Brad Miller

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with my friend, Mr. Bachus, who said this bill is not about income and equality. I think it is at least partly about income and equality. And I disagree with Mr. Roskam, who said that corporate executives, the CEOs, are responsible for the growth in the American economy, the increase in productivity in the American economy, and therefore they should be getting paid much more than they are. Mr. Chairman, I think the American worker is not getting enough credit for the growth in the American economy, for the increase in the productivity of the American economy. They are not getting enough credit on the floor of this House tonight, and they aren't getting enough credit in their paychecks, in how they are compensated, and there is a widening gap. It has never been a particularly small gap in this country. Fifteen years ago, the average CEO, the typical CEO, made 140 times what the average American worker at that corporation made. Now, 15 years later, it is 500 times what they make. It is a significant part of what the corporation makes overall; it is now 10.3 percent. The aggregate compensation of the top five executives is now 10.3 percent of the corporate profits of major corporations, public corporations in America. That is twice what it was 15 years ago. Yes, top corporate executives, CEOs, are getting more and more of the benefit of the growth in productivity and the profitability of corporations, and it is wildly out of alignment with what they are doing, how well they are leading the corporations. In fact, if you allow shareholder democracy, if you let shareholders have a say in how corporate executives are paid, because it is, after all, their company; they are going to insist that corporate performance be in alignment with corporate executives. We don't have shareholder democracy now, Mr. Chairman. This bill begins to get at that. But right now CEOs pick the boards of directors, the boards of directors pick the CEOs, they answer to each other, they don't answer to the shareholders. What we are considering now is very similar to what Great Britain has had for about 5 years, and it has worked pretty well in Great Britain. It has inhibited outrageous pay packages that have gone to CEOs and top executives in Britain. Here is what is happening: The boards of directors know that they are going to have to explain themselves. They are going to have to explain themselves to shareholders. They are going to have to tell shareholders exactly what the compensation is, and they are going to have to explain what it is and what they have done. That has inhibited what they have done. And they have gone back to the CEOs and said to the CEOs, look, we know you are worth every penny of what you are asking. But you know what a Bolshevik rabble our shareholders are. We will never be and to explain it to them. So they scale it back a little bit. And executive compensation in Great Britain has not gone up in the last 5 years the way it has in the United States, and the performance of Great Britain's corporations has been every bit as strong as what we have had here. Mr. Chairman, if we let corporate shareholders vote, if we allow corporate democracy, they are going to insist, they are not going to throw out every pay package. In fact, it has only happened one time in England in the 5 years. GlaxoSmithKline was embarrassed pretty badly, and they went back and they renegotiated their pay compensation for their CEO. But it has inhibited their conduct, and shareholders have voted for very generous pay packages where it is justified by the performance of the corporate executives. This bill makes a very modest change. But by simply requiring corporate boards of directors to explain what they are doing, to say right out in front of God and everybody what they are paying the CEO and why they are paying him that much, it has had an important change in corporate conduct in Great Britain, and it should here as well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Frank.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I originally introduced as an amendment to the Energy Bill, what is now section 917 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Then Chairman Boehlert accepted that amendment in the 108th, and then made it part of the base bill the next time that it came through this committee in the 109th. H.R. 85 makes improving changes to section 917, to make it an even more effective program. There has never been a partisan divide over this program. This committee passed the language in this bill as part of a broader energy bill that Mrs. Biggert introduced in the last Congress. I thank the Chairman for working to get this bill to the House floor and thank Mrs. Biggert for continuing to work with me on the issue of energy technology transfer. The purpose of the program is to encourage the use in the real world of energy efficiency technologies that have been developed with, often, federally funded research, the Department of Energy, but that has sat unused on the shelf. Using those energy efficiency technologies offers the promise of immediate help with our problems, with our energy needs, our dependency, and we should be using every effort to try to make ourselves more energy independent. This bill would extend those ways of delivering energy conservation and efficiency programs to include cooperative extension services, which is a definite improvement, and important, that these energy efficiency technologies make their way into rural America. And I hope that these improvements to Sec 917 of EPACT really do make the program much more comprehensive and will send a message to the Department of Energy and to the appropriators that this program should be funded. The President's budget request failed to request funding for this program this year. In the 109th Congress the appropriators failed to include funding, despite my best efforts and many efforts to tug at someone's sleeve and get their attention, to try to include it in the appropriations bill. And I hope with a strong bipartisan effort this year, this program can be funded, and we can begin to make sure we get into practical use the energy efficiency technologies that we have developed.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, like most Members of Congress, I have visited our men and women in uniform in Iraq. I have visited our wounded in the hospital at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany and at the hospital in Balad Air Base in Iraq; and I have offered my condolences to grieving families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. I respect and appreciate our men and women in uniform in Iraq. They have served nobly, and they deserve our prayers. Mr. Speaker, they have done their duty, and now we must do our duty. Our duty to the Constitution, our duty to our country, our duty to our men and women in uniform is to look with clear eyes at the facts and to exercise independent judgment. For 4 years, this Congress has failed in that duty. For 4 years, this Congress has passed one resolution after another, offering uncritical support for the President's policies in Iraq. In June, Congress passed a resolution finding that we were well along the path to a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq and the Iraqi Security Forces were operating independently of our forces and were increasingly leading the fight to secure Iraq. Mr. Speaker, that is what Republicans did when they were in the majority. They played make believe. Americans knew better then, and we certainly know better down. The Iraqi Study Group report, just a couple of months ago, described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating. The most recent National Intelligence Estimate, just a week ago, described the situation in even starker terms, ``The violence is now feeding on itself, and it is too complex to be called simply a civil war.'' The estimate concluded that all of the likely outcomes are grim. For 4 years, patriotic Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, have anguished over events in Iraq and have given deep and prayerful thought to alternatives, but the Bush Administration dismissed and insulted dissenters and often made fierce attempts to discredit them. Not even General Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, or James Baker, Secretary of State for the first President Bush, was spared; and the Bush administration has treated criticism by Members of Congress as meddling, as sticking our nose in their war. House Democrats have offered plan after plan to alter our course in Iraq, and House Republicans have greeted every plan with strident