Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 2007

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Affordable Housing Expansion and Public Safety Act to address some of the housing affordability issues faced by my constituents and by Americans around the country, including unaffordable rental burdens, lack of safe and affordable housing stock, and public safety concerns in public and federally assisted housing. My legislation is fully offset, while also providing $2.69 billion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years.

Increasing numbers of Americans are facing housing affordability challenges, whether they are renters or homeowners. But the housing affordability burden falls most heavily on low-income renters throughout our country. Ensuring that all Americans have safe and secure housing is about more than just providing families with somewhere to live, however. Safe and decent housing provides children with stable environments, and research has shown that students achieve at higher rates if they have secure housing. Affordable housing allows families to spend more of their income on life's other necessities including groceries, health care, and education costs as well as save money for their futures. I have heard from a number of Wisconsinites around my State about their concerns about the lack of affordable housing, homelessness, and the increasingly severe cost burdens that families have to undertake in order to afford housing.

This bill is especially needed now, given the breakdown in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process. This week, the House is scheduled to pass a joint funding resolution to fund federal agencies through the rest of fiscal year 2007. I have heard from Wisconsinites concerned that the funding levels in the resolution could affect the ability of various local housing authorities to serve the same number of individuals as were assisted last year, never mind trying to serve the increasing numbers of individuals around the State who need housing assistance. Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee filed the joint funding resolution and I am pleased to see the Committee included a boost in funding for Section 8 tenant-based and project-based vouchers, allowing HUD to renew the vouchers that are currently in use by families. In addition to maintaining the current level of vouchers, I hope that we in Congress can work together this year to fund new Section 8 vouchers to help address the critical rental assistance needs throughout the country.

My bill does not address every housing need out there, but I believe it is a good, necessary first step. My legislation does address a number of different issues that local communities in my State and around the country are facing, including the need for more rental assistance, the creation and preservation of more affordable housing units, and the ability to more adequately address public safety concerns of residents of federally assisted housing.

Congress needs to act on other vital housing needs this year including addressing the large shortfall in the public housing operating fund. I have heard from housing authorities ranging in size from Menomonie Housing Authority to Milwaukee Housing Authority about the shortfall in operating funds and the negative impact it is having on the communities these housing agencies are serving. This shortfall in operating subsidies impacts public housing authorities and the people they serve by reducing funding for maintenance costs associated with running buildings and limiting the services that housing authorities can provide, such as covering utility cost increases. The joint funding resolution filed yesterday also included an increase of $300 million for public housing authorities to pay for these important operating costs, including the increases in utility costs. This is a good start and we must continue working this year to provide much- needed assistance to these housing authorities and the individuals and families they serve.

Unfortunately, affordable housing is becoming less, not more, available in the United States. Research shows that the number of families facing severe housing cost burdens grew by almost two million households between 2001 and 2004. Additionally, one in three families spends more than 30 percent of their earnings on housing costs. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reports that at least 500,000 Americans are homeless every day and two million to three million Americans are homeless for various lengths of time each year. Cities, towns, and rural communities across the country are confronting a lack of affordable housing for their citizens. This is not an issue that confronts just one region of the Nation or one group of Americans. Decent and affordable housing is so essential to the well-being of Americans that the Federal Government must provide adequate assistance to our citizens to ensure that all Americans can afford to live in safe and affordable housing.

Congress has created effective affordable housing and community development programs, but as is the case with many of the Federal social programs, these housing programs are inadequately funded and do not meet the need in our communities. We in Congress must do what we can to ensure these programs are properly funded, while taking into account the tight fiscal constraints we are facing.

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, originally created in 1974, is now the largest Federal housing program in terms of HUD's budget with approximately two million vouchers currently authorized. Yet the current number of vouchers does not come close to meeting the demand that exists in communities around our country. In my State of Wisconsin, the city of Milwaukee opened up their Section 8 waiting list for the first time since 1999 earlier this year for twenty four hours and received more than 17,000 applications. The city of Madison has not accepted new applications for Section 8

in over three years and reports that hundreds of families are on the waiting list.

Unfortunately, situations like this exist around the country. According to the 2005 U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness Survey, close to 5,000 people are on the Section 8 waiting list in Boston. Detroit has not taken applications for the past two years and currently has a waiting list of over 9,000 people. Phoenix closed its waiting list in 2005 and reported that 30,000 families were on its waiting list. In certain cities, waiting lists are years long and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the typical waiting period for a voucher was two and a half years in 2003. Given these statistics, it is clear there is the need for more Section 8 vouchers than currently exist.

While there are certainly areas of the Section 8 program that need to be examined and perhaps reformed, a number of different government agencies and advocacy organizations all cite the effectiveness of Section 8 in assisting low-income families in meeting some of their housing needs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office determined that the total cost of a one-bedroom housing unit through the Section 8 program costs less than it would through other federal housing programs. The same year, the Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission reported to Congress that the Section 8 program is ``flexible, cost- effective, and successful in its mission.''

