Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Flake amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would cut funding to the American Ballet Theater, which is headquartered in the district I represent.

Last year, the House of Representatives and the Senate showed their support for the American Ballet Theater by passing identical resolutions recognizing the American Ballet Theater's important role as cultural ambassador and America's national ballet company.

An important part of ABT's mission is to expose as many people as possible to high quality ballet. This is at the heart of the request for studio company funding to bring ABT studio company and a host of educational and cultural programs to smaller communities that have limited economic means and access to these cultural benefits.

Educational research strongly suggests that young people who learn about and participate in the arts acquire skills that help them in decisionmaking, problem solving, creative thinking, and teamwork.

An increasing number of studies also finds that art programs motivate young people to learn, assisting in improving performance in core academic subjects.

For some children, the arts provide the impetus to stay in school until graduation, and for others, inspire them to pursue a college education.

Arts education programs will continue to play an important role as the Nation struggles to improve high school graduation rates, develop pre-kindergarten programs, and counter the achievement gap in urban communities.

The requested funds will allow ABT to expand the studio program's outreach by completing in-depth residencies in small and medium-sized communities in five regions, the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic, South, Midwest and West. Bringing world-class ballet and education programs, they're a very important part of the ABT's key mission.

More than simply offering performances, a studio company engagement leverages the company's resources to offer a range of educational activities and direct interaction with the company, often partnering with local ballet schools and universities to reach the local dance constituency.

While visiting a community, the studio company works with dance departments within universities and supplies tickets and study guides to local K-12 schools, exposing young people to dance, encouraging movement, physical fitness, creativity, and concentration.

Performing for local schools challenges youth to become more serious about the dance craft, while inspiring and expanding awareness of the possibilities for a career in the performing arts. The local arts community benefits from the experience of hosting ABT.

It appears that my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona, does not support the arts and does not appreciate the importance of arts education to our young people.

As I said, the arts are critical to our children's overall education. Creativity can be taught. This funding allows those communities who do not have the access to the arts to gain the benefits of having world- class arts education brought to them.

This is a worthy project, and I hope my colleagues recognize its importance. I urge the defeat of my friend and colleague's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman may not support the opportunity to bring the arts to small communities across the country that may inspire them.

I was very much inspired as a young person, going to the ballet. In fact, I studied for many years to be a professional dancer until I crushed my leg in an automobile accident.

But what the gentleman does support, he talks about what he doesn't support. But what the gentleman did support was a budget that Clinton left President Bush, a surplus well over $5 trillion that has been squandered. And what this gentleman has supported is budgets that have given this country records, but they're the wrong kinds of records.

We now have a record debt over $8 trillion. Every man, woman and child in America owes over $29,000 personally to that debt. And this administration gave this country record deficits, the largest in the history of this country, and the largest trade deficit in the history of this country.

That is what the gentleman has supported. What we are supporting in this amendment that I am putting forward is the opportunity for young people in communities across this country to be exposed and taught the arts.

I urge the defeat of the gentleman's amendment.

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

Madam Speaker. I rise in support of H. Res. 467, condemning the decision by the University and College Union of the United Kingdom to support a boycott of Israeli academia. It appears that this boycott reflects the views of only a small minority of this esteemed union. This small minority is tarnishing the reputation of a union whose membership includes professors of some of the most historic and enlightened academic institutions in the world. This boycott unfairly targets Israeli academics; it is both biased and destructive and should be opposed.

Academic and cultural exchange is a critical bridge between societies and cultures that have no other means of interacting with each other. Free exchange of ideas has been shown to be a very positive force in bringing people together to overcome their differences. Universities should not be conduits for espousing ethnically, religiously, or racially biased political ideologies. Throughout history universities have been bastions of progressive thinking and cross cultural collaboration and they should remain unfettered by such base and thoughtless ideas as bigotry.