attack. Let's consider the new plan that President Bush has proposed. The force initially committed to Iraq was well short of what General Shinseki said would be required to secure the country. When I visited Iraq 3 years ago, the presence of our forces in Baghdad may not have been enough to secure order, but it was more than enough to remind every Iraqi every day that there was a foreign army on their soil. When I visited Iraq a year and a half ago, our military forces in Baghdad were less noticeable. Our briefing officer explained that we had deliberately reduced our footprint to lessen the resentment of Iraqis so that Iraqis would come into daily contact with Iraqi security forces, not our men and women. But the violence only increased. We tried twice last year to reduce the violence by increasing Iraqi and American forces in Baghdad. The Iraqi forces didn't show up, and twice the effort failed, and violence has continued to increase. Now we are trying it again and calling it a new plan: Less troops, more troops, less troops, more troops. House Republicans are playing make believe again to call that a new plan. The apocalyptic violence in Iraq will not be solved militarily. Congressman David Price and I introduced a resolution setting forth a comprehensive plan which Mr. Price described here the other day. We need to engage Iraq's neighbors through regional diplomacy to provide economic assistance, conditioned on a genuine attempt at national reconciliation, and to begin a phased withdrawal of our troops. Our plan includes many of the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group report was right: No path is certain of success. And after 4 years of failed policy, all of our options are grim. But the resolution we will vote on shortly is a first step toward doing our duty by looking realistically at events in Iraq and by forcing us to consider what our options really are.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to pay tribute to ``The Town of Friendly People,'' Zebulon, North Carolina, which celebrates its 100th birthday this year. Zebulon was founded on February 16, 1907, and was named to honor Zebulon Baird Vance, North Carolina's Governor during the Civil War. Governor Vance insisted, even in the midst of confusion and destruction of the Civil War, on maintaining the rule of law. North Carolina courts continued to function throughout the war, and North Carolina was the only State that never suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Some of the early businesses in the town of Zebulon belonged to African American residents, like Surratt Dillard, who owned the town's first restaurant. The Wakelon School Building was built in 1909, telephones came to the town in 1911, and the first electric light system was installed in 1916. Today, some of the Nation's leading companies have chosen Zebulon as the place to do business. In the past 100 years, the town size has grown by nearly 10 times, and nearly 5,000 folks now call Zebulon home. I join the residents of Zebulon in their centennial celebration and I continue to work on the town's behalf.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Turner of Ohio and I are the cochairs of the Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus. I am proud to rise today, as cochair of that caucus, to recognize the 35th anniversary of the District of Columbia Preservation League. In 1971 the old post office on Pennsylvania Avenue was slated for demolition to allow completion of an addition to the Federal Triangle Building. In part, to save that Washington landmark, the DCPL, which is also known as Don't Tear it Down, was founded. And since then, the DCPL has worked tirelessly to preserve Washington's historic treasures and save many of the unique features of this great city, the features that really define our Nation's capital. Washington's history and character are among Washington's greatest assets, and are vital to the local economic development efforts. Advocacy and education have been at the forefront of the DCPL's mission. The League has produced educational programs, including tours, lectures, newsletters and guides of historic districts here in Washington, and since 1996 has annually published a list of Washington's most endangered places. For the last 35 years, the DCPL has prepared, sponsored, or cosponsored more than 120 individual District of Columbia landmark nominations and many historic district nominations throughout the Nation's Capital. Mr. Speaker, this is just a sampling of the efforts that the DCPL puts into protecting the history of the District of Columbia. I am sure the League will continue to make invaluable contributions to this city, and every member of the League, every member, every citizen of the District of Columbia, has every right to feel proud of the history of the work, the legacy of the DCPL. I urge all of the citizens of Washington and supporters of historic preservation around the country to join me in commending the DCPL for its dedication and commitment to preserving and protecting the history and environment of this city through the work of advocacy and education. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to submit for the Record a resolution, a proclamation by the Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus, recognizing Thursday, January 25, 2007 as the DCPL's 35th anniversary. Whereas, the DC Preservation League was founded by dedicated volunteers in 1971 as Don't Tear It Down, to save the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue and other notable downtown buildings from Federal Government-sponsored demolition, Whereas, Don't Tear It Down worked to provide protection for historic landmarks and historic districts in the Nation's Capital through the establishment of the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act (D.C. Law 2-144) in 1978, Whereas, over the last 35 years the DC Preservation League has prepared, sponsored or co-sponsored more than 120 individual DC Landmark nominations and numerous historic district nominations throughout the Nation's Capital, Whereas, to carry out its mission of preservation advocacy and education, the DC Preservation League has produced educational programs including tours, lectures, citywide conferences, candidates' forums, publications including newsletters, information brochures and guides to historic districts, and since 1996 has annually publicized a list of Washington's Most Endangered Places, Whereas, the DC Preservation League works with the government of the United States, its federal agency representatives, committees appointed by the President, and organizations chartered by Congress to advocate for the preservation of historic resources as a vital component of the economic and cultural life of our Nation's Capital, Whereas, the DC Preservation League is supported by members, contributors and volunteers from across the Washington, DC region who are dedicated to the promotion of the history of the Nation's Capital for visitors and residents alike, Whereas, the DC Preservation League will celebrate 35 years of preservation activism as Washington, DC's only citywide non-profit historic preservation organization at the historic Willard InterContinental Hotel on Thursday, January 25, 2007, As co-chairs of the Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus, we would like to recognize January 25, 2007 as the DC Preservation League's 35th Anniversary.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the Republican solution to our energy needs is to drill anywhere no matter what. We desperately need to develop new energy technologies, but those efforts have been minuscule. Instead the Republican Congress has given massive tax breaks to all companies, as if they need any more incentive. The profits of the five largest oil companies in America, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco, Conoco, Phillips, BP and Shell, were $342.4 billion in just the first quarter of this year. Next year, those companies are going to have some explaining to do. In the first 100 hours of the new Congress, we are going to take the tax breaks and subsidies that this Congress has thrown at oil companies and invest them instead in the new energy technologies that are the real solution to our energy needs. Mr. Speaker, a real energy agenda is coming. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Ms. Pryce of Ohio apparently does not bet on college basketball.