Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule governing the consideration of H.R. 1851.

I had hoped that the committee would see the wisdom in providing an important open rule on this important legislation; and in the absence of an open rule, that it would at least make in order those amendments that Members took the time and effort to draft. Unfortunately, of the 23 amendments filed with the Rules Committee, only six were made in order. While I'm pleased that the majority of those amendments are Republican amendments, the other Republican and Democratic amendments deserved to be debated and given a full and fair hearing.

Section 8 vouchers are tenant-based as well as project-based subsidies that low-income families use in the private market to lower their rental cost to 30 percent of their incomes. The program has grown to replace public housing as the primary tool for subsidizing the housing costs of low-income families.

Through this program, HUD provides portable subsidies to individuals, tenant-based, who are seeking rental housing from qualified and approved owners, and provide subsidies to private property owners who set aside some or all of their units for low-income families. This is project-based.

The section 8 program began in 1974 primarily as a project-based rental assistance program. However, in the mid-1980s project-based assistance came under criticism for being too costly and for concentrating poor families in high-poverty areas. Consequently, in 1983, Congress stopped providing new project-based section 8 contracts and created vouchers as a new form of assistance.

Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects a bipartisan effort led by Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters and Republican members of the committee. In fact, this bill enjoyed substantial Republican support in the Financial Services Committee. I am an original cosponsor, along with Mr. Shays.

During committee deliberation, we were given the opportunity to debate and consider a variety of issues pertaining to this bill. Members on our side of the aisle had hoped to be given the same opportunity to debate important issues on the House floor. For example, the amendment filed by my colleagues, Mr. Price, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, Mrs. Capito and Mr. Campbell, requiring proper documentation when seeking section 8 Federal assistance was not made in order. This is an important amendment, and I would have hoped we would have the opportunity to debate that issue fully.

There were other amendments filed my by colleagues, Congressmen Chabot, King and Wicker, that I think deserve to be considered by the full House. These Members do not serve on the Financial Services Committee and should have been given the chance to offer amendments crucial to their constituents and districts.

Republicans support many aspects of H.R. 1851, but we all deserve the right to participate in the amendment process, whether as members of the committee of jurisdiction or as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Only through an open rule is that possible. For this reason, as a supporter of this legislation, I rise in reluctant opposition to the rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like first to thank all of my colleagues and their staffs from both sides of the aisle for working to craft a bipartisan section 8 reform bill that we are considering today. In particular I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters for their hard work, committee Ranking Member Bachus for his support, and the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, who joined me as an original cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that passed out of our committee by a vote of 52-9. It is similar to the section 8 reform bill that then Chairman Oxley moved through the Financial Services Committee during the last Congress. It was a bipartisan bill then too, passing out of the committee by a voice vote.

The section 8, or Housing Choice Voucher Program, is the major Federal program helping the elderly, the disabled and the very low- income families find affordable housing in the private market. Today's housing vouchers are the primary tool of assistance provided under section 8.

Many of my colleagues served in this body when housing vouchers were first proposed and implemented under a Republican administration, that of President Reagan. The Section 8 Voucher Program was designed to move people away from large concentrated housing projects, like our Cabrini- Green or Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. It allows individuals to make decisions about where they want to live, instead of forcing them to live in large public housing projects filled with crime, poverty and despair.

For the colleagues on my side of the aisle, I should admit, quite frankly, that this bill is better than I expected it to be. We have been able to get several key issues addressed in this bill that were not addressed in last year's Republican legislation.

I want to thank Chairman Waters, who coauthored with me a manager's amendment that the committee accepted during our markup that includes a number of provisions to increase the flexibility of project-based section 8 vouchers. It amended section 8 of the law regarding the use of vouchers to purchase manufactured homes, voucher reserves, portability, performance assessment, disabled vouchers and rent levels.

In addition, I am pleased that included in this bill is language that is identical to the Family Self-Sufficiency Act, or FSS, a bill that I introduced as a stand-alone measure. This

bill enhances HUD's FSS program by providing housing authorities with consistent coordinator funding. Housing authorities can then help more individuals move from public assistance to being self-sufficient homeowners.

Perhaps most important for Members on my side of the aisle is that this bill includes a significant expansion of Moving to Work, or the MTW program. Members on both sides of the aisle have public housing authorities in their district that seek to become Moving to Work housing authorities.

In my district, DuPage Housing Authority would like this status. However, to date, Congress has only authorized 32 housing authorities to be MTWs. During the committee markup, we increased the authorization to a total of 80, which is a remarkable achievement. In addition, the Moving to Work provisions in this bill require HUD to craft standards that will govern eligibility requirements from being considered and/or designated as a Moving to Work authority. This bill includes important tenant protections that make the MTW Program better than it is today.

Finally, I am also pleased that we included a provision that will measure the success of the program. Congress created the Moving to Work program in 1996, but it does not require HUD to establish standards and evaluate agencies' performance.

Now granted, the administration does not support this bill, nor did it support the Oxley bill last year or in the previous Congress.

Why? Well, because in their view, it does not reform the program enough. They believe it moves the program from one that is currently budget based to a unit-based system that Mr. Knollenberg spoke about earlier. But I think that point is subject to interpretation. And politics is the art of the possible; and absent this bill, no reform is possible.

This bill does not include everything that I wanted either. The section 8 funding formula my colleagues will recall was changed in the CR earlier this year. I have on several occasions offered amendments in committee to address this formula change, and we did include in the manager's amendment a provision that will provide PHAs a cushion in the transition year so they are not penalized for CR formula change.