The Commission further stated that the vouchers ``should continue to be the linchpin of a national policy providing very low-income renters access to the privately owned housing stock.'' The Commission also called for funding for substantial annual increments of vouchers for families who need housing assistance. This recommendation echoes the calls by advocates around the country, many of whom have called for 100,000 new, or incremental, Section 8 vouchers to be funded annually by Congress.

My bill takes this first step, calling for the funding of 100,000 incremental vouchers in fiscal year 2008. I have identified enough funds in my offsets to provide money for the renewal of these 100,000 vouchers for the next decade. While this increase does not meet the total demand that exists out there for Section 8 vouchers, I believe it is a strong first step. My legislation is fully offset and if it were passed in its current form, would provide for the immediate funding of these vouchers. I believe Congress should take the time to examine where other spending could be cut in order to continue to provide sizeable annual increases in new vouchers for the Section 8 program. According to the Congressional Research Service, incremental vouchers have not been funded since fiscal year 2002. During the past three to four years, the need for Federal housing assistance has grown and it will continue to grow in future years. We need to make a commitment to find the resources in our budget to ensure continued and increased funding for Section 8 vouchers.

We should examine doing more than just providing more money for Section 8. There have been numerous stories in my home State of Wisconsin about various concerns with the Section 8 program, ranging from potential discrimination on the part of landlords in declining to rent to Section 8 voucher holders to the administrative burdens landlords face when participating in the Section 8 program. Additionally, there are substantial concerns with the funding formula the Bush Administration is currently using for the Section 8 program. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this Congress to address these and other issues and make the Section 8 program more effective, more secure, and more accessible to citizens throughout the country.

But providing rental assistance is not the only answer to solving the housing affordability problem in our country. We must also work to increase the availability of affordable housing stock in our communities through facilitating production of housing units affordable to extremely low and very low income Americans. The HOME Investments Partnership Program, more commonly known as HOME, was created in 1990 to assist states and local communities in producing affordable housing for low income families. HOME is a grant program that allows participating jurisdictions the flexibility to use funds for new production, preservation, and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. HOME is an effective federal program that is used in concert with other existing housing programs to provide affordable housing units for low income Americans throughout the country.

According to recent data from HUD, since fiscal year 1992, over $23 billion has been allocated through the HOME program to participating jurisdictions around the country. There have been over 800,000 units committed, including over 200,000 new construction units. HUD reports that over 700,000 units have been completed or funded. Communities in my State of Wisconsin have received over $370 million since 1992 and have seen over 20,000 housing units completed since 1992. Cities and States around the country are able to report numerous success stories in part due to the HOME funding that has been allocated to participating jurisdictions since 1992. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission found that the HOME program is highly successful and recommended a substantial increase in funding for HOME in 2002.

Unfortunately, for the past two fiscal years, the HOME program has seen a decline in funding. In fiscal year 2005, HOME was funded at $1.9 billion and in fiscal year 2006, HOME was funded at a little more than $1.7 billion. As a result of this decline in funding, all participating jurisdictions in Wisconsin saw a decline in HOME dollars, with some jurisdictions seeing a decline of more than six percent. We need to ensure these funding cuts to HOME do not continue in the future and we must provide more targeted resources within HOME for the people most in need.

But, as successful as the HOME program is, more needs to be done to assist extremely low income families. My legislation seeks to target additional resources to the Americans most in need by using the HOME structure to distribute new funding to participating jurisdictions with the requirement that these participating jurisdictions use these set- aside dollars to produce, rehab, or preserve affordable housing for extremely low income families, or people at 30 percent of area median income or below.

As we all know, extremely low income households face the most severe affordable housing cost burdens of any Americans. According to data from HUD and the American Housing Survey, 56 percent of extremely low income renter households deal with severe affordability housing issues while only 25 percent of these renters are not burdened with affordability concerns. HUD also found that half of all extremely low income owner households are severely burdened by affordability concerns. Data shows more than 75 percent of renter households with severe housing affordability burdens are extremely low income families and more than half of extremely low income households pay at least half of their income on housing. The Bipartisan Millennial Housing Commission has stated that ``the most serious housing problem in America is the mismatch between the number of extremely low income renter households and the number of units available to them with acceptable quality and affordable rents.'' The Commission also noted that there is no federal program solely for the preservation or production of housing for extremely low or moderate income families.

Because of these severe burdens and the high cost of providing safe and affordable housing to families at 30 percent or below of area median income, my bill would provide $400 million annually on top of the money that Congress already appropriates through HOME. I have heard from a number of housing advocates in Wisconsin that we have effective housing programs but the programs are not funded adequately. This is why I decided to administer this funding through the HOME program; local communities are familiar with the requirements and regulations of the HOME program and I think it is important not to place unnecessary and new administrative hurdles on local cities and communities.

Participating jurisdictions will be able to use this new funding under the eligible uses currently allowed by HOME to best meet the needs of the extremely low income families in their

respective communities. But participating jurisdictions must certify that this funding is going to extremely low income households and must report on how the funds are being utilized in their communities. Funds are intended to be distributed on a pro-rata basis to ensure participating jurisdictions around the country receive funding. I also require that the Secretary notify participating jurisdictions that this new funding for extremely low income households in no way excuses such jurisdictions from continuing to use existing HOME dollars to serve extremely low income families. It is my hope that this extra funding will provide an increased incentive to local cities and communities to dedicate more resources to producing and preserving affordable housing for the most vulnerable Americans.