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in preparation for National School Backpack Awareness Day, taking place on September 20, 2006, I would like to recognize the many occupational therapists (OT) and occupational therapy assistants (OTA) that live and work in my district. Each September, members of the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), students, and other health professionals join forces to alert the public, particularly teachers, parents, and children about the dangers of improperly wearing overweight backpacks. Occupational therapists are health, wellness, and rehabilitation professionals, dedicated to maximizing the independence, function and performance of their clients. In other words, they provide them with the ``skills for the job of living''. Concerned that increasingly heavy backpacks may be putting school children at risk for long-term health problems, AOTA is sponsoring its fifth National School Backpack Awareness Day. Thousands of occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants work in school systems, pediatric hospitals, and other health care facilities, in order to help children develop the skills they need to participate fully at school, home, and in play. The goal of the National School Backpack Awareness Day is to reduce the load students carry to 15 percent or less of the child's weight. More than 350 participants in schools, stores, and health fairs from all 50 states will help ``weigh-in'' thousands of children to ensure their backpacks meet the 15 percent weight goal. They will also help educate students about the risks of carrying too much weight, and will teach them the proper way to pack and wear a backpack. As part of the National Backpack Awareness Day, therapists at the General Greene Elementary School in Greensboro, NC will educate students and teachers about the importance of loading and wearing backpacks the right way in order to avoid back and shoulder pain, stooped posture, muscle pain, and headaches. I am particularly aware of the role occupational therapists play within our public schools as one of the members of my staff previously worked as a school system occupational therapist. OTs use their unique expertise to help children perform important learning and school- related activities that are part of their role as a student. Additionally, occupational therapists and occupational therapy assistants play a critical role in training parents, staff, and caregivers regarding the education, health, and success of students with diverse learning needs. Please join me in support of all the occupational therapists, occupational therapy assistants, school children, and other participants whose efforts will make the 2006 National School Backpack Awareness Day such a success.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I regret that there are no NASA facilities in my district. We are available if NASA has the need of additional facilities. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. As the adult who sat transfixed as a child in my elementary school classroom and watched as we launched first Alan Shepard, then Gus Grissom and then John Glenn into space, and sat and watched transfixed each time we put human beings into space, it is a remarkable accomplishment. I feel as much in awe of the crew of STS-121 as I felt as a small child in watching those first Mercury flights. It is an accomplishment that requires great skill, and, as we have been painfully reminded on two occasions, it is one that still requires great physical courage. This is not a safe undertaking. It cannot be made safe. It requires great physical courage for the crew to fly into space to pursue space travel as they do. It is also a remarkable accomplishment for the team of employees at NASA who remained on the ground and for all the contractors as well, the team at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The crew of the STS-121, again, I know that Mr. Calvert has already said who they were, Colonel Steve Lindsey, Commander Mark Kelly, Piers Sellers, Ph.D., Lieutenant Colonel Mike Fossum, Commander Lisa Nowak, Stephanie Wilson and Thomas Reiter, specifically launched into orbit above the Space Shuttle Discovery, the second return-to-space flight after the disaster, the tragedy of a few years ago. Colonel Lindsey said after landing STS-121 that there were two goals for the mission. The first was to complete the return-to-flight tasks begun with the first return-to-flight mission in July of 2005 by flying an improved external tank and testing shuttle repair procedures while in orbit, which apparently is considerably more difficult than conducting those repairs in a garage bay or in a bay. The second goal was to prepare the international space station for future assembly and to boost the number of people living on the space station from two to three. Both of those goals were successfully completed by the mission. For the first time since 2003, the international space station now has three members. European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Reiter joined Russian Pavel Vinogradov and American Jeff Williams. In addition to those goals, the crew was able to make never-before- seen high-resolution images of the shuttle during and after the July Fourth launch, making that mission the most photographed in the shuttle mission. And the tragedy a few years ago has reminded us, or should remind us, that that ability to look at the shuttle and figure out its current status, its current condition is one that is critical to successful safe future flights. There were many high-definition digital, video and film cameras documenting the launch and the climb into orbit, and they did help determine whether the shuttle had experienced any damage and whether there were any concerns with return to Earth such as the tragedy that came upon the Discovery. They also performed inspection of the shuttle heat shield while in space. And on their third space walk during the mission, they tested different techniques for inspecting and repairing the reinforced carbon segments that protect the shuttle's nose cone and the right leading edge, again, an important safety concern because of the Discovery tragedy. The crew also delivered 28,000 pounds of equipment and supplies to the international space station and repaired a rail car on the international space station. Through this successful launch and the technological advances that the crew made while in space, we can look forward in the not-too- distant future to the complete assembly of the international space station. Mr. Speaker, it also increases, the successful mission increases, the likelihood that we can keep the Hubble space telescope in service, perform necessary repairs as well as routine maintenance, to the extent that you can call that routine maintenance. Mr. Speaker, the flights of the Discovery showed that the team of NASA employees and contractors still have the right stuff or still are deserving of our awe and admiration, as the awe and admiration I felt as a child for those first Mercury astronauts. Mr. Speaker, there being no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office, our Nation had a $5.6 trillion surplus. President Bush said that the surplus proved taxes were too high and called for cutting taxes on the richest Americans. Then he said because the economy was doing badly, we had to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes on the richest Americans. The richest Americans, President Bush said, would sleep in and spend the afternoon watching soap operas instead of creating jobs for other Americans, unless they got a generous tax cut. Now President Bush and Congressional Republicans say that the same tax rates on the richest Americans in effect when we had a surplus would now cause the deficit to worsen. Mr. Speaker, the Republican fondness for cutting taxes on the richest Americans has nothing to do with job creation or stimulating the economy or reducing the deficit. The tax cuts on the richest Americans has resulted in turning a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit, pushing interest rates up, stagnating savings rates, and dragging the economy down. My colleagues, Mr. Hensarling and Mr. McHenry, were correct in their remarks a few minutes ago: this Republican Congress has absolutely no discipline on the spending side. But neither do they have any discipline on the tax side. Mr. Speaker, pay-as-you-go budget rules worked in the 1990s to control the deficit and kept Congress from working on economic fantasies. It is time to bring those rules back. Mr. Speaker, congratulations Hurricanes.