I believe there is more work to be done. There are 1,200 PHAs. Half of those across the country do not suffer from unjustified and significant funding cuts as a result of the new section 8 funding formula included in the CR.

Chairman Frank has agreed to engage in a colloquy with me about this, and I look forward to doing that in a few moments. I hope we will continue to work together as we continue to address the continued shortcomings of this formula.

This is a good bill and one deserving of our support, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for it.

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

I thank the gentlewoman, and I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Frank at this time.

Chairman Frank, as you may recall, the section 8 funding formula was changed through provisions in the continuing resolution. I did not support these changes because they did cut about 1,500 public housing authority slots in three counties in my congressional district. And as Chairman Frank can verify, I have on several occasions offered amendments to change this.

I am pleased that the manager's amendment includes a provision which addresses this problem. While I am pleased that we can take productive steps towards addressing the shortcomings, I believe we can do more as we move on, and it is my understanding that members of the Appropriations Committee have included a similar provision in the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Appropriations bill. Would the chairman consider supporting this?

I thank the gentleman.

Again regarding the rebenchmarking, both the current formula and the one in this bill would base a PHA's annual funding level on a ``snapshot'' of the PHA's use of funds from the previous 12 months. However, I continue to be concerned that his annual benchmarking is unworkable when coupled with the congressional budget cycle. For this reason, I hope we can continue to work together as we move forward to address the continued shortcomings of this formula. PHAs have always stated and continue to argue that their main concern is to have predictability and certainty in funding so they can plan both voucher utilization and staffing. I know they would appreciate more predictability. If the snapshot and the rebenchmarking were done every other year, would the chairman continue to explore with me the benefits of a biennial versus annual rebenchmarking?

Again, I thank the gentleman.

In addition, I would like to ask the chairman to consider other measures to assist PHAs in the transition period and in the subsequent years. For example, I would like the chairman to consider a so-called hold-harmless provision attached to the new section 8 formula. The provision would provide PHAs with an assurance that they would not lose more than a certain percentage of funds in any given year due to the utilization rates in the previous years. The reasons for this are many, but at the heart of the matter is the simple fact that the so-called excess in funds that many PHAs were caught with when the new formula was dropped into the CR were not in fact excess at all but the result of deliberate choices, court-ordered requirements or special set-aside categories of

vouchers. The PHAs should not be losing all of these vouchers in the first year. The percentage could range from perhaps 10 to 25 percent. And again, PHAs deserve stability and predictability in funding. Would the chairman work with me to craft a hold-harmless provision to include in this bill or the appropriations bill?

Again, I thank the chairman; and thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), another member of the Financial Services Committee, to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Frank.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire of the time remaining on either side of the aisle?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

In closing, I would again like to thank the subcommittee chairwoman, Ms. Waters, Chairman Frank and Mr. Shays for introducing and working on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, which received a 52-9 vote coming out of our committee.

The bill we will vote on today is a good bill. It is the result of bipartisan cooperation. It contains many provisions more than in last year's bill that help families dependent upon public assistance become families that are independent and self-sufficient tax-paying productive members of society.

It's my sincere hope that we can further improve the bill, especially the sections involving the funding formula. I thank the chairman for agreeing to work with me on this.

I truly hope that we can move this bill beyond the House during this Congress and that the Senate and the administration will work with us to reform this important program.

America's families and American children deserve a 21st-century section 8 program.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I would like to thank Chairwoman Waters for her manager's amendment and, in particular, the 12.5 percent for the transition in the public housing.

Madam Chair, I yield to my colleague, Mr. Miller of California, for the balance of the time.

I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Violence Against Women Act reauthorized and signed into law by President Bush in 2005 ensured that victims of domestic violence would not be evicted from public or section 8 housing for screaming for help, for calling the police or simply for being the victim of a crime. However, one provision of H.R. 1851 inadvertently removes these protections from certain public housing authorities, leaving victims in these housing authorities with inconsistent or no protection.

I think that the Housing Innovation Program provisions in SEVRA exempt high-performing public housing authorities from certain Federal regulations, giving them a measure of regulatory reform. Unfortunately, some of the VAWA protections were among those that would no longer apply to these high-performing housing authorities. This would create confusion for public housing authorities and leave victims vulnerable to eviction after an assault.

I support the amendment, and appreciate this being added to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ohio is unable to get here in the length of time needed, so I would just say that we support the amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2669, the so-called College Cost Reduction Act. Like many of my colleagues, I have serious concerns about the new mandatory spending that is included in this legislation. H.R. 2669 creates nine new entitlement programs, most of which do not attempt to address the hurdles many prospective and current college students face.

Mandatory spending entitlement programs already consume the largest portion of the Federal budget. The uncontrolled growth of entitlement programs, particularly Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, will eventually consume the entire Federal budget by 2050 if left unchecked. That means the Federal Government would have no available funds for programs other than entitlements; no militaries, highways, courts, law enforcement or border security.

So how are we addressing this looming crisis today? Well, it seems we are addressing it by creating new entitlement programs, nine of them. The new programs created under this legislation will not undergo the annual scrutiny of the appropriations process. Regardless of the success or failure of these programs, the American taxpayer, our constituents, will continue to pay for these new programs available to anyone that meets the basic qualifications.

Another serious concern is that some of the mandatory spending in H.R. 2669 is directed towards colleges, universities and philanthropic organizations. Traditionally entitlement programs have been directed at individuals who are in need of the Federal assistance, such as Medicare, Social Security, food stamps and student loans. Directing the mandatory funding under this legislation to institutions, instead of low- and middle-income students who need the assistance most, sends the wrong message about the priorities of this Congress.