My bill would also reauthorize a critical crime-fighting grant program: the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program, formerly known as ``PHDEP.'' Unfortunately, the PHDEP program has not been funded since 2001, and its statutory authorization expired in 2003. It is time to bring back this important grant program, which provided much-needed public safety resources to public housing authorities and their tenants. My legislation would authorize $200 million per year for five years for this program.

After more than a decade of declining crime rates, new FBI statistics indicate that 2005 brought an overall increase in violent crime across the country, and particularly in the Midwest. Nationwide, violent crime increased 2.3 percent between 2004 and 2005, and in the Midwest, violent crime increased 5.6 percent between 2004 and 2005. Housing authorities and others providing assisted housing are feeling the effects of this shift, but just as the crime rate is rising, their resources to fight back are dwindling. We need to provide them with funding targeted at preventing and reducing violent and drug-related crime, so that they can provide a safe living environment for their tenants.

Reauthorizing the Public and Assisted Housing Crime and Drug Elimination Program should not be controversial. The program has long enjoyed bipartisan support. It was first sponsored by Senator Lautenberg in 1988, and first implemented in 1989 under then-Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp. When in effect, it funded numerous crime-fighting measures in housing authorities all over the country.

In Milwaukee, grants under this program funded a variety of important programs. It provided funding to the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee to hire public safety officers who are on site 24 hours a day to respond to calls and intervene when problems arise, and who work collaboratively with local law enforcement agencies. According to the Housing Authority, by the time the PHDEP program was defunded, public safety officers were responding to more than 8,000 calls per year, dealing quickly and effectively with thefts, drug use and sales, and other problems. Grants under the program also allowed the Housing Authority in Milwaukee to conduct crime prevention programs through the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Milwaukee and other on-site agencies, providing youths and others living in public housing with a variety of educational, job training and life skill programs.

When the PHDEP program was defunded during the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle, the Administration argued that crime-fighting measures should be funded through the Public Housing Operating Fund and promised an increase in that Fund to account for part of the loss of PHDEP funds. That allowed some programs previously funded under PHDEP to continue for a few years. But now there is a significant shortfall in the Operating Fund and HUD is proposing limits on how capital funds can be used, and housing authorities nationwide--including in Milwaukee-- have been faced with tough decisions, including cutting some or all of their crime reduction programs.

It is time for Congress to step in and reauthorize these grants. Everyone deserves a safe place to live, and we should help provide housing authorities and other federally assisted low-income housing entities with the resources they need to provide that to their tenants.

But we can do more than just provide public housing authorities with grant money. The Federal Government also needs to provide more resources to help housing authorities spend those funds in the most effective way possible. That is why my legislation also contains several provisions to enhance the effectiveness of this grant program. It would: Require HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R) to conduct a review of existing research on crime fighting measures and issue a report within six months identifying effective programs, providing an important resource to public housing authorities; require PD&R to work with housing authorities, social scientists and others to develop and implement a plan to conduct rigorous scientific evaluation of crime reduction and prevention strategies funded by the grant program that have not previously been subject to that type of evaluation, giving housing authorities yet another source of information about effective strategies for combating crime; and require HUD to report to Congress within four years, based on what it learns from existing research and evaluations of grantee programs, on the most effective ways to prevent and reduce crime in public and assisted housing environments, the ways in which it has provided related guidance to help grant applicants, and any suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the program going forward.

As with any grant program, it is essential that HUD monitor the use of the grants and that grantees be required to report regularly on their activities, as was required by HUD regulations when the program was defunded. The bill also clarifies the types of activities that can be funded through the grant program to ensure that funds are not used inappropriately.

My bill also includes a sense of the Senate provision calling on Congress to create a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. At the outset, I want to commend my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Kerry, Senator Reed, Senator Sanders and others for all their work on advancing the cause of a National Affordable Housing Trust fund. I look forward to working with them and others in the 110th Congress to push for the creation of such a trust fund.

I agree with my colleagues that such a trust fund should have the goal of supplying 1,500,000 new affordable housing units over the next 10 years. It should also contain sufficient income targeting to reflect the housing affordability burdens faced by extremely low income and very low income families and contain enough flexibility to allow local communities to produce, preserve, and rehabilitate affordable housing units while ensuring that such affordable housing development fosters the creation of healthy and sustainable communities.

Hundreds of local housing trust funds have been created in cities and states throughout the country, including recently in the city of Milwaukee. I want to commend the community members in Milwaukee for working to address the housing affordability issues that the city faces and it is my hope that we in Congress can do our part to help Wisconsin's communities and communities around the country provide safe and affordable housing to all Americans.

