, the very mill that I worked at for over 28 years went bankrupt, and my hometown and region were devastated. The story of my town and the mill that I worked at has been repeated across our region. That is why we need to support our regional industries and build new job opportunities, and that is why we need the investment, leadership and focus in our regional economic development bill. The Northern Border Commission would help the region invest in transportation, health care, agriculture, broadband, and alternative energy. It can be a partner with businesses to maintain our industry and build a new industry cluster. It can help us create jobs in the long term. We have all the ingredients we need to face our challenges head-on and make our region an economic engine. This new commission will help us make the fundamental changes for our future. I want to once again thank the chairman and chairwoman for all their hard work on this bill. This bill is a new way to look at economic development in our Nation. So with that, hopefully our colleagues will pass this bill.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the lies being told to the good people of Costa Rica about the importance of the CAFTA referendum they are about to vote on. I went to Costa Rica last night to share some basic truths. The pro- CAFTA government is now telling the people of Costa Rica how wonderful passage of CAFTA will be for them. Remember when the Mexican Government said exactly the same thing to the people of Mexico during a debate on NAFTA in 1993? What happened with the passage of NAFTA, 1.3 million Mexican farmers have been displaced. The country's growth rate has stagnated. Wages have actually declined, and the country's environmental policies have been successfully challenged and chilled throughout NAFTA's outrageous corporate regime. NAFTA and CAFTA have actually increased protectionism by restricting free commerce in lifesaving medicine. One hundred priests in Costa Rica have come out against the flawed trade model; and just this past weekend, hundreds of thousands of good Costa Rican citizens protested this referendum. Out of a country of 4 million people, that shows how strong opposition is, and it should be. Voters are being told by the United States Government that we will retaliate if they do not vote in favor of this referendum. The people of Costa Rica can rest assured that the U.S. Government will not retaliate. In fact, let me quote a letter last week sent from our Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, and the Speaker of the House to the Ambassador of Costa Rica: ``The decision as to whether or not Costa Rica joins CAFTA and votes yes or no on their referendum on October 7 is the decision of the people of Costa Rica.'' The letter goes on to say: ``We understand that it has been asserted by some that there is a link between the referendum vote and Costa Rica's continued participation in the Caribbean Basin Initiative. We are not aware of any connection between the two. Participation in CBI is not conditioned on a country's decision to approve or reject a free trade agreement with the United States.'' As someone who has supported trade preference for Latin American countries like I have, the most recent the Andean countries, I can confirm that there will be absolutely no retaliation against the country or voters no matter what the outcome of the referendum. The people must look beyond the scare tactics being waged in this campaign. How will CAFTA affect Costa Rica? Voters, all they have to do is look to Mexico to see what CAFTA has done to them. Since the passage of NAFTA, poverty in Mexico has increased. The middle class has declined. Many Mexicans are fleeing to America in hopes of finding a better wage and a life for their families. Who benefits under NAFTA and CAFTA agreements? The multinational corporations, not the people. We have seen that corporations and their friends in the government will employ dirty tricks, election fraud, and tell outright lies to ensure that they continue to be able to exploit workers and ruin the environment. This is a historic and important vote for the people of Costa Rica. I believe it is time for the United States and Costa Rica to go back to the drawing board and develop a new trade agreement that all sides can be proud of. The United States renegotiated Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea. We should do the same thing with the agreement with Costa Rica. It is time to develop an agreement that benefits our workers and communities.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, many of the newly elected freshmen campaigned on a platform of ensuring a significant change of course from the Bush trade policy. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is based on the same flawed NAFTA-CAFTA model that has been so devastating to industries all across our Nation. While I campaigned for this seat 5 years ago, the cornerstone of my campaign also was to fix our broken trade policies. I've seen firsthand what they have done to the State of Maine. I firmly believe that in order to address our trade imbalance, we have to change the trade model. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is the same old model with a little lipstick. There is overwhelming opposition to the agreement by unions, environmental, consumer and small business groups. They're all asking Congress to oppose the Peru FTA. Who supports the bill? The large multinational corporations, Big Business, does. When Tom Donahue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, states that he is ``encouraged by assurance that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO conventions,'' we should be more than skeptical. While we have all heard that the Peru trade agreement text improves labor and environmental standards, we fail to hear that they were added on top of the same old NAFTA and CAFTA text. The bottom line: this is another Bush NAFTA expansion. Key unions are worried about the labor provisions. The new provisions require countries to adopt, maintain, and enforce only the terms of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The new FTA language does not require signatories to meet the ILO conventions. That's the binding standards. The declaration is a nonbinding statement. It is highly likely that changes to the environment and labor provisions will have no real effect on the ground. We all know that the Bush administration has a long record of not enforcing the standards of past trade agreements. Why should they start now? And there are so many problems with the Peru Free Trade Agreement, whether it's the privatization of Social Security, ban on anti- offshoring, or failure to protect our intellectual property rights. There are more than enough reasons to oppose the Peru FTA. Not to mention if you look at NAFTA, NAFTA has caused a worse problem here in the United States with illegal immigration. The Peru Free Trade Agreement will do the same thing, cause the illegal immigration problem to get worse. I could go on and on about the Peru FTA. I ask my colleagues to really listen to what America is saying about these free trade agreements. I'm asking Members to vote their conscience. Oppose the Peru FTA.