During the Education and Labor Committee markup, I supported a substitute amendment offered by Mr. McKeon that would have invested $12 billion in the Pell Grant program, more than double the increase provided by this bill. It also reduced the PLUS loan interest rates for the Federal Family Education Loan Program to match the interest rate in the Direct Loan Program, currently 7.9 percent. The funding provided under the McKeon substitute would have been directed to those who need the assistance most, the students, without creating new programs and additional bureaucracy for students and parents to navigate.

Finally, I have concerns about maintaining the viability of the FFELP. In the last Congress, the Education and Workforce Committee made $20 billion in changes to FFELP by eliminating and reducing Federal subsidies to lenders. Just 2 years later, we are back again squeezing student loan lenders. My concern is this legislation is using the reconciliation process as a backdoor attempt to kill FFELP.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that I have to oppose the rule and this legislation. There are a few provisions in this legislation that I believe would help college students and address some concerns in areas of academic need.

However, I cannot support a bill that creates new mandatory spending for institutions at a time when we are addressing the looming crisis with our existing entitlement programs for individuals. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and against H.R. 2669.

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

I rise to support House Resolution 526, recognizing homeownership and responsible lending. As the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Cummings, and Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Maloney for working in a cooperative fashion to ensure that the language protects borrowers while preserving access to homeownership opportunities.

Over the past several years, the housing market has helped to drive the national economy as Americans bought and refinanced homes in record numbers. The benefits of homeownership are undeniable. For this reason, there has been a significant focus on improving homeownership opportunities for everyone, including the low-income borrower. At the same time, the subprime market has flourished and provided credit to many families that may not have qualified under conventional standards.

Today, this country enjoys record-high homeownership rates. More than 68 million Americans own a home. Of this 68 million, 50 million homeowners have a mortgage, and 13 million of them have a subprime loan. According to a recent Chicago Tribune article, ``Subprime loans, often with adjustable rates, made homeownership possible for millions of Americans whose credit ratings or income levels made them ineligible for cheaper prime loans.''

However, of the 13 million subprime loans, roughly 5 percent of them are entering foreclosure. According to the data released by the Mortgage Bankers Association, these numbers are on the rise. These mortgage foreclosure rates raise eyebrows and call into question what actions are to be taken to help homeowners keep their homes, and I would like to emphasize the word ``action.'' While I believe that this resolution under consideration outlines many important facts, most of which Americans have seen printed in the news for months, it does not take action. The resolution tells the House something that we already have authority to do, and that is to take action.

Americans are waiting for the leadership of this House to exercise that authority. We can talk about the increase in foreclosure rates until we are blue in the face, and why is the leadership in this House waiting. The fact of the matter is, this body needs to join forces with the folks in the public and private sectors to take action immediately.

What it is we should be doing right now is to ensure that the 650,000 homeowners and others who may follow can keep their homes. First we can and should pass a Federal Housing Administration modernization bill. I introduced H.R. 1752, the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, a bill

identical to the one that passed the House last July by a strong bipartisan vote of 415-7.

However, on the same day, two of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle introduced another FHA reform bill that includes a new and controversial housing trust fund provision. This trust fund provision has stalled the bill. So while the other side of the aisle is holding out for a brand-new trust fund, millions of Americans may lose their homes in 2007 because they did not have the refinancing option that a modernized FHA could have offered them.

In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary for Housing Brian D. Montgomery urged Congress to pass an FHA reform bill and said FHA could help hundreds of thousands of additional borrowers to secure a safe and affordable mortgage. He said that the best thing to help subprime borrowers is to reform FHA, and he added that HUD is prepared to immediately implement FHA reforms.

Second, this resolution mentions we can immediately increase opportunities for housing counseling. It also says that we should raise public awareness. I think that first by advertising available resources we can both raise public awareness and increase opportunities for housing counseling. It is crucial to promote financial literacy and educate our youth and adults. This is the most direct way of ensuring that consumers understand the terms of their loan so that they may avoid predatory loans and foreclosure altogether.

I am pleased that on June 25, Neighborhood Works America and the Ad Council launched a national ad campaign aimed at preventing home foreclosures. Homeowners in trouble can try to save their homes by calling a hotline, 888-995-HOPE, a number provided by the Homeowner Preservation Foundation.

In addition, we have about 2,300 HUD-certified housing counseling agencies across the country. Americans should know they can visit HUD's Web site or call 800-569-4287 to find a HUD-certified counselor in their neighborhood. HUD-certified counselors can give straightforward and free or low-cost advice to potential or existing homeowners about buying a home, refinancing a mortgage, or preventing foreclosure.

Third, we need to address the root problems resulting from predatory or bad subprime loans. The Federal regulators have recently stepped up to the plate and tried to address the increasing number of foreclosures through interagency guidance on subprime loans. The guidance to mortgage lenders focuses on loans in the subprime market, particularly adjustable rate mortgage products. It specifies that a lender's assessment or a consumer's ability to repay should be based on the fully indexed rate, assuming a fully amortized repayment schedule. The guidance also focuses on the need for clear and balanced communication to the borrower with regard to mortgage loan benefits.

I support these efforts, but there is much more to do. I know that the issue of mortgage fraud is hot in the Chicago area. We need to ensure that law enforcement has the necessary tools and resources to crack down on fraudulent activities.

Finally, I support this resolution because I agree with my colleagues on the importance of shedding some light on actions that Congress or Federal regulators can take to help homeowners enter into realistic and affordable loans in the future. As we consider our options to take action at the Federal level to help Americans keep and own their homes, I would urge my colleagues to carefully weigh the potential consequences of such actions.