This Nation faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens. Shelter is one of our most basic needs, and, unfortunately, too many Wisconsinites and people around the country are struggling to afford a place to live for themselves and their families. This legislation does not solve all the affordable housing issues that communities are facing, but I believe it is a good first step. This issue is about more than providing a roof over a family's head, however. Good housing and healthy communities lead to better jobs, better educational outcomes, and better futures for all Americans. Local communities, States, and the Federal Government must work together to dedicate more effective resources toward ensuring that all Americans have a safe and decent place to live. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this new Congress to advance my bill and other housing initiatives and work towards meeting the

goal of affordable housing and healthy communities for all Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will introduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2009, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election.

The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Every major party nominee for President since 1976 has participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election, too. In the last election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but took the general election grant.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse.

This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates the State-by-State spending limits in the current law and substantially increases the overall spending limit from the current limit of approximately $45 million to $150 million, of which up to $100 million can be spent before April 1 of the election year. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates by increasing the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1.

One very important provision of this bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries. The bill also increases the spending limits for participating candidates in the primaries who face a nonparticipating opponent if that opponent raises more than 20 percent more than the spending limit. This provides some protection against being far outspent by a nonparticipating opponent. Additional grants of public money are also available to participating candidates who face a nonparticipating candidate spending substantially more than the spending limit.

The bill also sets the general election spending limit at $100 million, indexed for inflation. And if a general election candidate does not participate in the system and spends more than 20 percent more than the combined primary and general election spending limits, a participating candidate will receive a grant equal to twice the general election spending limit.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. This bill allows candidates who are still in the primary race as of April 1 to spend an additional $50 million. In addition, the bill allows the political parties to spend up to $25 million between April 1 and the date that a candidate is nominated and an additional $25 million after the nomination. The total amount of $50 million is over three times the amount allowed under current law. This should allow any gap to be more than adequately filled.

Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law.

The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting six months before the date of the first primary or caucus, that's approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election--the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.

The bill also prohibits federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record, following my statement. I will also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill itself be printed in the Record.

The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. In fact, this is an excellent time to make changes in the Presidential public funding system. The 2008 presidential campaign, which is already underway, will undoubtedly be the most expensive in history. It is likely that a number of candidates from both parties will once again opt out of the primary matching funds system, and some experts predict that one or both major party nominees will even refuse public grants for the

general election period. It is too late to make the changes needed to repair the system for the 2008 election. But if we act now, we can make sure that an updated and revised system is in place for the 2012 election. If we act now, I am certain that the 2008 campaign cycle will confirm our foresight. If we do nothing, 2008 will continue and accelerate the slide of the current system into irrelevancy.

Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money, but our best calculations at the present time indicate that the changes to the system in this bill can be paid for by raising the income tax check-off on an individual return from $3 to just $10. The total cost of the changes to the system, based on data from the 2004 elections, is projected to be around $360 million over the 4-year election cycle. To offset that increased cost, this bill caps taxpayer subsidies for promotion of agricultural products, including some brand-name goods, by limiting the Market Access Program to $100 million per year.

Though the numbers are large, this is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of unlimited spending on presidential elections and candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act now to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms.

Mr. President, there are countless reasons that the American people have lost confidence in the President's Iraq policy, but chief among them has been the Administration's insistence on making promises and assurances about progress and victory that have no basis whatsoever in the reality of the facts on the ground.

We have been told that we would be greeted as liberators. We have been promised that the insurgency was in its last throes. We have been assured again and again that we were making progress, that the Iraqis would soon stand up, that our brave sons and daughters could soon stand down. We have been asked to wait, and asked to be patient, and asked to give the President and the new Iraqi government six more months, and then six more months after that, and then six more months after that.

Despite all of this, a change of course still seemed possible. Back in November, the American people had voted for a new direction in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld was on his way out at the Pentagon. The Iraq Study Group was poised to offer a bipartisan consensus. The President was conducting his own review. After years of missteps and mistakes, it was time for a responsible policy grounded in reality, not ideology.

Instead, the President ignored the counsel of expert civilians and experienced soldiers, the hard-won consensus of prominent Republicans and Democrats, and the clear will of the American people.

The President's decision to move forward with this escalation anyway, despite all evidence and military advice to the contrary, is the terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002. Over four years later, we cannot revisit that decision or reverse its outcome, but we can do what we didn't back then and refuse to give this President more open-ended authority for this war.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all we have asked them to do and more. But no quantity of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

I cannot in good conscience support this escalation. As the President's own military commanders have said, escalation only prevents the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future. It's even eroding our efforts in the wider war on terror, as some of the extra soldiers could come directly from Afghanistan, where the Taliban has become resurgent.

The course the President is pursuing fails to recognize the fundamental reality that the solution to the violence in Iraq is political, not military. He has offered no evidence that more U.S. troops will be able to pressure Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds towards the necessary political settlement, and he's attached no conditions or consequences to his plan should the Iraqis fail to make progress.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, when I repeatedly asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqi government failed to meet the benchmarks that the Administration has called for, she could not give me an answer. When I asked her if there were any circumstances whatsoever in which we would tell the Iraqis that their failure to make progress would mean the end of our military commitment, she still could not give me an answer.

This is not good enough. When you ask how many more months and how many more lives it will take to end a policy that everyone knows has failed, ``I don't know'' isn't good enough.