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included two provisions to improve the technology transfer of new energy technologies, neither one of which has received any funding in this appropriations bill. Section 1001 of the bill would establish a technology commercialization fund by dedicating .9 percent of DOE research funding to tech transfer. The Appropriations Committee, I understand, has not funded that provision, because the committee considers the dedicated funding source a tax on the funding of important research programs at the Department of Energy. But, Mr. Chairman, also, section 917 of the bill, which I first offered as an amendment in the Science Committee, authorizes the establishment of Advanced Energy Efficiency Technology Transfer Centers. This section authorizes such funds as may be appropriate, around $10 million, and does not take funding away from other research funding into alternative energy. However, this appropriations bill also provides no funding for those technology transfer centers either. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this bill does substantially increase funding for energy efficiency, for renewable energy, for basic research. I devoutly wish that it was increased more still. But I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we are ignoring solutions to our energy problems that are available to us now. I am concerned that we are not supporting moving technology out of the laboratory and into the marketplace, where such technologies will save consumers and businesses on their energy bills. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you and the committee will recognize the importance of technology transfer and provide a near-term solution to our energy needs and provide appropriate funding.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, but there is so much more that we need to be doing. In fact, there is so much more that we should have done already. The task before us, the urgent task before us, is to develop a practical, sustainable energy source or array of sources that will allow this Nation to be energy independent without busting the budget of middle class families just to go to work, to take the kids to school, to go to the grocery store. We need practical, sustainable energy sources that do not emit the greenhouse gases that many scientists, really most scientists now fear will lead to catastrophic climate change, that will forever alter life on this planet, and we need practical, sustainable energy sources that will not so limit our options in foreign policy that we have to be uncritical friends to some of the most unattractive nations or governments in the world. Mr. Speaker, we do need to pursue research into hydrogen, but we need an effort comparable to the effort during World War II, the Manhattan Project. We need an effort, to use Mr. Inglis' analogy, like the effort that this Nation had in the 1960s to reach the Moon. That is the effort we need to put behind developing alternative fuels and conservation technologies and to move those energy and conservation technologies into widespread commercial use. I have sponsored legislation that Mr. Boehlert, the Chair of the Science Committee who spoke a moment ago, and Mr. Markey, my Democratic colleague, have introduced that would increase fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks to 33 miles a gallon by 2015. Mr. Speaker, that goal can be achieved now with existing technologies, without any technological breakthrough. I feel almost embarrassed at how modest that bill is, how lacking in ambition that bill is. But even that the leadership of this House has not been willing to bring to the floor for debate and for a vote. But, Mr. Speaker, in our hearing on hydrogen technology, in our hearing in the Science Committee on the H-Prize legislation, one of the witnesses said that we could achieve cars and trucks that average 100 miles a gallon in the relatively near future if we really put our minds to it. Why on Earth are we not doing that? Why on Earth are we not acting with the urgency that our energy needs require? Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the President's budget this year did increase funding for research into sustainable energy sources. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the President's budget found much of that additional funding from cuts to energy efficiency efforts. We need to proceed on several fronts at one time. We need to proceed without bias, without preconception. A hydrogen economy or hydrogen fuel cells may not be the winning technology. As several of the speakers have said already, there are huge obstacles to overcome. Yes, hydrogen is abundant, but not as hydrogen. We need to find hydrogen sources, and the present source of hydrogen is by stripping it out of other fuels. Yes, when hydrogen is combined with oxygen to produce energy, that is a clean technology, but stripping hydrogen from fuels now is not clean. It is a very dirty technology, and the usual source of fuels from which it is stripped are fossil fuels, not sustainable, renewable energy sources. Mr. Speaker, hydrogen technology, to have a hydrogen fuel cell car in every driveway, would make useless the infrastructure we now have, the pipelines, the tanks, the pumps, to transport, to distribute a fuel that is liquid on the planet Earth, which hydrogen is not. So let's proceed. Let's proceed to develop, to provide an incentive to the private sector to develop the kinds of technologies we are going to need if hydrogen fuel cells are ever to be a practical source of energy for us. But let us proceed on several fronts. I hope this Congress will be back soon. I will vote for this bill today, but I hope that Congress will be back soon to consider other prizes for energy, other alternative energy sources, other prizes for energy conservation, and that this Congress gives the urgent attention to energy independence, to sustainable energy sources that we desperately need, that the middle class families now paying $3 a gallon desperately need.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the Price-Miller resolution. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans feel increasing frustration with the contrived reasons given for invading Iraq, with the lack of any realistic plan for the aftermath of our invasion, and with the administration's failure to state clearly what has to happen for our military to come home. And I feel the same frustration. This administration has said simply that we should stay the course, but has failed to declare our port of destination. It is hard to believe that there is a course, that we are not simply drifting rudderless. Mr. Speaker, it has become painfully clear that most Iraqis now see our military, who has served admirably, as an occupying army. Iraqis believe the United States intends to occupy Iraq on a long-term basis, and they believe that our government intends to dominate the elected Iraqi Government, rather than respect that government as the legitimate government of a fully sovereign nation with control of its own natural resources, security and public safety. Iraqi suspicions about our intentions undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi Government and fuel the insurgency that continues unabated. Mr. Speaker, if our presence in Iraq is truly not for Iraq's oil or for a permanent staging area for our military operations in that part of the world, we need to say so. We need to state clearly that we do not intend a long-term occupation of Iraq, and the Iraqis will determine their own future. We need to say out loud that we will transfer to Iraq security forces the bases now used by our military, and that we will maintain no permanent bases or long-term military presence in Iraq. The Price-Miller resolution calls for more than the platitudes that we stay the course or finish the job. We demand that the President state clearly the remaining mission of our military in Iraq, and to state the time period that the President believes will be required to accomplish that mission, what needs to happen for our men and women to come home, and when does the Bush administration think that it will happen. Mr. Speaker, there is no better way to persuade the Iraqi people that we really intend to withdrew than to begin withdrawing. The Price- Miller resolution calls for a partial withdrawal as soon as possible. There is still work to be done to help the new Iraqi Government achieve stability and an enduring democracy, and we need to give new urgency to those efforts. We need to train Iraq security forces and engage other nations in that effort. We need to help reconstruction efforts and provide diplomatic support to the new government. But the referendum approving the new Constitution gives us an opportunity, an opportunity we must seize, to change fundamentally what we are fighting for, and what the Iraqi insurgents are fighting against. Mr. Speaker, we cannot do that unless we say credibly out loud that our military is not there to stay.