We should allow secondary mortgage markets to adjust to the rise in foreclosures accordingly and to continue to supply liquidity to the primary mortgage market. Simultaneously, we should take immediate action. We need to pass FHA modernization now, and we need to ensure that people continue to have immediate access to financial education and counseling, credit, and viable mortgage options so that people in future generations can realize the American Dream of homeownership.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his hard work on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time but would just ask one question of the chairman.

I think this is so important, and you mentioned that the FHA bill will be coming up. I was curious as to when we would be considering a subprime bill?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for bringing this resolution forward and outlining the important facts that will enable and make certain that people can keep their homes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this open rule and the fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Member Hobson, and their subcommittee for putting together a strong bill that clearly recognizes the importance of scientific research and energy security to our national competitiveness. In particular, I want to commend them for more than meeting the President's request for the DOE Office of Science.

Mr. Speaker, we face a world in which our economic competitors in Asia and Europe are making significant new investments in their own research capabilities. These investments are beginning to payoff, as Asian and European countries challenge U.S. leadership in the sciences, no matter how it is measured--by number of patents won, articles submitted to scientific journals, degrees awarded, or Nobel prizes won.

Report after report has called on Congress and the President to invest in U.S. research capabilities. The benefits of such an investment to the U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness are well known. Economic experts have concluded that science-driven technology has accounted for more than 50 percent of the growth of the U.S. economy during the last half-century.

That's why President Bush and Congressional Democrats and Republicans have proposed doubling federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences over the next 5 to 10 years as part of their innovation and competitiveness initiatives.

Supporting over 40 percent of total federal funding for basic research in the physical sciences--more than any other Federal agency-- the DOE Office of Science is the Nation's primary supporter of research in the physical sciences.

Mr. Speaker, U.S. scientists are as bright as any in the world, but they traditionally have had better tools than everyone else. Under the President's budget, 21,500 researchers would have access to the DOE's unique system of large-scale, specialized user facilities. Nearly half of those users will be university faculty and students, many will be from other federal agencies, and a significant number will be from U.S. industry.

And the Office of Science is using those facilities and its expertise to address our energy challenges. It supports basic research related to: The production of cellulosic biofuels; the development of advanced materials for the safe storage of hydrogen; more durable and efficient solar panels and wind turbines; and advanced nuclear systems, not to mention fusion power.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of Science has developed a balanced investment strategy to ensure the U.S. retains its dominance in such key scientific fields as biotechnology, nanotechnology, materials science, and supercomputing well into the next century. I again commend my colleagues on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for recognizing the great contributions that basic research in general--and the DOE Office of Science in particular--make to our energy security and our national competitiveness.

I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding me the time.

I know that both the chairman and the ranking member share my great frustration that again this year the Department of Energy failed to request funding for the university reactor infrastructure and education assistance program. That is why I was extremely concerned to learn that this bill included no funding for this program.

At the same time I recognize that the subcommittee has provided $15 million in funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support university programs, but that spending will be limited to scholarships and fellowships and ``human infrastructure'' programs. And I understand that Assistant Secretary Spurgeon has indicated publicly that DOE plans to support universities, faculty and students with over $60 million in funding from its core research programs.

I would ask this of the ranking member: Does the subcommittee expect the DOE to fulfill this commitment? And, furthermore, is the $15 million in NRC funding in this bill in addition to DOE's commitment?

I yield to Mr. Hobson.

To ensure that the DOE fulfills this commitment, would the ranking member be willing to request that DOE submit a detailed report on how much the DOE would spend on university nuclear programs within the funding levels provided in this bill?

I thank the gentleman. I am also concerned that the bill does not provide sufficient funding for research reactor infrastructure support and upgrades. Would the ranking member be willing to work with me and other interested Members to ensure that the needs of our Nation's research reactor infrastructure are met in fiscal year 2008?

I thank the gentleman.

Finally on a separate and unrelated issue, I remain concerned that there is no funding in this bill for the Army Corps' dispersal barrier on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, which is designed to keep aquatic invasive species like the Asian carp from reaching the Great Lakes and devastating the ecosystem.

I recognize the bill contains no funding for the barriers because the bill identifies no projects, and because additional authority included in WRDA is required for the Corps to complete and operate the barriers. If for some reason WRDA isn't enacted before conference begins on this bill, will the ranking member agree to help address the outstanding authorization issues and appropriate the necessary funds for these barriers in conference?

And then, Mr. Chairman, do you share these concerns about both the barriers and DOE's university nuclear programs, and will you support the approach the ranking member and I are proposing to take to address these concerns?

I yield to Mr. Visclosky.

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in this area.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to talk about this bill and I will hold the debate on FHA until that bill comes to the floor.

I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Mr. Baker for introducing this year's GSE bill to establish a new and stronger regulator for the GSEs and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

Like last year's legislation, this bill aims to give the new regulator clear direction about its authority, available tools and mission. With this enhanced authority and guidance, the new GSE regulator can guide the GSEs to be most effective for homeowners, market participants, financial institutions, and taxpayers.

The overall purpose of the GSE reform bill is to create a strong, world-class regulator, and I think in this bill we direct the new regulator to review and set portfolio limits, establish minimum capital requirements, and review new programs and products.

However, unlike last year's legislation, I think this year's bill introduces a new, extraneous provision that does not permit the new regulator to focus solely on these very important duties. This bill does not isolate this regulator from political influence, but rather establishes a stream of cash that is financed on the backs of the American homeowners. Why do I say this? What is the affordable housing trust fund; does anyone know? And why would we allow GSE money to be diverted to an unknown, non-existent entity? This was not in last year's bill.