Over the past four years, we have given this Administration chance after chance to get this right, and they have disappointed us so many times. That is why Congress now has the duty to prevent even more mistakes. Today, I am introducing legislation that rejects this policy of escalation, and implements a comprehensive approach that will promote stability in Iraq, protect our interests in the region, and bring this war to a responsible end.

My legislation essentially puts into law the speech I gave in November, 2006, and is, I believe, the best strategy for going forward.

The bill implements--with the force of law--a responsible redeployment of our forces out of Iraq, not a precipitous withdrawal. It implements key recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It applies real leverage on the Iraqis to reach the political solution necessary to end the sectarian violence that is tearing Iraq apart. It holds the Iraqi government accountable, making continued U.S. support conditional on concrete Iraqi progress. It respects the role of military commanders, while fulfilling Congress's responsibility to uphold the Constitution and heed the will of the American people.

First, this legislation caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007--the day the President gave his ``surge speech'' to the nation. This cap could not be lifted without explicit authorization by the Congress.

Yet our responsibilities to the American people and to our servicemen and women go beyond opposing this ill-conceived escalation. We must fashion a comprehensive strategy to accomplish what the President's surge fails to do: pressure the Iraqi government to reach a political settlement, protect our interests in the region, and bring this war to a responsible end.

That is why my legislation commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops to begin on May 1, 2007 with a goal of having all combat brigades out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. The legislation provides exceptions for force protection, counterterrorism, and training of Iraqi security forces.

To press the Iraqi government to act, this drawdown can be suspended for 90-day periods if the President certifies and the Congress agrees that the Iraqi government is meeting specific benchmarks and the suspension is in the national security interests of the United States. These benchmarks include: Meeting security responsibilities. The Iraqi government must deploy brigades it promised to Baghdad, lift restrictions on the operations of the U.S. military, and make significant progress toward assuming full responsibility for the security of Iraq's provinces. Cracking down on sectarian violence. The Iraqi government must make significant progress toward reducing the size and influence of sectarian militias, and the presence of militia elements within the Iraqi Security Forces. Advancing national reconciliation. The Iraqi government must pass legislation to share oil revenues equitably; revise de-Baathification to enable more Iraqis to return to government service; hold provisional elections by the end of the year; and amend the Constitution in a manner that sustains reconciliation. Making economic progress. The Iraqi government must make available at least $10,000,000,000 for reconstruction, job creation, and economic development as it has promised to do. The allocation of these resources, the provision of services, and the administration of Iraqi Ministries must not proceed on a sectarian basis.

These benchmarks reflect actions proposed by the President and promised by the Iraqi government. It is time to hold them accountable.

Recognizing that the President has not been straightforward with the American people about the war in Iraq, my legislation allows the Congress--under expedited procedures--to overrule a Presidential certification and continue the redeployment.

Time and again, we have seen deadlines for Iraqi actions come and go--with no consequences. Time and again we have heard pledges of progress from the administration--followed by a descent into chaos. The commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq represents our best leverage to press the Iraqis to act. And the further commitment of U.S. economic assistance to the Government of Iraq must be conditional on Iraqi action.

As the U.S. drawdown proceeds, my legislation outlines how U.S. troops

should be redeployed back to the United States and to other points in the region. In the region, we need to maintain a substantial over-the- horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, to reassure our allies, and to protect our interests. And we should redeploy forces to Afghanistan, so we not just echo--but answer--NATO's call for more troops in this critical fight against terrorism.

Within Iraq, we may need to maintain a residual troop presence to protect U.S. personnel and facilities, go after international terrorists, and continue training efforts. My legislation allows for these critical but narrow exceptions as the redeployment proceeds and is ultimately completed.

My legislation makes it U.S. policy to undertake a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to promote a political solution within Iraq, and to prevent wider regional strife. This diplomatic effort must include our friends in the region, but it should also include Syria and Iran, who need to be part of the conversation about stabilizing Iraq. Not talking is getting us nowhere. Not talking is not making us more secure, nor is it weakening our adversaries.

The President should appoint a special envoy with responsibility to implement this regional engagement. And as we go forward, we must make it clear that redeployment does not mean disengagement from the region. On the contrary, it is time for a more comprehensive engagement that skillfully uses all tools of American power.

Finally, my legislation compels the President to formulate a strategy to prevent the war in Iraq from becoming a wider conflagration.

Let me conclude by saying that there are no good options in Iraq. We cannot undo the mistake of that congressional authorization, or the tragedies of the last four years.

Just as I have been constant in my strong opposition to this war, I have consistently believed that opposition must be responsible. As reckless as we were in getting into Iraq, we have to be as careful getting out. We have significant strategic interests in Iraq and the region. We have a humanitarian responsibility to help the Iraqi people. Above all, we have an obligation to support our courageous men and women in uniform--and their families back home--who have sacrificed beyond measure.

It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action--for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops--is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in November.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and even the Iraqis themselves. It is time to change our policy. It is time to give Iraqis their country back. And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition for the purpose of

introducing or cosponsoring the Healthy Americans Act, S. 334, legislation which is directed to cover the some 47 million Americans who are not covered by health insurance. It is a bipartisan bill which has 16 cosponsors, half Republicans and half Democrats. It has been sponsored principally by Senator Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Senator Bennett, Republican of Utah. I believe it provides the basis for moving ahead on this very important subject.

We have long struggled to cover all Americans with health insurance. In a detailed statement, which I am about to submit, I have recounted the efforts which this Senator has made over the course of my tenure in the Senate; beyond the bill's own coverage, the work which has been done on the Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee; and legislation in which Senator Harkin and I, on a bipartisan basis, have taken the lead in increasing funding for the NIH from $12 to $30 billion.

This proposal, S. 334, has a number of issues which I think need further analysis and further study and modification, as noted in the text of the statement. But I believe it is an excellent starting point and, having some 16 cosponsors, the most I have seen on a bipartisan piece of legislation to address this very important subject, I think it has an excellent opportunity in the next Congress to provide the basis for moving ahead for the appropriate coverage of all Americans.

We are facing a grave situation in America where millions of Americans do not have health insurance coverage. As the cost of health care is increasingly prohibitive and access to insurance is reduced, the number of uninsured will continue to climb.

It is estimated that nearly 47 million Americans are without health insurance. This includes the nearly 38 million individuals who have full or part time employment and still are without health care coverage. Of significant concern is the number of young adults lacking insurance: with an estimated 28 percent of those young people without insurance.

Individuals without insurance suffer from both acute and far reaching consequences. It ultimately compromises a person's health because he or she is less likely to receive preventive care, more likely to be hospitalized for avoidable health problems, and more likely to be diagnosed in the late stages of diseases. Additionally, lack of insurance coverage leaves individuals and their families financially vulnerable to higher out-of-pocket costs for their medical bills.

It is my belief that we can and should fix the problems felt by uninsured Americans with a system that does not resort to a single payer system and one that involves the private insurance industry. We must enact reforms that enhance our current market-based health care system.

The legislation I want to discuss today is S. 334, The Healthy Americans Act, which would provide access to health insurance for all Americans. Senator Wyden introduced this legislation on January 18, 2007, and since then, it has gained support from an impressive group of bipartisan Senators, including Bennett, Alexander, Nelson from Florida, Gregg, Coleman, Grassley, Landrieu, Stabenow, Crapo, Lieberman, Carper, Inouye, Corker, Smith and Cantwell. Today I am pleased to add my name to the list of cosponsors of S.334.

The Healthy Americans Act uses the private health insurance market to ensure that all Americans have access to a quality plan they can afford. This legislation has a number of components that will address the problems that plague our current health insurance system.

To begin, S. 334 provides so-called ``portability,'' which allows individuals to retain their health insurance regardless of the job they hold. In today's changing society, many Americans no longer stay with the same employer for long periods of time. Moving from job to job may mean the loss of health insurance, a new insurance carrier, or a gap in health care. The Healthy Americans Act seeks to provide consistent insurance coverage in a fluid job market.

Additionally, the Healthy Americans Act offers assistance for those who need it most by providing premium assistance for individuals and families with incomes below 400 percent of the poverty level--or $41,600 and $84,800 respectively. This provision aids those individuals that are employed but their income is insufficient to afford insurance. The assistance is based on a sliding scale with those with lower incomes receiving the greatest help. Individuals below 100 percent of the poverty level--$10,400 for an individual or $21,200 for a family-- receive full assistance with their insurance premiums.

While I am cosponsoring this legislation, I have some concerns that need to be addressed as the debate on this important issue moves forward. For instance, the potential new tax obligations associated with the Healthy Americans Act on both individuals and on businesses warrant further consideration. Concerns have been raised that this bill is not tax-neutral, meaning that new tax obligations created by this legislation are not completely matched by new or increased tax benefits. This resulting imbalance, or lack of tax neutrality, is argued by some to be a tax increase. Specifically, individuals would be required to pay their insurance premiums through the Federal tax withholding system, as opposed to the current model where premiums are paid to insurers through their employer. Payments would pass through the IRS on the way to newly created regional purchasing organizations called health help agencies--HHAs--and ultimately to the private insurer. The payment system, or collection, is technically a tax because it is being collected by the IRS. However, it is important to note that the Government will not keep those dollars and will not have discretion over how they are spent. Nevertheless, this payment system deserves further analysis on the issue of tax-neutrality.

S. 334 would require all businesses to pay an assessment of between 2 percent and 25 percent of average per worker premiums. The rate paid depends on the number of people it employs. I have concerns that this provision is structured as a tax. However, it is important to note that businesses would see some benefits as a result of the bill. They would be freed from the administrative burden of providing health care for employees because the individual would carry the responsibility of obtaining a private plan.

Because employers would be required to pay increased wages--in lieu of providing a health plan, they would also be subject to additional payroll tax obligations--i.e. Social Security and Medicare. An employee's increased payroll tax obligation is offset by a tax deduction provided in the bill. There is no corresponding deduction for the employer to offset their additional payroll tax obligations, and one should also be considered, because the bill's purpose is not to increase payments to Social Security and Medicare. The sponsor's intention of maintaining a budget-neutral bill is also worth consideration.