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I also rise to oppose this rule because it does not allow this Congress to consider the amendments offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) to authorize or reauthorize the advanced technology program. Mr. Speaker, in the almost 3 years that I have served in the House of Representatives, I am not sure that I have heard any words spoken on this floor with which I have disagreed more strongly than with the statement of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) just a few minutes ago that we were doing enough already to address the problem of manufacturing job loss. I think his exact words were it is simply not true that we are not doing enough, that Congress and the President are not doing enough to address manufacturing job loss. If the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) thinks this, if any Member of Congress thinks that, I invite them to come and visit my district. I want to introduce them to some of the people who have lost their jobs. My State has lost almost 200,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 4 years. They are in industries that have been the backbone of my State's economy: tobacco, textiles, furniture. And those were jobs that people depended upon to build their lives around, to support themselves and to support their families, and they are gone. It is not that they have laid off a shift until the economy turns around. The plants are closed. The equipment is sold. The jobs are gone forever. What to do about that was part of the debate about CAFTA, about any kind of trade agreement that we have. And I voted against CAFTA, but I also agree that that is not the entire answer because it cannot possibly be our Nation's economic future to build our economy around low-skilled jobs and labor-intensive industries. We have got to be the most innovative economy in the world. When I meet with the workers who have lost their jobs, they do not say, What are you going to do to make the plant reopen? They do ask, Where are the new jobs going to come from and what is Congress doing about it? I certainly do not tell them what the gentleman from Georgia said. I do not say we are already doing everything that can be done. I say we are doing not nearly enough, but I am working hard to do more. We have got to be the most innovative economy in the world. We have got to be where every new research, where all the new research happens first, and where we turn that research into a commercial application to create jobs. Mr. Speaker, the advanced technology program, ATP, works with industry in this very, very competitive world market, to work with industry to create new technologies, to get them up, to get them running, to get patents, to do a proof of concept. It is about the only source of patient capital for many high-tech small companies in areas like nanotechnology where we really need to be at the forefront. Most of the debate about jobs, Mr. Speaker, is what are we going to do about jobs between now and the next election. The ATP should be a debate about what are we going to do about jobs for the next generation. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule without the Honda amendment.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I know that today's session was a formality, that there would be no votes other than a voice vote; but I thought it was important to be here, to show my support for the victims of Hurricane Katrina in whatever way I could, however modest. Martin Luther King said that we cannot walk alone. We are responsible for one another. We help others in need on the faith that when we are in need, we will be helped. North Carolinians have twice faced desperate needs following devastating hurricanes in just the last decade. Other Americans have responded generously, both acting together through their government and in their contributions to private relief efforts. Americans are again responding generously to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. But, Mr. Speaker, I share the anger of many Americans at how shamefully inadequate our government's response has been. Tens of thousands of Americans are living outside the walls of civilization. They are without food, they are without water to drink, they are without medicine or medical care, they are without effective shelter. Mr. Speaker, they are without the protection against violence that law provides. The failures that have led to that are not the failures of the last 4 days, but of the last 4 years. There have been repeated warnings that New Orleans and the Gulf Coast were vulnerable to precisely what has occurred, and yet our government was stunningly unprepared. The President's press secretary was asked earlier this week about our Nation's response, our government's response to the hurricane, and he said now is not the time for finger-pointing. Earlier today on this floor the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) said now is not the time for finger-pointing. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has said now is not the time for finger-pointing. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) said now is not the time for recrimination. The gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) said now is not the time for recrimination or for finger-pointing. They say that this is a time to grieve for the victims of the hurricane; and, Mr. Speaker, I do grieve for the victims of the hurricane. They say now is the time to help the victims of the hurricane; and, Mr. Speaker, I want to help the victims of the hurricane in every way I can. I am here today, and like millions of Americans, my wife and I are contributing to private relief efforts. But, Mr. Speaker, there has to come a time for accountability. If there is not accountability for the stunning failures that we have seen in our government's response to this hurricane, we will fail again and again. I know that this administration thinks that accountability is an ephemeral thing. If there is an attempt at accountability too soon, it is finger-pointing. If there is an attempt at accountability too late, then it is something you should get over. There is just a moment for accountability. Mr. Speaker, tell me when that moment will be? Tell me precisely when the moment will come for accountability for the failures of our response, for the failures of our planning that have led to the devastation and the hardships that we are seeing now. Mr. Speaker, tell me where the line forms to ask hard questions.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the presidential election in 2000 was effectively decided by the Supreme Court. In his dissent, Justice Stephens said: ``It is the confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law . . . Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear: It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.'' Mr. Speaker, Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike did accept the Supreme Court's decision and the legitimacy of President Bush's election. But, Mr. Speaker, what confidence will Americans have in judges nominated without consultation, without the advice and consent that the Constitution provides for, and confirmed by a bare majority despite strong objections to the impartiality of those judges, confirmed only by shamelessly ignoring the rules that have governed the Senate for more than two centuries? Mr. Speaker, why should Americans accept the decisions of those judges as legitimate? And, Mr. Speaker, just what will be left of the rule of law?