Last year's bill permitted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to manage an affordable housing fund. This year's bill permits the new regulator to establish and regulate the fund. I don't think that it is appropriate for this new regulator to manage the affordable housing fund.

The provision establishes a formula to allocate funds to States and Indian tribes which would in turn determine which organizations receive the funds. The new GSE regulator is tasked with establishing regulations to determine the prescription for States to distribute the funds. And as stated in

House Report 110-142, ``This bill provides that funds allocated for the affordable housing fund, may be transferred at a later date to a national affordable housing trust fund that may be subsequently enacted into law.''

We just don't know what is going to be the amount of money, where it is coming from, except if we determine that it is estimated that it would extract $3 billion in assessments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a 5-year period. There is no dollar limit as to how large this fund can become. Where will this money for the fund ultimately come from? It will come from low and middle income Americans seeking to purchase a home or refinance an existing mortgage. Hardworking, low income and middle income Americans who are trying to have their part of the American dream will ultimately be footing the bill for a national housing trust fund, the purpose of which has not yet been determined in law. Taxing hardworking American homeowners is not the way to fund new affordable housing.

I share the chairman's commitment to increasing the stock of affordable housing for low-income Americans, but this fund is the wrong way to achieve this objective.

Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to take a look at the Bachus amendment to strike the affordable housing fund section of this bill. I think we have a really good bill here. It is similar to last year's bill. I know that we have talked about this in the committee, we should have hearings and further discussions on the need to build more affordable housing in this country, how it can be done and how it can be financed, and particularly what this new affordable housing fund means.

So with that, I urge my colleagues to, at this time, not support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment to strike the Affordable Housing Fund.

I think the reason that we are having so much trouble talking about this, I know that in our March 15 hearing we urged the chairman if we could spend some time working this out prior to coming to the floor, and obviously that hasn't happened. But I think, because of all the questions, because we haven't had a hearing on this and we don't know what the national fund is; and he keeps saying we have got an Affordable Housing Fund now.

It is estimated by CBO that it is going to be $3 billion over a 5- year period. If that is 1.2 basis points, then it will be the $3 billion. But there is still no dollar limit as to how large the fund can become. Where will the money for the fund ultimately come from? We don't know, talking about is it going to be from lower and middle Americans, or is it going to be from shareholders?

But I think these are all things that need to be considered before we have the fund. And I know it is, ``Trust me. We are going to have a national fund and we will figure out how it is going to work.'' But I think that, in this day and age, that we really need to give the regulator some idea of what their job is.

I agree with so much of this bill. I think it is a shame. I voted for the bill last time, and I was very proud to do that. A lot of people didn't vote for the bill. And suddenly, most of the bill that was in that bill is now in this bill.

But unlike last year's legislation, I think this bill has included in this provision that doesn't permit the regulator to focus on the very important duties in this bill, and rather to have this Affordable Housing Trust Fund I think it is too bad. The new regulator has the duty to write those regulations and then administer an Affordable Housing Grant Fund program from day one, when we don't know what this national trust fund is going to end up being. I don't think that this is an appropriate time to do it.

So I urge that we would strike the Affordable Housing Trust Fund from this bill, and would urge support of that amendment.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 118.

Last month, the United States Olympic Committee selected Chicago as the official U.S. candidate for hosting the 2016 Olympic games. It's been over 100 years since the Midwest hosted these games, and I am pleased to report that the Nation's heartland is ready, willing and able to do so again.

I have lived in the Chicago area my whole life and I can't imagine a better location for the summer Olympics. The people are welcoming and they are sporting spirit is high. A national hub of water, railroad and air, the ``Windy City'' has a diversity of culture and community that reflects the very best of America. And as host of the 2016 games, Chicago will serve as the Nation's emissary to the world, just as it did once during the World's Fair of 1893.

Director of Works for that historic fair, Daniel Burnham, once famously said, ``Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood, and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work.''

From reversing a river to building the world's tallest tower, Chicagoans have a heritage of big dreams. And in keeping with its motto for the 2016 games, ``Stir the Soul,'' Chicago's visions for the Olympics will be a dream the whole country can share in.

To Mayor Daley, Patrick Ryan, the chairman of the Chicago Olympic Committee and all its members, I would like to extend my personal congratulations. Without their hard work and dedication, securing this nomination would not have been possible.

I thank the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. Emanuel) for sponsoring this resolution and the gentleman from Illinois, our former Speaker Hastert, for his hard work in gaining such attention.

I would also like to thank the efforts of all of our friends on the Illinois delegation, every one of whom helped in this cause tremendously by letters of support and by cosponsoring the resolution before us today.

The International Olympic Committee will be making its final selection in 2009. I invite all my colleagues

from across the Nation to unite behind Chicago and commit to doing our part to bring the 2016 Olympic games back to America.

Mr. Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 118, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the Lady Volunteers of the University of Tennessee on their 59-46 victory over

Rutgers University to clinch the 2007 NCAA Division I women's basketball championship. But I am sure you are wondering why a Member from Illinois would rise to discuss a team from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, it is to congratulate not only this team but one of its key players, Candace Parker. Candace grew up in the district that I represent, the 13th District of Illinois, and once again she is doing great things. I first got to know Candace when she led the Naperville Central High School Red Hawks to a State basketball title in 2003, a feat that they repeated in 2004.

During her high school years, she was honored with both the Naismith and Gatorade National Players of the Year Awards. Candace followed Marianne Jones and LeBron James as only the third high school athlete in any sport to win the Gatorade National Player of the Year in back- to-back seasons, and is the first girls' basketball player to achieve this distinction.