The mandate of paying increased wages only lasts for 2 years under the bill, after which time market forces would determine total compensation. Consideration should be given to retaining the employer payroll increase indefinitely to defray the cost of health insurance. Market forces may not sufficiently compensate employees when an employer decides to cut wages beyond the 2-year time frame. This would harm an employee's ability to purchase health insurance.

I am also concerned with the elimination of specific tax benefits for corporations that do business abroad, though it is my understanding that the sponsors are not wedded to elimination of these specific items. The argument has been made by proponents that the Wyden bill makes U.S. firms more competitive internationally because it removes the burden on employers to administer health care plans for their employees. Often foreign firms do not have that burden. To that end, the sponsor has chosen to eliminate certain tax preferences to multinational corporations as a way to raise revenue. I believe that greater consideration should be given to whether the benefit to employers of not having to administer a health care plan outweighs the elimination of these provisions.

First, the elimination of the section 199 manufacturing deduction raises concerns for our exporters. The section 199 deduction allows manufacturing

firms of all kinds to take a tax deduction for their U.S.-based business activities. The deduction was 3 percent in tax years 2005 and 2006, 6 percent in tax year 2007, and is scheduled to be 9 percent by 2010. This tax benefit was enacted as part of the so-called FSC/ETI legislation in 2004 to replace an export tax incentive that was ruled to be in violation of our international trade commitments. At the same time, it sought to boost the ability of manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace.

Second, the bill would eliminate deferral of income from foreign corporations that are owned by a U.S. parent company. Under current law, U.S. taxes do not apply to the foreign income of U.S.-owned corporations chartered abroad. As a result, a U.S. firm can indefinitely defer U.S. tax on its foreign income as long as the foreign subsidiary's income is reinvested overseas. U.S. taxes apply when the income is repatriated back to the U.S. Ending this deferral strategy could have the negative impact of encouraging the U.S. parent firm to relocate abroad or to limit the size of their operations in the

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation about the National Guard with Senator Kit Bond, my fellow co-chair of the Senate's National Guard Caucus, and Senator Ben Nelson, a longtime caucus member and a subcommittee chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 would improve the management of the National Guard, and it will give the Guard more responsibility in improving our defense arrangements at home, where the Guard works in tandem with the Nation's governors to help keep our communities safe. This legislation will strengthen the National Guard, the military, and our Nation, and I believe it is something that deserves our attention and approval.

As Senators, we know all too well the many ways in which our communities rely on the National Guard. The soldiers of the National Guard, like their active duty counterparts, have expended an extraordinary amount of will and sacrifice in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The National Guard comprised almost 50 percent of the forces on the ground in Iraq less than 2 years ago, and now, as the Pentagon plans to implement the President's plans for a troop escalation, the percentage of Guard troops on the ground is set to rise once again.

At the same time, we are constantly witness to the equally heralded work that the National Guard has done to increase security at home. Along with efforts to increase security along both the northern and southern borders, the Guard has bolstered security at special events across the country, including the Olympics, the national political party conventions, and events here in our Nation's capital. Most importantly, the National Guard provided the best--the very best-- response of any agency, Federal, State or local, in the disastrous aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, sending tens of thousands of troops to the hardest-hit communities in relatively short order.

When you look at these examples, it is indisputable that the National Guard is only limited in what it can do for us by the authorities, policies, available equipment, responsibilities, and support that we give them.

It is time to give the Guard more tools and support to effectively carry out these responsibilities.

With the knowledge that the use of the National Guard is sure to increase in the future, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs need unfettered and unmediated advice about how to utilize the force, whether balancing both the domestic and overseas missions of the National Guard or using the Guard to support the Nation's governors in domestic emergencies. Given this need for greater input on Guard matters, it is only logical that the leadership within the National Guard should be the ones doing the advising. And, as the Guard becomes more active within the military's total force, it only makes sense to increase the number of Guard generals at the highest reaches of the military command, where key force management decisions are made.

At the same time, the National Guard is in a position to deal with some of the basic missions at home that are simply not being address by the Department of Defense. We have some real heroes at the recently established Northern Command, which is working with various civilian agencies to prevent another attack at home. Yet, the processes to deal with the mission of having military support of civilian authorities in domestic emergencies are as yet undefined.

Northern command, meanwhile, is taking only perfunctory input from the nation's governors who, along with local officials, will bear much of the responsibility in disaster situations. Five years after September 11, we cannot wait to give more definition to how the military will support civil authorities in an emergency, and we cannot wait until an actual emergency to inform State governors about what resources are available to them. With some new authorities, we can give the Guard the mission of leading the effort to support civilian authorities at home and in working with the States and governors to plan for such disasters.

Elevating the National Guard bureaucratically, increasing the quality advice on the Guard to the senior command, and improving response to domestic emergencies are exactly what the provisions of the National Guard Empowerment Act will accomplish.