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the Ways and Means Committee markup on the Peru free trade agreement, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the Peru free trade agreement. I am extremely disappointed there will be no formal committee hearing on the Peru free trade agreement. The last hearing for the Peru free trade agreement in the Ways and Means Committee was held in 2006. Given that the administration and leadership announced proposed changes to the trade model in May, I believe it is critical to have a full hearing on the Peru trade agreement. The diversity of viewpoints on the Peru FTA have not been significantly heard by Members. Many of the newly elected freshmen Members campaigned on a platform of ensuring a significant change of course from the Bush trade policy. The Peru free trade agreement is based on the same flawed NAFTA and CAFTA model that has been so devastating to industries across the Nation. When I campaigned for my seat 5 years ago, the cornerstone of my campaign was fixing our broken trade policies. I have seen firsthand what they have done to the State of Maine. I firmly believe in order to address our trade imbalance, we have to change the trade model. The Peru FTA is the same old model with a little lipstick. There is overwhelming opposition to the agreement by unions, consumers, small business, and environmental groups. They are all asking Congress to oppose the Peru FTA. Who supports this deal? Big Business does. When Tom Donahue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, states that he is ``encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO conventions,'' we should be very skeptical. While we have all heard that the Peru agreement text improves labor and environmental standards, we fail to hear that they are added upon the old NAFTA and CAFTA text. The bottom line: this is another Bush NAFTA expansion. Key unions are worried about the labor provisions. The new provisions require countries to adopt, maintain, and enforce only the terms of the ILO declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. The new FTA language does not require signatories to meet the ILO conventions. These are the binding standards; the declarations are nonbinding. It is highly likely that changes in the environment and labor provisions will have no real effect on the ground. We all know that the Bush administration has a long record of not enforcing the standards of past trade deals. Why would they start now? There are so many problems with the Peru FTA, whether it is the privatization of Social Security, ban on anti- offshoring, or failure to protect our intellectual property rights, there are more than enough reasons to oppose the Peru FTA. I could go on, but I do not have the time. I ask my colleagues to really listen to what America is saying about these trade deals. I am asking Members to vote their conscience to oppose the Peru free trade agreement.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mr. Wayne Viger, this year's recipient of the National Association of Letter Carriers' National Hero of the Year Award. We are all familiar with the unofficial motto of the letter carriers which says that ``neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.'' Mr. Viger went above and beyond even this solemn promise, putting himself at risk to evacuate residents of a burning apartment building. While completing his rounds, Mr. Viger smelled smoke at an apartment building on his route. Hearing a smoke alarm and seeing smoke pouring from the door and windows of a ground floor apartment, he entered the apartment to find an elderly woman with clothes aflame and hair singed. Viger pulled the woman to safety and extinguished her burning clothing. He proceeded to alert and evacuate other residents of the building, providing comfort and care wherever he could. I am very proud to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Wayne Viger for his actions and for receiving the National Association of Letter Carriers' National Hero of the Year Award. His actions speak to deep-rooted courage and compassion for others as well as quick thinking and decisiveness, qualities which make him a role model for others and a deserving Hero of the Year.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the life of Dr. James Ross of Houlton, ME. As a distinguished senior member of Family Health International, FHI, Dr. Ross made substantial contributions toward the global fight against HIV and AIDS. During his time at FHI, Dr. Ross became a mentor to many, and a benefactor to many more. Before becoming FHI's senior director of Global Operations for the Asia-Pacific Region, Dr. Ross had served as a country program director for nations in both Africa and Asia. My sincere condolences go to his wife, Cheryl, his son, Benjamin James, and all of those who have also been personally touched by Dr. Ross's life and work. While he is no longer with us, his memory and his contributions live on. It is with the utmost gratitude that I salute Dr. Ross. The citizens of the State of Maine, the United States of America and individuals across the globe are extremely fortunate to have had such a wonderful friend and advocate.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007 represents a vision for economic development in our Nation that will help Americans in the most distressed region of our country. In the northern border region, we have seen a clear, persistent pattern of economic distress. If you look at the 36 counties that lie on the border right next to the border between Maine and New York, you will find poverty above the national level average, median household income that is more than $6,500 below the national average. You'll see a persistent unemployment through layoffs and traditional manufacturing industry, and most striking of all, a meager gain in only 0.6 percent of the population between 1990 and 2000, compared to a 13 percent growth nationally over the same period. In short, Mr. Speaker, our mills are closing, our young people are leaving and too many of our workers are looking for work. Clearly, this region has a common set of challenges and a compelling need for investment and new growth. As a mill worker for over 28 years at Great Northern Paper Company, I understand the particular challenges in the border regions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. Like my father and grandfather before me, I left high school and went straight to work in the paper mill in my hometown. After 28 years, and 2 days after I was sworn into Congress, the mill that I worked at went bankrupt, and my hometown was devastated. Unemployment rose to over 33 percent. The story of my hometown and the mills where I worked has been repeated throughout the State of Maine and our region. That is why we need to support this region economic development bill. We have to support our regional industries and build on new job opportunities, and that is why we need to invest in leadership and focus in our regional economic development that the Northern Border Commission would bring. The Northern Border Commission would help the region invest in transportation, health care, agriculture, broadband and alternative energy. It can be a partner with businesses to maintain our industries and build new industry clusters. It can help us create jobs for the long term. We have all the ingredients that we need to face our challenges head on and make our region an economic engine. This new commission would help us make a fundamental change in our future. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working in a bipartisan manner on this bill. I'd like to thank the Chair of the full committee, Chairman Oberstar, and the Chair of the subcommittee, Ms. Norton, for their efforts as well, and also the former Chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Shuster, for all his hard work on the regional commission bills, as well as Congressman Hodes from New Hampshire who has been a true leader in this particular area as well. This bill represents a new way forward for economic development in our Nation for the places and the people that need it most. Let's pass this bill and give our people the hope and the future that they deserve