I would like to join with others to support this resolution urging government and educators throughout the world to reaffirm the importance of academic freedom and open dialogue and to condemn measures that would prevent the sharing and exchange of knowledge.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. And in particular, I want to sincerely and deeply thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Walsh on behalf of all New Yorkers and this Nation for providing the leadership to include for the first time much-needed money for the health care needs of the heroes and heroines of 9/11.

These rescue, recovery and cleanup workers selflessly rushed into the flames of 9/11 to save the lives of others. We lost 3,000 people on 9/ 11, but many thousands more lost their health. This bill includes $50 million for their treatment. This is the first time it has been part of an appropriations bill, and I deeply thank Chairman Obey for working so hard to make this happen. In the past it has been tacked onto emergency spending and to the Iraq spending bill, but it is the least we can do to provide health care to these men and women.

Very importantly, the bill includes detailed language requiring the administration to develop and submit a long-term comprehensive plan to address these critical health needs. This is a tremendous step forward. I thank Chairman Obey.

Madam Speaker, today, along with Representative Towns (D-NY), I reintroduce legislation, the ``Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act,'' that will fortify the current federal suspension and debarment system.

The United States is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world spending more than $419 billion on procurement awards in FY2006 and $440,000,000,000 on grants in FY2005.

Yet the federal government's watchdogs, the federal suspension and debarment officials, currently lack the information that they need to protect our business interests and taxpayers' dollars. We have no centralized and comprehensive government-wide method to account for the performance of our contractors and assistance participants, and those who repeatedly violate federal law may still receive millions of dollars from the federal government.

According to data from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), since 1995, of the top fifty federal contractors based on total contract dollars received, nine have a total of twelve resolved cases totaling $161 million in penalties paid. Additionally, those fifty contractors have paid approximately $12 billion in fines and penalties.

``The Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act'' establishes a centralized and comprehensive database on actions taken against federal contractors and assistance participants, requiring a description of each of these actions. This will provide debarring officials with the information that they need to protect the business interests of the United States. It places the burden of proving responsibility and subsequent eligibility for contracts or assistance on the person seeking contracts or assistance should they have been previously convicted of two exact or similar violations that constitutes a charge for debarment. Additionally, it improves and clarifies the role of the Interagency Committee on Debarments and Suspension, and requires the Administrator of General Services to report to Congress within 180 days with recommendations for creating the centralized and comprehensive federal contracting and assistance database.

Mr. Speaker, a new report that just came out by the Government Accountability Office shows that the United States lags far behind other industrialized countries in providing policies that help families balance the competing demands of work and family responsibilities.

Critics argue that implementing such policies here could have a negative impact on the economy, but many countries with strong work- family policies are among the world's most competitive economies in the world and have unemployment rates that are the same or lower than the United States.

More and more businesses are finding that doing right by workers is good for the bottom line. Paid parental and sick leave, flexible work schedules and access to child care provide a boost to worker productivity, retention, and recruitment that outweigh the cost of implementing such policies.

U.S. workers, businesses, and the economy would benefit from stronger work-family policies.

``A copy of the GAO report is avail- able on the JEC website at http:// www.jec.senate.gov/Documents/ Hearings/06.14.07%20Work-Life%20 Balance/GAO%20-%20Kay%20Brown%20 Testimony%20--%20FINAL.pdf.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2956, the ``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.''

This legislation would accomplish what the majority of the American people have said over and over that they support--the redeployment of American troops from Iraq. H.R. 2956 would require this redeployment to begin within 120 days, with completion to a limited presence by April 1, 2008.

The evidence continues to mount that the surge is not working. More than 3,500 troops have lost their lives and more than 26,000 have been wounded since this war began. The costs are too great to continue this failed policy.

The progress report that was presented to Congress today states that the Iraqi government has made limited progress in meeting political, economic, or security benchmarks and in some instances has made virtually no progress at all. The President said that when the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. More than four years later, we are still waiting.

Increasingly, Republican senators are coming forward to announce that they support a change in policy in Iraq. I am glad that they are finally accepting what many of us have been saying for months. Yet the President continues to dig in by promoting his failed policy against the will of the American people and despite dwindling support within his own party.

This bill establishes a new direction for our forces in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents and support this legislation.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and just say this is an incredibly important bill. It will expand the number of units of affordable housing and expand the number of vouchers to over 100,000. That's extremely important to the American people.

And in response to the gentleman, if he cared so much about his amendment, he should have offered it during the committee. Chairman Frank and Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters held hearings and thoroughly discussed every amendment. The committee met for 2 complete days and thoroughly discussed every amendment. If the gentleman wanted and cared about his amendment, he should have put it forward before the committee.

The rule is very fair. Out of the six amendments that had have been accepted, three are Republican, one is bipartisan, and the other is a bipartisan manager's amendment. So the gentleman is not looking at what is the real issue. The real issue is providing affordable housing that is desperately needed in our country. Many families are facing the increased cost of living, and there is a lack of affordable housing. I object strenuously to the facts in the statement by my good friend on the other side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1853, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (SEVRA). This bill comes before the House at a critical time.

Right now too many Americans face the double onslaught of stagnant wages and ever increasing costs of living, including a critical lack of affordable housing. That is why it is so important to send a strong message to our constituents that we support stable, safe and affordable communities.

Affordable housing is a critical component of this, and Section 8 housing vouchers provide vital rental assistance for low-income families, seniors, and the disabled. I am pleased to report that this legislation comes to the floor with

the strong bipartisan support of the Financial Services Committee which passed this bill in May by a vote of 52-9.

This bill makes a number of changes to the Section 8 voucher, project-based and public housing programs. Specifically this bill:

Makes the Voucher Funding Formula More Efficient. The bill reforms the formula used to allocate Section 8 voucher funds to housing agencies to increase the number of families receiving vouchers.

Creates 100,000 New Vouchers. We authorize 20,000 new incremental vouchers a year over each of the next 5 years.

The Bill Promotes Homeownership. By allowing families to use housing vouchers as a down-payment on a first-time home purchase.

Encourages economic self-sufficiency for low income voucher and public housing families. H.R. 1851 includes a number of provisions designed to create incentives for families to obtain employment, increase earned income, pursue higher education, and save for retirement. No longer will our voucher formula discourage and penalize a voucher holder from seeking and obtaining employment.

Protects Tenants. The bill preserves the rights of voucher families to move to other areas, it addresses excessive voucher rent burdens, provides for more accurate fair market rent calculations to protect voucher holders in units that are in need of repair.

Stronger families and communities are a key part of the Democrats' New Direction for America. This bill strongly aids this goal.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the College Cost Reduction Act.

I want to commend Chairman Miller on this legislation, which provides the single largest investment in higher education since the GI bill--at no new cost to taxpayers.

I am proud that this Democratic Congress has tackled the college cost crisis: the time to act is now. Over the last 5 years, college costs have grown by nearly 40 percent. Students across the country are graduating with more and more debt. In my home state of New York, the typical student with need-based loans graduates from 4-year public schools with over $14,000 in debt. And each year nearly 200,000 students in our country hold off on attending college, or opt out altogether, simply because they cannot afford to go.

This historic bill would make college more affordable by cutting interest rates on subsidized student loans in half over the next 5 years. In New York, this means an average student saves $4,570 over the life of their loan.

It will also increase the purchasing power of the Pell Grant Scholarship, upping the maximum scholarship by at least $500 over the next 4 years and ultimately reaching a maximum scholarship of at least $5,200 by 2011. In New York, this increased purchasing power could directly help over 420,000 students.

Under the College Cost Reduction Act, students from New York and all across the country will be better able to achieve their goals and reach their dreams. Our Nation and our economy also benefit when we strengthen the middle class by making college more affordable. I am proud to cast my vote for this historic bill, which makes a tremendous step towards ensuring that no one is denied the opportunity to go to college simply because of the price.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Larry Epstein, a decorated veteran of the U.S. Army, whose long service and dedication to the country are deserving of special note. A man of great integrity and honor, Mr. Epstein has been a community leader and an activist on veterans' issues.

I came to know Mr. Epstein through his leadership in the veterans community. He is commander of the New York County Council of the Jewish War Veterans of the USA (JWV), commander of Florence Greenwald Manhattan Post 1 and a national service officer of the JWV.

Mr. Epstein was deeply involved in the effort to save the New York campus of the New York Harbor Healthcare System, located at 23rd Street and 1st Avenue in Manhattan. He devoted time and effort to organizing veterans to provide comments to the CARES Commission in support of the hospital. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Epstein and all of those who rallied behind the hospital, we were able to preserve an institution that provides high quality care to thousands of New York veterans. Most recently, Mr. Epstein joined me and Congressman Joseph Crowley in calling for an overall increase in Federal assistance to provide adequate health care for America's wounded troops.

Mr. Epstein had a long and distinguished career in the U.S. military and Reserves that commenced in 1967 and spanned three decades. From the Vietnam era through Desert Shield, Mr. Epstein served our country honorably and with great distinction, demonstrating the highest caliber of dedication.

Mr. Epstein is a graduate of the National Defense University and the United States Army War College class of '92. He has served in the 101st Airborne and has been a staff officer at EUCOM, SOUTHCOM, and PACOM. Among his awards are the National Defense Service Medal with star, Army Commendation with 2 Oak leaves, Reserve Commendation Medal and the Legion of Merit for service in Panama. He has been awarded the Conspicuous Service Star by the New York State Department of Military Affairs. His badges include Air Assault and Israeli Airborne Wings.

In his civilian life, Mr. Epstein has been a computer consultant, private detective, and real estate developer. In Ocean County, New Jersey, he was chairman of the Planning Board of the Township of Ocean. He also served as the local Democratic County Committee chairman. Mr. Epstein ran for Ocean County Freeholder. Although he lost the race, he exceeded expectations by garnering 20,000 more votes than any Democratic candidate for the seat in the preceding decade. The support he received is a testament to his hard work, dedication to his community and effectiveness.

Tragically, Mr. Epstein is suffering from the fatal neurodegenerative disease ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), commonly referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease. Shockingly, a study conducted by the ALS Association found that men and women who have served in the Armed Forces have a 60 percent greater chance of contracting ALS. No one knows why. On the average, the survival rate is 2 to 5 years after diagnosis. Despite his grave illness, Mr. Epstein continues to work on behalf of his fellow veterans.

Madam Speaker, I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing a true hero, Larry Epstein. He exemplifies the ideals of compassion, diligence and loyalty to his comrades.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 526) supporting home ownership and responsible lending.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous materials thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 526, a resolution that supports both homeownership and responsible lending. This resolution is on the floor today because we are facing, by all accounts, a tsunami of defaults and foreclosures in the primary subprime market. In each of our districts, our constituents are encountering payment shock as their subprime loans reset to much higher rates. By some estimates, 2.2 million homeowners with subprime loans made through 2006 will lose their homes.

As Chair of the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, I have held three hearings on this important and complex issue. At these hearings, we have heard from the Federal regulators, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the National Credit Union Association, and the Federal Reserve. Acting in a cooperative manner, the FDIC, OCC, OTS and the Fed have issued joint guidance that require financial institutions under their supervision to issue mortgages based on the customer's ability to repay that mortgage.

This commonsense guidance includes underwriting loans to the fully indexed rate and not just to the 2- or 3-year teaser rates that have been so popular over the last few years, as well as allowing borrowers a reasonable time to refinance without prepayment penalties. At these hearings, we have also heard from consumer groups and advocates who tell us that while this guidance is a good first step, 50 percent of the mortgage market comes from lenders outside of the oversight of these Federal regulators.

To effect real change, we need standardized rules over the entire market. One option that has frequently been mentioned is for the Federal Reserve to use its authority to stop unfair and deceptive practices under the HomeOwnership and Equity Protection Act. I am told that the Fed is looking into this. I fully support their using this authority that the Congress has given them in this area.