First, the National Guard Empowerment Act elevates the Chief of the National Guard Bureau from the rank of lieutenant general to general with four-stars, with a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This move will give the Nation's governors and adjutants general a straight line of communication to the Joint Chiefs Chairman, the Secretary of Defense, and the President. Having personnel with more knowledge and experience with the Guard involved in key budget and policy deliberations, the branches of the active duty services will be less willing to try to balance budgets on the back of the reserve forces like the Guard, which only goes against our overall ability to respond.

Second, the act gives the National Guard the responsibility of working with the States to identify gaps in their response capabilities, of setting equipment requirements, and procuring these much needed items. The act will ensure that a National Guard commander is the deputy commander of Northern Command and that the Guard--and thus, in turn, the governors--work in tandem with the command to set out specific plans to support our elected and civilian leaders in an emergency.

Let me be clear about what this legislation does not do. The Guard Empowerment Act does not make the National Guard a separate armed service. The Guard will remain an integral partner of the Army and the Air Force. Nor is the act some kind of wanton power grab. Instead, the act would bring the National Guard's bureaucratic position in line with what it is already doing and what we will expect of it in the future. Passage of the act will, utmost, not disturb or undermine our defense arrangements. Rather, it will empower the entire military to deal with critically important problems that it is simply not addressing.

This legislation has been carefully crafted over the past year and a half, and it incorporates the input we received from the adjutants general, the National Guard leadership, the governors, and key officers across the defense establishment. I would like to submit for the Record letters of support from the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Adjutants General Association of the United States.

This drive to empower the Guard is also gaining momentum in Congress. Since 9/11 we have been asking the Guard to do more and more, and they have superbly handled their dual role at home and abroad. But strains are showing in the system. The Guard is a 21st century military organization that has to operate under a 20th century bureaucracy. The Guard's ability to help the Nation is limited only by the resources, authorities, and responsibility we give it. Let us put the trust in the men and women of the Guard that they have deserved and earned, by giving them the seat at the table that they need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators Rockefeller, Kohl and Schumer in introducing legislation to end the use of so-called ``authorized generics'' during the 180-day period that Congress intended for true generic market exclusivity. Authorized generics are nothing more than repackaged brand name drugs purporting to be a generic, but without the benefit of a true generic's lower cost. This practice is anticompetitive and anti-consumer.

Amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, enacted as part of the Medicare Modernization Act (Title XI, PL 108-173) in 2003, generally grant a generic company that successfully challenges the patent of a name brand pharmaceutical company 180 days of marketing exclusivity on that generic drug. Having co-sponsored those amendments, I know that they were designed to give greater incentives for generic manufacturers to bring generic drugs quickly to the market, thus promoting competition and lowering prices for consumers.

In 2005, Senators Grassley and Rockefeller and I raised concerns about the practice of manufacturing authorized generics. We feared that practice could have a negative impact on competition for both blockbuster and smaller drugs, because the generic industry would be less inclined to invest in their production. According to a recent Generic Pharmaceutical Association study, our fears were well founded: Authorized generics diminish Hatch-Waxman incentives for generic firms to challenge brand name patents, resulting in higher consumer prices.

The legislation we introduce today bars brand name drug firms from producing ``authorized generics.'' Slapping a different name on a patented drug and calling it generic is not real competition, and it saps incentives from real generic drug makers to compete by making lower-cost generic drugs. Consumers deserve the lower costs and real choices of truly generic medicines.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this good bill into a good law.

Mr. President, I rise today with 12 other senators to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 2007. I am pleased again to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Dorgan, Enzi, Collins, Hagel, Harkin, Schumer, Leahy, Levin, Specter, Ben Nelson, and Sanders are also cosponsors of the bill.

Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation would continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.

Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural communities.

In response, every year since mandatory cost sharing was enacted Congress has blocked it from being implemented. Since 2003, a bipartisan group of senators have included language in each of the Department of Transportation's appropriations acts that bars the use of funds to implement the mandatory cost sharing program. Our bill would simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system.

The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-five States. EAS supports an additional 39 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 40 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001.

In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's business center and largest city.

I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues.

As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements could affect communities in as many as 22 states. These communities could be forced to pay as much s $130,000 per year to maintain their current air service. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that could be affected are as follows:

Alabama, Muscle Shoals; Arizona, Prescott, Kingman;

Arkansas, Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; California,

Merced, Visalia; Colorado, Pueblo; Georgia, Athens; Iowa,

Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas, Salina; Kentucky, Owensboro;

Maine, Augusta, Rockland; Maryland, Hagerstown; Michigan,

Iron Mt.; Mississippi, Laurel; Missouri, Joplin, Ft. Leonard

Wood; New Hampshire, Lebanon; New Mexico, Hobbs, Alamogordo,

Clovis; New York, Watertown, Jamestown, Plattsburgh;

Pennsylvania, Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona,

Lancaster; South Dakota, Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee,

Jackson; Vermont, Rutland; West Virginia, Clarksburg/

Fairmont, Morgantown.

This year the Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee will be taking up the reauthorization of aviation programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues Chairmen Inouye and Rockefeller and Ranking Members Stevens and Lott to improve commercial air service programs for rural areas. I do believe our bill is one important step in that process.

As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record opposing any mandatory cost sharing. I hope all senators will once again join us in opposing this attack on rural America.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.