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there are a few things in life about which I am certain. I am certain that the word ``barbecue'' means chopped pork with a vinegar-based sauce. I am certain that ordering grits north of Richmond is a terrible gamble. And I am certain that the order of the universe, the plan of salvation, provides that the University of North Carolina will be a national power in college basketball. Mr. Speaker, it was tough for a couple of years, but order has been restored. With the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) I attended this year's Final Four in St. Louis. I honored the tradition begun by Roy Williams, who was then an assistant to Dean Smith, at the Final Four in New Orleans in 1982: I spat in the Mississippi River for luck. I went to the top of the Gateway Arch, and I spat in Mississippi. I visited the Museum of Westward Expansion, and I spat in the Mississippi. I visited the old courthouse where the Dred Scott case was tried, and I spat in the Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I went through the weekend with a cotton mouth. At times I was dizzy from dehydration, all from the constant spitting, but my efforts were amply rewarded in the semifinal against Michigan State and in the final against Illinois. North Carolina played tough defense. They hustled they played team ball and they won it all. I am proud of my alma mater, and I am proud of our basketball program. I am proud that our program has always taken academics seriously, and even those players who left early for NBA careers have usually returned to summer school to complete their degrees. I am proud that our program has taken NCAA rules seriously, and of course, I am proud of our victories. I want to congratulate the coaches and the players from the 2005 National Championship team, as well as the students, the faculty and staff, the alumni and the fans. I thank our players for the joy they brought all Carolina fans by their victory. Next year may be tough, with our seven leading scorers all either graduating or leaving for the NBA, but Jawad Williams, Jackie Manuel, Melvin Scott, Sean May, Rashad McCants, Raymond Felton, Marvin Williams, but Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will again be back to the Final Four and soon. We have talented young players from this year's team, this last year's team, who are returning, who welcome to our program a strong class of incoming freshman. They are very talented high school juniors who are now contemplating scholarship offers and the opportunity to be part of the Carolina basketball tradition. All these incoming players will come to understand what the Carolina basketball tradition means. It is about winning championships, but it is also about making us proud, proud of them as athletes, as students and as human beings, and Mr. Speaker, it is about maintaining the order of the universe.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the financial condition of American working and middle-class families is a mess. Wages are stagnant, health care costs are exploding, the individual savings rate for 2004 was 1 percent, and credit card debt is more than $800 billion. The bright spot is that 69 percent of American families own their own home. The equity that American families build in their homes by years of faithfully paying a mortgage is the bulk of the net worth, the life savings, of most homeowners. Homeownership is more than an investment. The deed to a home is a membership card to the middle class. Families living on the fringes of poverty can begin to get their footing when they own their own home and become part of a neighborhood where parents know their children's playmates. Financially vulnerable families are even more likely to have to borrow against the equity in their homes to provide for life's rainy days, however. Every American homeowner faces a mountain of documents when they borrow money to buy a home or when they use their home to secure a loan. Many vulnerable homeowners borrow knowing only how much their monthly payment will be, only to learn later that they signed away a big part of their home equity, of their life savings. There are lending practices that should offend anyone with a conscience. Let me give my colleagues one of the stories from North Carolina that prompted the North Carolina legislature, not generally seen as a hotbed of liberalism, to enact legislation to prohibit predatory lending 6 years ago. A lender approached an elderly school employee in Durham about refinancing her home to consolidate her debts. The lender charged her $17,542 in up-front costs on a $99,000 loan, including a $5,002 origination fee, a $2,142 loan discount fee, and a $9,089 single- payment, nonrefundable credit premium insurance. She would never have written a $17,542 check at closing, but when she signed the closing documents, the charges came straight out of the equity she had built in her home, straight out of her life's savings. The North Carolina law enacted in 1999 has put an end to practices like that, and without hindering honest lenders from making loans to vulnerable families that need to borrow against their home. Sub-prime credit remains readily available in North Carolina. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and I have introduced Federal legislation based on North Carolina's proven law. Critics of our legislation argue that we would restrict consumer choice. Most consumers would like the choice of knowing they are not being taken advantage of; that when they borrow money against their home for a rainy day, they are not entering into a spiral that results in losing their life's savings, their home, and their membership in the middle class. That choice is not now available to many American homeowners. We look forward to working with others in Congress and in the financial services industry. We welcome proposals from others to prohibit abuses. But we also want to make sure that Congress does not pass legislation that permits new abuses. We must make sure that the protections of any new law are not easily avoided, and we cannot handcuff the States' ability to protect consumers. Sub-prime lending is now a $530 billion industry, and growing. Vulnerable consumers cannot afford to have to come back to Congress again and again for real protections against abusive sub-prime lending practices. David's victory over Goliath was considered an upset, and Goliath would have been heavily favored in a best-of-seven series. If Congress passes predatory lending legislation, we need to get it right the first time. Consumers cannot count on having a second chance.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution honoring an act of conscience and courage that forever changed North Carolina, the South, and the Nation. The Greensboro Four, David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain and Jibreel Khazan, then Ezell Blair, Jr., changed our Nation's history while freshmen at North Carolina A&T, an Historically Black University in Greensboro. Like college freshmen everywhere, they spent endless hours in discussions in their dormitory rooms. ``We challenged each other, really,'' Richmond said of their discussions. ``We constantly heard about all the evils that are occurring and how blacks are mistreated and nobody was doing anything about it. We used to question why is it that you have to sit in the balcony? Why do you have to ride in the back of the bus?'' McNeil told friends at the time, ``It is time to take some action now. We have been people who talk a lot, but with very little action.'' McCain said later, ``We had been talking about it for a long time. Each of us had been bugged by it and we felt very strongly. The night before we did it, we had a bull session at McNeil's room that lasted all night long.'' Khazan said, ``It was time to wake up and change the situation. We decided to start here.'' McNeil said, ``From my perspective, it was a down payment on manhood.'' On that dare to each other, the next day, February 1, 1960, at about 3:30 in the afternoon, the four entered the Woolworth's on South Elm Street in downtown Greensboro and sat at the ``whites only'' lunch counter. When they were refused service, they remained seated until the counter closed at 5. They vowed to return the next day and to keep coming back until they were treated the same way that whites were treated. That night, word spread quickly at A&T and Bennett College, an Historically Black Women's College in Greensboro, about what the four students called their ``sit down'' protest. The next day they returned with 19 of the other A&T students, some wearing ROTC uniforms, others wearing coats and ties. They were again denied service, and they again remained seated at the lunch counter. That night the membership of the Greensboro branch of the NAACP voted unanimously to support the student protest. The next day, the four students returned again, this time with 85 other students from A&T, from Bennett College and from Dudley High School, the black high school from which three of the Greensboro Four had graduated just the year before. That Saturday, 1,000 protesters filled the Woolworth's. McNeil said, ``I guess everybody was pretty much fed up at the same time.'' In the Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the civil rights movement, ``Parting the Waters,'' Taylor Branch wrote, ``No one had time to wonder whether the Greensboro sit-in was so different. In the previous three years, similar demonstrations had occurred in at least 16 other cities. Few of them made the news, all faded quickly from public notice, and none had the slightest catalytic effect anywhere else. By contrast, Greensboro helped defined the decade.'' In the next few days, there were sit-in demonstrations in Winston- Salem, Durham, Raleigh, Fayetteville, Charlotte, and High Point. Two weeks after the first sit-in, Dr. Martin Luther King toured the Woolworth's in Durham that was the target of protests there. That night he spoke at a rally supporting the protests. ``What is fresh, what is new in your fight,'' King said, ``is the fact that it was initiated, led and sustained by students. What is new is that American students have come of age. You now take your honored place in the worldwide struggle for freedom.'' On April 3, Thurgood Marshall spoke at Bennett College and urged the students to continue the protests. On Easter weekend, Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference organized a meeting at Shaw University in rally of student sit-in protesters. The students formed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, SNCC, to organize more protests. In July, the Woolworth's in Greensboro integrated the lunch counter, and the Kress store across the street integrated its lunch counter the same day. By August of 1961, more than 70,000 people had participated in sit- ins, resulting in more than 3,000 arrests. The sit-ins became an important tributary of the river of the civil rights movement, which resulted eventually in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Speaker, there are many Members of this body who were part of that movement. Many more remember the sit-ins as if they were yesterday. I was a 6-year-old child living in Fayetteville, North Carolina. My memories of Jim Crow and of the civil rights movement are dim and distant. I remember going to the county courthouse on some errand with my father and seeing two water fountains. I assumed that the ``white'' water was like the water that came out of my tap at home. I could not understand why my father would not let me try the ``colored'' water. I vaguely, vaguely, remember the protests in Fayetteville. I would like to think that if the civil rights movement had been delayed by a decade or by a generation, I would have recognized as I grew up the injustice of segregation and I would have acted against it. I can never know that. But I am proud to join with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and many others in introducing this resolution and to speak for it today. I realize, as Dr. King said, that we cannot walk alone. The destiny of all Americans is tied up with the destiny of others and the freedom of all Americans is inextricably bound to the freedom of other Americans. The Greensboro Four remain an inspiration to all Americans not simply to accept the world as we find it, but to recognize injustice, and when it is time to change the situation, start where you are.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) in rising tonight to remember an act of courage and conscience 45 years ago today that forever changed North Carolina, the South, and our Nation. On February 1, 1960, four African American students at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina A&T, walked into the F. W. Woolworth store in downtown Greensboro and sat down at the ``whites' only'' lunch counter. They were refused service, but they continued to sit at the lunch counter in nonviolent protest. The courageous nonviolent protests of the four A&T freshmen, Jibrel Khazan, then Ezell Blair, Jr.; David Richmond; Joseph McNeil; and Franklin McCain, the Greensboro Four, inspired sit-ins across North Carolina and the South to protest racial segregation in public accommodations and in every other area of life. The sit-in movement became a critical part of the civil rights movements and led eventually to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the integration of public accommodations in America. Today, I attended a celebration in Greensboro marking the 45th anniversary of the beginning of the sit-in movement. In July, the Woolworth's store in downtown Greensboro, hallowed ground to the civil rights movement, will open as an international civil rights museum. Mr. Speaker, we no longer have whites-only lunch counters. Ending segregation has made our Nation a more decent and just society, but there remains much work to be done to achieve racial justice. There remain disparities in almost every aspect of life. And the courage and conscience of the Greensboro Four remains an inspiration for all Americans to recognize injustice, to refuse to accept injustice, to act against injustice.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, throughout the country there has been a rebirth of the arts, and the importance of the arts to economic development and revitalization in our communities deserves to be recognized. Cultural facilities and events enhance property values, tax resources and overall profitability for our cities and towns. In doing so, the arts have become a direct contributor to reviving many of our urban and rural areas. From major metropolitan areas to small towns, the arts have proven to be sound economic investments. I value the contributions made by the arts and believe that Congress has a responsibility to support the arts and all cultural activities. Nationally, the arts have had a profound effect on community development but more specifically, have assisted in the economic growth in my home state of North Carolina. I am pleased to present an article by Mr. Lawrence J. Wheeler, Director of the North Carolina Museum of Art, that brings attention to the development and economic effect that the arts have had in North Carolina. In his editorial entitled ``For Development, Draw on N.C.'s Arts,'' which appeared in the News & Observer earlier this year, Mr. Wheeler provides insight into the positive influence that the arts have had upon communities in North Carolina. Mr. Wheeler rightfully calls on the arts to be used as full partners in future economic planning, and I believe that Congress and state governments should heed this advice. [Editorial-Opinion--the News & Observer, April 27, 2004] For Development, Draw on N.C.'s Arts Twenty years ago, the idea of using art as a tool for community development would have been dismissed as a meddlesome intrusion by self-interested arts advocates. But as more and more jobs are being outsourced and downtown areas are becoming ghost towns, economic developers are viewing vibrant urban centers as critical to attracting workers, placing the arts at the center of the debate on community development. Art has become a focal point for community leaders, economic development specialists and the citizens themselves. They look to the arts for inspiration, aesthetics and design, leadership and creativity, which can reshape our communities and make them vital, livable and relevant in the face of the economic changes of our time. Richard Florida, author of the highly touted community development treatise, ``The Rise of the Creative Class,'' says that if the goal is to attract a creative class of entrepreneurs and workers, then cities must provide, in addition to a tolerant social environment, diverse social and cultural enhancements, like great parks, art, music and lively community main streets. Art and design vitality are emphasized as a key factor that has enabled economic progress. For decades, coalitions of arts organizations have undertaken economic impact studies to demonstrate their collective financial contribution to local, regional, and state economies, receiving scant attention from policymakers and political leaders. A recent study conducted by Americans for the Arts found the arts industry generates $134 billion in economic activity every year. A new report by Arts North Carolina shows that the state's arts industry produces nearly $1 billion in financial impact. Clearly it is time to take a closer look at the measurable financial value of the arts. The use of architecture in recent art museum design illustrates the impact of the arts on tourism and community image. Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum of Art in Bilbao, Spain, Santiago Calatrava's soaring structure for the Milwaukee Museum of Art, and the newly celebrated Fort Worth Museum of Modern Art by Tadao Ando have brought not only extraordinary international attention, but also tourist dollars to these cities. Here in North Carolina, we are developing cultural landmarks as well, such as Wilmington's new Cameron Art Museum, designed by the renowned architect Charles Gwathmey. The success of this project has considerably boosted the cultural and civic energy of the city. The Research Triangle region has invested more than $250 million in its arts and museums infrastructure in recent years, with plans to invest nearly $150 million more in cultural facilities in Durham, Chapel Hill and Raleigh. The N.C. Museum of Art in Raleigh has commissioned New York-based architect Thomas Phifer to create plans for its expansion. Several other communities, including Charlotte, Asheville and the Piedmont Triad, are planning major investments in cultural facilities and the arts programs to attract jobs, visitors and dollars. Cities, large and small, are recognizing that cultural investments make economic sense. As the arts take center stage in economic growth, metropolitan regions have the opportunity to put their cultural strengths to work. Many regions are investing in industry clusters--concentrations of businesses that are linked to each other through their suppliers and producers. There are abundant examples of real success stories when the cultural resources of a region become full partners in shaping economic development strategies. Asheville is developing a prosperous industry cluster around its regional crafts heritage. Handmade in America leads a coalition of regional organizations that promote the making and sale of crafts, as well as tourism to artisans' studios, related museums, historic inns and sites and the region's magnificent natural resources. North Carolina has a rich history of providing cultural opportunities to its people. The first state-supported symphony orchestra, the first state-funded art collection and the first cabinet-level Department of Cultural Resources were all created here, along with an extraordinary network of 93 community-based arts councils throughout the State. These are superb sources to identify leaders who can be invaluable in shaping the conversations and agendas for economic development in our communities. Our State's struggle with economic change will require a rearranging of investment priorities and significant private and public support. Only when the arts are used as full partners in planning will North Carolina see sustainable economies, lively communities and an enriched quality of life for everyone.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the perseverance and achievement of Stephen Tyler Stokes in earning the rank of Eagle Scout, Boy Scouts of America, Occoneechee Council--Troop 104, on December 12, 2003, and entered into the Congressional Record as such. His Court of Honor commenced on July 24, 2004. While a member of Troop 104 in Wake County, North Carolina, Stephen served in various positions including Librarian, Instructor, Troop Guide, Assistant Patrol Leader, and even Patrol Leader. He learned what it takes to assist his fellow scouts and how to lead them. Stephen attended the National Boy Scout Jamboree in 2001, at Ft. A.P. Hill in Virginia, which influenced him to become an Eagle Scout and a role model for younger boys. In addition to devoting his time to being an Eagle Scout, Stephen attended Broughton High School in Raleigh, NC, where he helped establish the F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Program, participated in the Chess Club, and served as webmaster for the Literary Magazine and the Japanese Animation Club. Stephen received an Enterprise in Action Certificate of Achievement from Junior Achievement and was listed in the publication Who's Who Among American High School Students. Stephen's commitment to serving his community and helping others is truly commendable. He has helped construct homes in Charleston and Philadelphia as part of Habitat for Humanity's ongoing inner-city improvement projects. During Stephen's 8 years with the Boy Scouts, he was an active participant in the Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation, and Citizenship in the World volunteer programs. Mr. Speaker, I know his father Steven and his mother Jamie are proud of all that their son has accomplished and join me in recognizing that the achievement of earning the rank of Eagle Scout is just the beginning of a bright future for their talented and deeply committed son. The journey a young man makes to earn the rank of Eagle Scout requires not only a scout's dedication to his community, but also the community's dedication to the scout. I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Stephen Tyler Stokes, his family and Troop 104.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the current political debate on the economy is usually over the most recent economic statistics, but our economic future depends upon our remaining the most innovative economy in the world. The policies of this current administration and of this Congress are cheating Americans of our economic future, of the economic future that we deserve. I rise tonight to speak specifically about the need for adequate funding for the United States Patent and Trademark Office and about the need to help get nanotechnology from the lab to the market. Patents and trademarks are critical to the promotion and development of the American economy. In an increasingly competitive global market, it is essential that the administration and we in Congress do everything we can to maintain America's role as the leader in the creation of innovative technologies and of new products. Innovation and competitiveness depend upon the effectiveness and efficiency of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the USPTO. Our biotechnology, electronic, pharmaceutical and nanotechnology industries rely on the United States patent system. But because of record innovation and growth beginning in the 1990s, the USPTO is overburdened to the breaking point. The Under Secretary of Commerce For Intellectual Property, Jon Dudas, testified that the USPTO may be facing the greatest workload and operational crisis in more than 200 years; in other words, in the USPTO's history. The backlog is now 475,000 patent applications. By comparison, the backlog in 1981 was 190,000 applications. By 2008, the backlog is expected to grow to more than 1 million applications. That is 1 million ideas, 1 million innovations, 1 million potential money makers and job creators that will sit on the shelf until patent examiners clear the backlog of cases in front of it and consider that application. Once an application reaches its way to the front of the line, the time a patent application takes to be approved is also increasing dramatically, from 22 months in 1981 to more than 3 years for many of our critical technologies. By 2008, the average pendency is expected to grow to 6 to 8 years. The House has already passed a bill that would alleviate the backlog. H.R. 1561 would raise patent fees and allow the USPTO to use the revenues to reduce the backlog and patent pendency delays. I urge my colleagues in this House, as well as the members of the Senate and the administration, to meet the needs of an innovative economy by allowing the USPTO to collect the increased patent fees, to improve their work. Mr. Speaker, our most innovative technologies, our research intensive technologies, the very folks who will be paying the increased fees, are desperate to pay those fees and to improve the effectiveness of the USPTO in processing patent applications. The status quo is just unacceptable. We must have an efficient, cost effective patent and trademark system to remain the leader in today's global economy. Mr. Speaker, as to the next nanotechnology industry, the administration's preference for partisan dogma over investment guarantees that most of the nanotechnology industry will develop in other countries, regardless of how much we spend here in the United States on research. The administration did support H.R. 766 which authorized funding for more nanotechnology research and development, but every amendment to that bill that would have increased the competence by our industry in nanotechnology-related manufacturing jobs was defeated in the Committee on Science along party lines. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), offered an amendment that would have authorized money specifically to enhance the advanced technology program efforts in nanotechnology. Again, that amendment was defeated on a party line vote. The ATP, the Advanced Technology Program, is the only source of patient capital for many high-tech, small companies in areas like nanotechnology, and there is usually nowhere else to turn in the United States for a company that is 3 to 5 years from the market and 2 to 4 years from interesting venture capitalists in their ideas. To the administration, though, the ATP is just a corporate welfare program that should be abolished. Mr. Speaker, highly-skilled, well-paid jobs are going to exist in the nanotechnology industry whether or not we support those companies, that is true, but they are not going to exist here. Mr. Speaker, the triumph of dogma over practicality and over our economic future is unacceptable.