During her first year at Tennessee, she was forced to take a medical red shirt at Tennessee where she underwent surgery to repair her torn ACL. During her time away from basketball, Candace was continuing to make headlines, but this time in the academic area. She earned a spot on the Lady Volunteers' honor roll, and was named to the Southeastern Conference All-Academic Freshman Team. She returned to the court for the 2005-2006 season without missing a beat. She was the only player on the team to start every game and led the Lady Vols in scoring and rebounds.

While facing Army in the 2006 NCAA tournament, she became the first female to dunk in a tournament game and the first to do it twice in any game.

That season, Candace was named the 2006 SEC Tournament MVP, the 2006 SEC Freshmen of the Year, and the 2006 SEC Rookie of the Year. Adding to her extensive list of awards this season, she was named the 2007 SEC Player of the Year.

But perhaps her greatest achievement came as she and the Lady Volunteers won the 2007 NCAA Division I women's national basketball championship.

Candace Parker is an outstanding athlete and scholar who has done so many impressive things in her short career. Again, I would like to congratulate her and her fellow Lady Volunteers for winning. All of Illinois, and especially the residents of the 13th Congressional District, are proud of Candace and wish her continued success in her endeavors.

I look forward to watching Candace and her teammates defend their title next season, perhaps against a team from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Obviously I rise in strong support of H.R. 493. I think it has been an honor to work with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and, I might add, work we did.

When the Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, the House of Representatives recognized it as ``one of the most significant scientific accomplishments of the past 100 years.''

For the first time, individuals actually could know their genetic risk of developing disorders such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and they could take preventative measures to decrease their risks. It spawned a personalized medicine movement, focusing on catching diseases earlier, when they are cheaper and easier to treat or, even better, preventing the onset of the disease in the first place.

But after investing more than $3.7 billion in taxpayer money to achieve this breakthrough, Congress walked away and left the job unfinished.

We left people without any assurance that their genetic information would not be used against them. So, understandably, they avoided this great technology, never realizing the untold health benefits and savings.

This concern even spilled over into NIH, where a fear of genetic discrimination is currently the most commonly cited reason for not participating in research on potentially lifesaving genetic testing for breast cancer and colon cancer. Fully one-third of those eligible to participate declined to do so for this reason, undermining the development of new treatments and cures.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress is here to settle some unfinished business and provide Americans the protections against genetic discrimination in health care insurance and employment that they need to utilize genetic testing without fear.

Besides the more than 200 health advocacy and business organizations that support this bill, recent surveys show 93 percent of Americans believe that employers and insurers should not be able to use genetic information to discriminate.

With numbers like this, it should come as no surprise that this legislation enjoys overwhelmingly bipartisan support. And I want to take a moment to thank my good friend Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Walden and Ms. Eshoo. It truly has been a pleasure working with all of them. I would also like to thank Mr. McKeon, Mr. Miller and all the other chairmen and ranking full committee and subcommittee members for working together to make this a better bill.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the members of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, without whom this bill would not be possible.

Finally, I would like to thank Brian Petersen of my staff and Michelle Adams of Ms. Slaughter's staff and all the outstanding staff who worked tirelessly behind the scenes on our behalf and who have put in long hours on this legislation.

Why must we pass this bill today? Because it dramatically reduces health care costs while saving or extending human lives.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dr. Burgess.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I think that by incorporating genetic testing, we can significantly reduce the cost of chronic disease, which currently accounts for 70 cents of every health care dollar. I think the President of the United States understands this, and I will include for the Record the statement of administrative policy from the White House in favor of this legislation.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, April 25, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 493--Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (Rep.

Slaughter (D) NY and 224 cosponsors)

The Administration favors enactment of legislation to

prohibit the improper use of genetic information in health

insurance and employment. The Administration supports House

passage of H.R. 493, which would prohibit group health plans

and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy

individual or charging that person higher premiums based

solely on a genetic prediposition to developing a disease in

the future. The legislation also would bar employers from

using individuals' genetic information when making hiring,

firing, job placement, or promotion decisions. The

Administration appreciates that the House bill clarifies that

the bill's protections cover unborn children.

The mapping of the human genome has led to more information

about diseases and a better understanding of our genetic

code. Scientists are pursuing new diagnostics, treatments,

and cures based on this information, but the potential misuse

of this information raises serious moral and legal issues.

Concern about unwarranted use of genetic information

threatens the utilization of existing genetic tests as well

as the ability to conduct further research. The

Administration wants to work with Congress to further perfect

this legislation and to make genetic discrimination illegal

and provide individuals with fair, reasonable protections

against improper use of their genetic information.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I will yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, this bill has been a bipartisan bill. It has got 95 Republicans and 125 Democrats. GINA passed the Education and Labor Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee by voice vote. I think that GINA is needed to maintain high- quality genetic research and clinical trials at NIH. It passed the Senate last year 98-0, and the last Congress was a strong SAP for them, so when this goes to conference we will see what happens this year.

Let me just say that Newt Gingrich said to not have this bill is to cripple our ability to save lives. I would like to enter into the Record a statement of his in the Washington Times, and just to quote a little bit from it.

``Without protection from genetic discrimination, we risk missing out on the promise of personalized medicine. But if we apply time-honored principles of fairness and justice to the genome era, we can grant the American public the gift of better informed patients, better equipped providers, an enhanced biotech industry, improved health and lives saved.

``Let's not withhold this gift any longer. Let's empower all Americans to embrace the possibilities of personalized medicine for better health, and let's commend the forward-thinking bipartisanship of the 110th Congress that has brought us to the threshold of a world where Americans can embrace personalized medicine without fear.

``Our health, and that of our children and grandchildren, depends on it.''

Let me just say that this bill had to go through three committees, and that is not easy, Education and Labor, Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce. That is no small feat. I really thank Chairman Slaughter for all that she did to make sure that this went through, and all the time she has spent on this. It has been a great honor to work with her.

Again, let me thank the chairmen of these committees and the ranking members for the time that they put in, and all the Members that came down to speak today and all the Members that supported this as cosponsors.

To go through the three committees, everybody knows something about this place, but everybody wants to put their stamp on it. To come out with a bill we can all agree on, and, as people said, they have some things they would still like to put in, but I think being able to manage all of the different committees, and what was their jurisdiction and what maybe they thought was their jurisdiction but really was the jurisdiction of another committee, makes it a very interesting process.

And I think we all learned about how this type of bill works. It is a very technical bill, and that is why we thank all of the 200 groups, at least 200 groups that have worked on this bill and been able to give us the technical information that we needed to make this something that is going to save lives. It is going to lower costs and it also is going to find the cures for so many of these diseases and disorders, because people will be willing to go into clinical trials. So I congratulate all of the people that participated.

Madam Speaker, I include the article by Newt Gingrich for the Record

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC.

Why does Newt Gingrich Support GINA?

Dear Republican Colleague, We wanted to draw your attention

to this op-ed by Newt Gingrich supporting H.R. 493, the

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. It appeared in the

Washington Times on April 11, 2007. We urge you to vote

``yes'' when this legislation comes to the floor.

Sincerely,

Judy Biggert,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

I rise today in support of the Tauscher-Biggert amendment to H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineer Research Act.

While I am pleased to have worked with my colleague from California (Mrs. Tauscher) in developing this amendment, she deserves the credit for the substance of it. I just happen to think she had a great idea, and I am honored to lend my support.

Mr. Chairman, we face a world in which our economic competitors in Asia and Europe are making significant new investments in their own research capabilities, in terms of both infrastructure and human capital. These investments are beginning to pay off, as Asia and European countries challenge U.S. leadership in the sciences no matter how it is measured, by number of patterns won, articles submitted to scientific journals, Nobel Prizes won, the percentage of gross domestic product dedicated to research and development, and even the number of degrees awarded.

Report after report from the National Academies to the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation has concluded that we need more people with scientific expertise and engineering talent if we are to counter this threat. Only our national security and our economic competitiveness are at stake.

Unfortunately, the number of undergraduate degrees and Ph.D.s awarded in the U.S. in science and engineering has been flat or stagnant for over a decade; and of those undergraduates who have obtained a degree in science or engineering, only 28 percent actually go on to get their graduate degree or pursue a career in science and engineering.

That is why this amendment is so important. It expands eligibility for the NSF Early Career Awards to the thousands of scientists and engineers who have followed alternative career paths, such as working part-time or in non-academic settings, or who have taken a significant career break but want to get back into the lab.

For instance, over 12,000 men and women with doctorates in science or engineering currently are not working because of family responsibilities, according to the most recent statistics compiled by NSF. Of those, over 11,000 are women who may be raising children or caring for a sick parent. Imagine the countless benefits of just getting these 11,000 women back into the lab.

But this amendment has the potential to do so much more than that. It provides an opportunity for thousands of other people with scientific expertise and training, men and women, to get the support they need to reenter the scientific and engineering workforce and get back to doing the scientific work that is so important to the competitiveness of our Nation.

This amendment also recognizes and rewards those scientist and engineers whose innovative ideas enhance the economic competitiveness of the United States. It does so by making them eligible for the Presidential Innovation Award created by this bill.

Mr. Chairman, by creating additional opportunities to expand the ranks of scientists and engineers and rewarding them for innovative ideas that make the Nation more economically competitive, this amendment strengthens our ability to innovate.

It is our ability to innovate that has made and will make America the envy of the world in terms of our freedoms, our security and our culture, health and prosperity.

I thank the ranking member, Mr. Hall, for his support for this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1495. My district in Illinois represents the front line in the fight to keep the Asian carp from decimating the ecosystem of the Great Lakes and endangering a multi-million dollar commercial fishing industry.

Competing with native species for food, living space, and spawning areas, these voracious fish grow to between 50 and 150 pounds, eat up to 40 percent of their body weight every day, and each female can carry up to a million eggs.

The bill before us today will enable the Army Corps of Engineers to fortify its aquatic and invasive species dispersal barrier, an invisible, underwater, electric fence on the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal in Illinois that repulses fish like the Asian carp.

That is why I rise today, to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, as well as Subcommittee Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Baker, for recognizing the continuing threat of the Asian carp and including provisions in this bill to protect the Great Lakes. Our Great Lakes are too important just to leave them vulnerable to invasive species like the Asian carp.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 273, to designate April as Financial Literacy Month. This will be the fourth year that I have had the pleasure of working with my friend and colleague and fellow Chair of the House Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, Mr. Hinojosa, to promote the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month.

I am amazed at the progress that we have made so far over the last few years in raising awareness about the importance of greater financial literacy and economic education. Hundreds, if not thousands, of public-private sector, nonprofit, and community-based organizations across the country have established financial literacy programs. More than 50 of them will be on hand in the Cannon Caucus Room on April 24 to share the benefits of their knowledge and experience at the annual Financial Literacy Day Fair, and I encourage all of our colleagues to attend and learn more about these important efforts.

As Mr. Hinojosa mentioned, we have received dozens of letters in support of these efforts and this Financial Literacy Month resolution from various financial and educational organizations. And I think that this year we have set a new standard for unity on this issue, with well over 100 Members of Congress co-sponsoring this resolution. In doing so, I think we send a clear, unambiguous message that the

House is committed to addressing one of America's most pressing needs.

And while we have made great strides in raising awareness, the need for improved financial education has never been greater. According to the Federal Reserve, consumer debt in America now exceeds $2.4 trillion. According to the Department of Commerce, the personal savings rate in America recently dropped to negative 1.1 percent, a level that has not been seen since the Great Depression.

The fact is that today's marketplace abounds with options for managing wealth. Credit and investment opportunities are presented to consumers on a daily basis. For instance, by the time they reach their second year in school, the vast majority, 92 percent, of American college students have at least one credit card, and yet just a small fraction of those students have sat down with their parents and learned the basic principles of money management, like compound interest and supply and demand.

We have a responsibility to ensure that Americans of all ages have access to the tools and resources they need to capitalize on their investment choices, succeed in today's sophisticated economic market, and enjoy a secure financial future. And the key to this success continues to be basic financial education starting early, during grades K through 12.

It is a testament to the progress we are making that 38 States now include personal finance education in their curriculum guidelines. But we must continue building on this progress if we are to help today's students become tomorrow's successful investors, entrepreneurs, and business leaders.

The Financial Literacy and Education Commission established by Congress in the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 recently held a national summit to develop better methods of teaching money management skills. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee to implement and enhance economic education initiatives as we work to reauthorize No Child Left Behind in the coming year.

I also look forward to working with my colleagues on legislation that will put young Americans on the path to an affordable education and a firm financial future.

At the start of the 110th Congress, I introduced one such bill, H.R. 87, the 401 Kids Family Savings Act of 2007. This bill will allow parents and family members to set aside money in a child's account that will accumulate interest tax free and can be used for college tuition, a first home, or even retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that families have access to effective savings mechanisms like these if they are to secure their financial futures. But it is even more important that Americans have the know-how and motivation to use them, and that is the goal of the Financial Literacy Month and the resolution before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my good friend and distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for introducing this resolution and for his dedication to improving financial literacy. I also would like to thank Mr. Hinojosa's staff, especially Greg Davis, for all their hard work, diligent work in bringing this resolution to the floor. I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Tom Davis, for helping to move this resolution through their committee in such a timely and bipartisan manner. And, finally, I would like to thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Watson) and the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for their support and for managing this resolution on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591, the so-called U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.

That's what my Democratic colleagues are calling the bill. And while I support the funding in the bill for troop readiness and veterans' health care, I wonder why the bill's title ends with Iraq Accountability. Why not mention hand-outs to dairy interests, spinach farmers, citrus growers, or for storing peanuts? Yes, $74 million for storing peanuts.

Why not mention the unrequested funding for fighting wildfires in the west, or the doubling of so-called ``emergency'' funds for the long- known and well planned Base Realignment and Closure effort--funding that the new majority knew was needed, but wouldn't provide in the continuing resolution just last month? Why not mention the increase in the minimum wage or funding for asbestos abatement in the Capitol contained in this alleged emergency wartime supplemental appropriations bill?

``Clean'' is not a word I would use to describe this bill, which includes more than $21 billion in spending that is completely unrelated to troop readiness, veterans' health, or Iraq. Sure, I've heard of Christmas in July, but Christmas in March? What happened to the other party's promise to end business as usual? This bill is worse than usual. As the editorial in USA Today put it yesterday, ``It's hard to believe which is worse: leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude, or members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts.''

Don't get me wrong. I agree that Congress has a responsibility and an obligation to ensure the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense have the resources necessary to care for our veterans from all wars and our wounded soldiers returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

I agree that Congress has a responsibility and an obligation to see that American troops are ready and able to fulfill their mission. That's why I am a cosponsor of a bill introduced by my distinguished and decorated colleague from Texas, Mr. Johnson. H.R. 511 pledges, ``Congress will not cut off or restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces that the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way'' in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also agree that we must do a better job holding the Iraqi government accountable. For too long, we pursued an open-ended commitment without well-defined goals and clear benchmarks for success.

That's why I am a cosponsor of legislation, H.R. 1062, that will hold the Administration--and the Iraqi government--accountable in achieving clear benchmarks.

It requires the President to report to Congress, every 30 days, on the extent to which the Government of Iraq is moving forward on more than a dozen fronts, from troop training and security to rebuilding, reconciliation, international cooperation and enforcing the rule of law.

It also requires progress reports on the implementation of strategies that will prevent Iraqi territory from becoming a safe haven for terrorist activities.

But the bill we are considering today goes beyond funding and benchmarks and crosses a constitutional line that has long kept Congress from micromanaging military and foreign affairs.

Instead of sweeping away bureaucratic obstacles to success, this bill creates 435 new armchair generals.

Instead of giving General Petraeus and our diplomatic leaders the flexibility to fulfill their mission, it saddles them with bureaucratic requirements and arbitrary timetables.

Instead of ensuring that our troops in harm's way have the resources and equipment they need, this bill uses our military men and women as pawns in a dangerous political game.

Instead of giving our troops, the Iraqi people, and their fledgling government one last chance, it gives them one last mandate--to retreat in defeat.

As if the bill wasn't wasteful enough, it starts a perilous countdown to a vacuum in leadership and security that threatens any prospect for peace or stability in the Middle East for years to come. And it does a great disservice to our men and women in uniform and their commanders in the field who have already sacrificed so much for our freedom and security and that of the Iraqi people. They deserve better.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible bill.