Beyond HOEPA, we must work together here in Congress to ensure that unfair lending practices are not rewarded and that our constituents have access to credit. Over the coming months, I plan to continue working with Chairman Frank and holding hearings on this issue and drafting legislation to address some of the problems that have been highlighted both in this resolution and at our hearings. Each and every one of us here in Congress wants to ensure that the American Dream of homeownership does not become a nightmare for our constituents. I support this resolution. I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 556) to ensure national security while promoting foreign investment and the creation and maintenance of jobs, to reform the process by which such investments are examined

for any effect they may have on national security, to establish the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the committee, Chairman Frank, from the great State of Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and inquire how much time remains on my side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues who voted for this bill unanimously are as delighted as I am to see H.R. 556, the CFIUS reform bill, once again on this floor, this time headed for the President's desk.

Strengthening the system of review of foreign direct investment in this country is, as this body has recognized repeatedly, an important national and strongly bipartisan interest.

When the Dubai Ports World matter became front page news a year and a half ago, most Americans had no idea that the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States existed or what it did.

The Dubai Ports World debacle made clear that the CFIUS process needed strengthening and oversight, both to ensure that foreign investment here does not jeopardize our national security in a post-9/ 11 world and to encourage and support safe foreign investment in this country to create jobs and boost our economy. This bill is designed to accomplish both of these important goals.

As my colleagues will remember, one of the first bills passed by the Financial Services Committee in this Congress and brought to the floor was the original version of this legislation. I am delighted to say that the Senate adopted our bill with very few changes, and it is back here for final passage.

This has been a long and consistently bipartisan effort in which several Members played key roles and deserve special recognition.

I would like to especially thank Chairman Frank and the Democratic leadership, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, for their support. They made this bill a priority and quickly moved it forward for passage.

I also thank Minority Whip Roy Blunt for his work, both in this Congress and in the last, in putting together a coalition to build support for CFIUS reform. Congressman Joe Crowley and Congressman Luis Gutierrez played a key role in that coalition, and I thank them.

My former colleague on the Monetary Policy Subcommittee, Congresswoman Pryce of Ohio, worked with me to hold hearings on this bill in the last Congress. Those hearings built on the seminal report from the GAO on the weaknesses in the CFIUS process.

I also thank Congressman Thompson of Mississippi and Congressman King of the Homeland Security Committee, who encouraged this bill from the start.

I would like to thank those Members' staff, particularly Scott Morris, Joe Pinder, Kevin Casey, Peter Freeman, Kyle Nehvins; my subcommittee staff director, Eleni Constantine and Ed Mills for their tireless work on this bill over the past 2 years.

I would also like to thank the Senate for moving forward promptly on this key issue and for adopting our bill and our bill number.

In particular, I thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby for their bipartisan work in moving this forward and their staffs for the careful dedication they gave to every detail of this legislation.

Finally, I would like to the thank Secretary Paulson, Deputy Secretary Kimmitt, Undersecretary Steel and Assistant Secretary Lowery. It is they and their successors who will ensure that the CFIUS process works under Congress's oversight. I have appreciated the dialogue we have had over the past 2 years on how the reforms we propose will be implemented, and in some cases, they already have been.

This bill is necessary now more than ever. As the Wall Street journal reported this week, a growing number of countries are imposing new restrictions on foreign investment that go well beyond the strict focus on national security concerns embodied in this legislation.

The story indicates that the new hostility to foreign acquirers reflects a perception that the United States is erecting new barriers to foreign capital. Today's legislation establishes in unequivocal terms that this perception is false.

By strengthening and clarifying the national security review process and maintaining a strict focus on national security, the CFIUS reforms embodied in H.R. 556 clearly endorse the open investment policy of the United States while enhancing our national security protections. In the name of national security, the President can intervene in any transaction, and, similarly, CFIUS can condition approval of a deal on being able to reopen a review. But this bill provides clarity and certainty for investors by requiring a finding by CFIUS that all other remedies have been exhausted before CFIUS can reopen a review.

I would note that the certain and transparent CFIUS procedures in this bill stand in stark contrast to actions by some foreign governments where expropriations of assets have occurred arbitrarily without justification and without recompense for U.S. investors. By passing this bill, we continue our long-standing efforts to ensure that U.S. investors are treated with the same certainty and fairness in foreign markets as we give foreign investors in this bill.

This bill makes several necessary reforms. First, it creates CFIUS by statute, so that its operations, membership and procedures have a sound basis in law, and we are reviewable by Congress.

Second, it requires a full 45-day investigation of foreign government investment, in addition to the 30-day review, which can only be waived by the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of Treasury. While many foreign governments' transactions are harmless, they also pose certain inherent risks. Governments have more assets and resources than private sector participants and may have nonmarket motives.

Third, it requires review and sign-off on every transaction, by a high-level official. When the Ports World deal became public, no senior official could be found who knew about the approval before it happened. The House bill required all approvals to be made by the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. The Senate bill allows a Deputy Secretary to make a decision, but it also mandates the creation of a special assistant secretary at Treasury whose portfolio would be CFIUS matters. By restricting the additional decision-making ability to one out of the many assistant secretaries at the Treasury, this preserves the accountability and high-level review that motivated the original delegation provision.

Fourth, the bill requires reporting to Congress after the conclusion of reviews. While we do not want to politicize the process of security review, we also want to assure proper oversight.

Fifth, it creates and places and puts in place the importance of review by the National Intelligence Director.

Six, it requires tracking of transactions that are withdrawn from the process. Since deals are often withdrawn because they hit a snag in the initial course of review, it is necessary to make sure that appropriate steps are taken to prevent whatever potential risk was spotted.

For example, this was the case with a Smartmatic transaction that I brought to the attention of Treasury last summer as a matter requiring CFIUS review. As you may recall, press reports indicated that Smartmatic, which had just bought the second largest voting machine company in the United States, Sequoia Voting Systems, had ties to the Venezuelan government.

I thought those allegations needed to be investigated by the body with the power to really get into the tangled ownership of the company, which is CFIUS. Under the broad and flexible definition of national security that the bill puts in place, certainly the ownership of voting machines is a potential national security issue.

A CFIUS review began of the deal. But before it was completed, Smartmatic withdrew and agreed to sell Sequoia. Certainly, this is an agreement that I would want CFIUS to track and make sure actually was followed.

I think we have struck the right balance in this bill in protecting the national security interests of our country, first and foremost, but also providing a certain and clear procedure to encourage safe foreign investment that will create jobs and boost the economy.

I urge my colleagues to once again give this bill their unequivocal support and send it to the President with a bipartisan vote.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's hard work on this bill and his statements, but I would like to clarify that CFIUS is a consensus body, so each member does and will continue to have an effective veto. This bill does not affect that ability in any way. Chairman Frank of the committee made that very clear in his statements in committee and on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of important organizations in our country, including the Chamber of Commerce, that have issued letters and statements in support of this legislation.

July 10, 2007.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: On

behalf of the Financial Services Forum, a trade association

comprised of the CEOs of 20 of the largest and most

diversified financial institutions, I write in strong support

of H.R. 556, the ``Foreign Investment and National Security

Act of 2007.'' This bipartisan legislation would ensure that

proposed foreign investments in the U.S. meet national

security objectives while preserving an open, fair and non-

discriminatory investment environment.

Passage of this bill indicates to international investors

and trade partners that the U.S. remains open for foreign

investment and signals to other countries that they should

follow suit by keeping their doors open to U.S. foreign

direct investment.

The Forum believes that the legislation strikes the

appropriate balance between keeping Americans safe and

growing the economy. The included reforms make clear that

every Administration will devote time and resources to

foreign investment deals that require higher levels of

scrutiny, while allowing acquisitions that do not present

national security concerns to move forward swiftly.

Foreign direct investment supports employment for over 5

million Americans, who typically earn compensation well above

the national average. Investment from abroad supports 19% of

all U.S. exports. In 2005, a number of foreign-owned

companies reinvested $59 billion in profits back into the

U.S. economy. At a time when the competitiveness of the

United States is so important, H.R. 556 will help maintain

America's global advantage and grow the U.S. economy.

The Forum applauds the bipartisan leaders who worked

swiftly and productively to move this bill. H.R. 556 will

restore Congressional confidence in the CFIUS process and the

Forum urges Members to support this critically important

bipartisan bill.

Sincerely,

Robert S. Nichols,

President and COO,

The Financial Services Forum.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Lamborn Amendment, which would cut all funding in the underlying bill for the National Endowment for the Arts.

The NEA has been shortchanged for far too long, and it's time to ensure that it has the resources necessary to carry out its mission of supporting excellence in the arts, bringing the arts to all Americans, and providing leadership in arts education.

Since 1996, Congress has forced the NEA to meet the ever growing demands of our communities on a shoestring budget. Despite gross underfunding, the NEA has continued to promote arts and culture across the country.

With the able leadership of my good friends Rep. Slaughter and Rep. Shays, co-chairs of the Congressional Arts Caucus, we've been making steady progress every year in getting back to the appropriate level of funding for the NEA. This amendment represents an enormous and simply unthinkable step backwards for the Arts in our country.

Madam Chairman, I strongly oppose the Lamborn Amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Brown-Waite Amendment, which would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $32 million dollars, eliminating the much- needed funding increase for the NEA.

Since 1996, Congress has forced the NEA to meet the ever growing demands of our communities on a shoestring budget. Despite gross underfunding, the NEA has continued to promote arts and culture across the country.

With much-needed incremental increases since 2001, the NEA has developed widely-popular programs, including the Big Read and Shakespeare in American Communities, to encourage Americans to participate in cultural experiences.

In 2006, the NEA awarded 1,744 grants in 435 congressional districts--that's every single Congressional district in the nation.

In addition, because of the NEA's partnership with state and local art agencies, NEA grants are typically leveraged 7 to 1 for every dollar of federal investment.

Mr. Chairman, the cost of cutting funding to the NEA is so much more than the savings. I encourage my colleagues to support the NEA and oppose the Brown-Waite amendment.

Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing bipartisan legislation, the Osteoporosis Early Detection and Prevention Act of 2007, along with my friend and colleague from West Virginia.

This important bill will ensure that individuals at high risk for osteoporosis have access to screening tests for the disease. The Osteoporosis Early Detection and Prevention Act of 2007 will require private insurance plans to cover bone mass (bone density) measurement testing for those at risk for developing the disease.

Approximately 44 million Americans suffer from osteoporosis or are at risk of developing it, and 80 percent of those at risk are women. Every year, there are 1.5 million bone fractures caused by osteoporosis. Half of all women and one-fourth of all men, age 50 or older, will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis.

Since there is no known cure for osteoporosis, the most effective way to reduce the prevalence and cost of the disease is through prevention and early diagnosis. As a result, bone mass measurement tests are crucial to early detection because ordinary x-rays do not detect osteoporosis until the disease is so advanced that 25 to 40 percent of bone mass has been lost.

Osteoporosis is a disease that has no symptoms and usually remains undiagnosed until a fracture occurs. I am pleased to introduce a bill that requires private health insurance plans to cover a bone mass measurement test for qualified men and women who are at risk for developing osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement is a non-invasive, painless and reliable way to diagnose osteoporosis before costly fractures occur. I believe this legislation will make a huge difference in defending men and women from osteoporosis.

Madam Speaker, on June 25, 2007, I missed rollcall votes numbered 549, a Resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day'' should be established and 550, a Resolution to designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Asheville, North Carolina, as the ``Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.''

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes numbered 549 and 550.