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2825, designating the post office at 326 South Main Street in Princeton, IL as the Owen Lovejoy Princeton Post Office Building. Owen Lovejoy, born in Albion, ME, and known for his passionate public service, fought for years for the abolition of slavery. At the root of this passion was the memory of his brother Elijah, Presbyterian minister and editor of an abolitionist press. Elijah was murdered by a mob angered by his anti-slavery writings. Owen Lovejoy sought an end to slavery, opening his home to runaway slaves, seeking political office in order to push for change, and serving in the Union Army during the American Civil War. An acquaintance of Abraham Lincoln, Lovejoy served as a platform speaker in support of Lincoln in his famous debates with Stephen Douglas. Our country owes much to individuals like Owen Lovejoy, who, believing in his heart that ``all men are created equal,'' sought an end to slavery. He never sacrificed what he felt was important, and he dedicated his life selflessly to the greater interests of his country. It is an honor for me to speak in support of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 2825 honoring a pioneer and a true public servant.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Today I rise in strong opposition to the Patent Reform Act of 2007. While I appreciate all of the hard work that Chairman Berman did on this bill, I think this bill is bad for our manufacturing industry. We have been told that the manager's amendment significantly improves the bill. It actually is worse than the underlying bill, especially with respect to the damages section in the bill. This bill is fundamentally flawed. It can't be fixed by the manager's amendment. This bill will weaken patent protection by making patents less reliable, easier to challenge, and cheaper to infringe. This bill severely threatens American innovation, jobs and competitiveness and ought to be opposed. Hundreds of companies and organizations around the country have written Congress to raise their strong opposition and their strong objections to certain provisions of this bill. Manufacturers, organized labor, biotech, nanotech, pharmaceuticals, small businesses, universities, and economic development organizations have serious concerns about this legislation. Foreign companies are watching this legislation and are eager to attack U.S. patents. The Economic Times reports that Indian companies see an opportunity to challenge our patents; and by doing so, they will leave our businesses in a litigation crisis. We are compromising many of our industries by passing this bill. We are creating a litigation nightmare. We need to proceed to get a better bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation so we can move forward on legislation with more people who will support patent reform which has to be changed. I urge my colleagues to defeat this legislation.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and I ask my colleagues to consider voting against this rule for one simple reason, and that's time. I respect the work of our Rules Committee; I do not oppose this rule lightly. But the fact of the matter is, under this rule, we would begin debating a huge change to our patent system that would have major ramifications for our economy. We have just returned from a long work period in our districts. We found the committee report filed late in the day when we came back, and two manager's amendments filed late yesterday. Most Members haven't had time to understand what the manager's amendment fixes or doesn't fix. I can tell you, having worked all night late last night with staff to find out what the manager's amendment does: it actually worsens the underlying bill, especially with respect to the damages section of this bill. But Members aren't going to be given the time to really consider what the manager's amendment does or what it does not do. They are going to be told to trust the changes that have been made to fix a badly flawed legislation. Congressman Manzullo and I went to the Rules Committee yesterday to request that we not vote on this bill because it's not ready for floor action. We asked for more time to debate the bill in order for the opposition to be heard. We were denied. With over 300 organizations who are opposed to this legislation, have very serious concerns about this legislation, it is important that their voices be heard in this debate. We do need to address our patent system, and we must have the time to do it and do it right. By voting down this rule, we would give this House and the American people the time to make the right choices for our innovators, our jobs, our economy. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. 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. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. 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.

Mr. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. 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. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. 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. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. 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. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. 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. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. 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.

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.

Mr. MICHAUD. 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.

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.

Mr. MICHAUD. 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.

Mr. MICHAUD. 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.

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes.