Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1175 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1175.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1175 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.

The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, to concur in the Senate amendments with three House amendments. The rule provides 3 hours of debate on the motion, with 2 hours controlled by the Committee on Financial Services and 1 hour controlled by the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule also provides for a division of the question on the adoption of the three House amendments listed in the Rules Committee report.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know why this rule and the underlying bill are so important. Millions of Americans are confronting the growing prospect of losing their home. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have already lost their home in a foreclosure epidemic that is the legacy of the subprime mortgage crisis.

According to recent reports, the most severe real estate recession in decades is going to continue to weigh down the economy, the pace of foreclosures is going to continue to rise, and homes continue to lose their value at increasing rates. This foreclosure epidemic has spread to virtually every major city in the United States.

What the Committee on Financial Services has done here is brought us a bill that addresses this problem directly. It's not a bill that intends to lay blame. There is plenty of that to go around. It's a bill that's intended to solve a problem.

Here are some of the sobering facts about the problem:

The number of homes entering foreclosure in the first 3 months this year was double the same period as last year.

One in every 194 homes received a foreclosure filing in the first quarter of this year.

And home prices are down, on average, 12.7 percent, which is basically the first time that's happened since the Great Depression in the early 1930s.

As the foreclosure trends intensify, the problem can only get worse. As foreclosure signs go up in neighborhoods, the value of the property in that neighborhood declines, even if the creditworthiness and the ability to pay of the homeowner is as strong as ever.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about, as I mentioned, solving a problem. It creates opportunity for the lenders and the mortgage servicers to minimize their loss; it provides an opportunity for homeowners to stay in their homes, but it shares the pain as well as the opportunity. In order for lenders to take advantage of the opportunity presented in this bill, they are going to have to write down the value of the loan consistent with the current appraisal value. In order for homeowners to have an opportunity to participate in this program, they are going to have to give up the equity that they thought they had, including any moneys they had paid in downpayments.

House Resolution 1175 provides for the consideration of three House amendments to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008.

Amendment No. 1 includes H.R. 5830 regarding the FHA refinancing, H.R. 1852 regarding FHA modernization, H.R. 1427 regarding government- sponsored entity reform, those being Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and H.R. 1066 regarding community development investments, among other bills. Each

piece of legislation in this amendment has already been passed by the House so we are really going over work that this entire body has considered before, or it has been rigorously debated and amended through the committee process in Financial Services and Ways and Means.

Amendment No. 2 includes H.R. 5720, the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008 under which middle-class families would be eligible for a loan of up to $7,500 toward the purchase of a new home, and homeowners filing jointly would receive an additional deduction from their property taxes of $700. States will also receive a temporary increase in low-income housing tax credits and $10 billion of additional tax exempt bond authority for low-interest loans to build low-income rental housing and to refinance certain subprime mortgages.

One of the underlying causes of the subprime crisis was that more and more Americans who wanted to rent couldn't and had to get themselves housing by getting into loans they couldn't afford.

Amendment No. 3 is a bipartisan amendment offered by Congressman Miller and Congressman LaTourette regarding the preemption of State laws regulating foreclosure.

The centerpiece of this legislation is H.R. 5830, the FHA Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act included in amendment No. 1. That bill would enact a voluntary program, voluntary, for homeowners and lenders, and I emphasize voluntary, nothing is being forced on anyone except the opportunity to work this out. The process would begin with a homeowner or servicer of an existing eligible loan with an FHA- approved lender, and the FHA-approved lender would then determine the size of the loan that meets the requirements of the program and that the borrower could reasonably repay. The plan targets a group of homeowners who would be able to stay in their homes if they had a reduction in principal and monthly servicing charges.

The Congressional Budget Office says that this legislation could save 500,000 mortgages from foreclosure. Other estimates put that number much higher, at over a million.

Just as important as keeping Americans in their homes, this legislation protects American taxpayers. The government's liability under this program is limited and only applies if a borrower defaults and the amount recovered in foreclosure is below the outstanding debt still owed. This is a program that will be paid for largely by the folks participating in it and benefiting from this option as an alternative to foreclosure, and that is through a series of financing and copayments that will be assessed at the time of closing as the life of the loan continues through fees for a period of about 5 years.

There are going to be about $300 billion made available under this bill for guarantees, but the CBO scored the legislation as having an outside risk to taxpayers of about $2.4 billion. And I would like to have my colleagues think about that for a moment in the context of the $29 billion that was made available to back the rescue of the investment banks when Bear Stearns collapsed.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer would be to let the economy unravel, to let neighborhoods decay, and to let thousands if not millions of homes go into foreclosure.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5830 and other critical parts of this legislation provides an avenue to stability, to restoring economic stability to our neighborhoods, to our working families in this country, and to our lenders. We all thank the excellent leadership of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means for working together, Republicans and Democrats, to bring this legislation to the floor for consideration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

I have at least one, and some who have requested but who have not yet arrived on the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

I thank my friend from Texas. We have no additional speakers at this time, and I will be the last speaker.

I thank my good friend from Texas.

Madam Speaker, this 110th Congress has to decide, as does every Congress, whether it's going to focus its collective energies on devising practical solutions to real problems or will this Congress use the practical problems that everyday Americans face as fodder for endless debate on irresolvable, ideological disputes.

Our Financial Services Committee, with cooperation on both sides, and our Ways and Means Committee have made a very clear decision to focus their energies on the resolution of practical problems. They have taken note of something that we all are well aware of: We do have a foreclosure crisis in this country. Eight thousand families a day are receiving a foreclosure notice. And the decision that our committees made was to bring forward to this body for its consideration a practical approach that is going to provide some relief to creditors, it's fair to them; a bill that's fair to borrowers, it's fair to them; and a bill that's going to be good for the economy to provide stability that we need in order to get back on our feet.

This is a very practical bill. If it's going to give an opportunity to homeowners who are facing foreclosure, they are going to pay the price of losing their equity that they had achieved or thought they had. If it's going to be fair to the creditors, it's going to require some sacrifice on their part because they're going to have to write down the value of their loan to reflect what the current appraisal value is. But already it's having a positive effect on the economy.

We're going to hear plenty about the pros and cons of this bill in the 2 hours or 3 hours of debate that will follow. But there's another element to this story that's really quite remarkable and I think something which we all can take heart from. This bill is a product principally of three people from extraordinarily different backgrounds: a war hero in Korea, African American from Harlem; a Massachusetts so- called Democratic liberal; and a man from Wall Street who probably is one of the most successful capitalists and entrepreneurs in the history of this country, the Secretary of the Treasury. They made a decision to focus on the practical and urgent needs. They had a capacity, each of them, to have some understanding of the pain and fear that a mom and dad would experience when their child was coming in wanting to know if they were going to the Little League game that night and they were poring over a foreclosure notice and trying to figure out how they were going to keep that household together. And those men, the three of them, from totally different backgrounds, probably with completely different ideological perspectives on the world, decided they had to find a way to help that mother and father and that family stay in their home.

And what they did is they came up with a practical solution not just because they cared about that family, but they cared about the security and the future of this American economy.

The bill that they have helped put together, again, for our collective consideration, is one that is hopeful for America. It is not about finding blame

and fault about how we got here. And we all have our theories on this. But we know there was a large element of agreed. But instead of focusing, by looking in the rearview mirror and playing the blame game, we have people of different backgrounds, different ideologies who said they were united in the common objective to help American families and to stabilize the American economy. And I believe that all of us can be proud of their willingness to help each other.

What they have shown us with the work that they did was that there is redemptive power in cooperation. And the beneficiaries of that can be families of this country that we all love.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Madam Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

Madam Speaker, for the past 7 years, President Bush has been delivering an energy policy that has resulted in the highest increase in the cost of energy in the history of this country. Last week, the President continued his call for more of the same when he touted an old plan for domestic drilling in the Arctic that would produce a 6-month supply of oil 10 years from now. It is not going to do anything about the price at the pump now, it is not going to do anything about the price at the pump later.

Instead, the President is blaming congressional Democrats for not addressing the problem, but it's the President who won't suspend purchases of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which would bring down prices 25 cents immediately. It's the President who won't work with us to get rid of the Enron loophole which is enriching speculators and clobbering middle class families.

This year, in fact, the Democratic Congress has passed energy legislation that's getting nowhere because of being held hostage in the Senate and it has no support from the President of the United States.

The reality is that we have actions we can take in the short term, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Enron loophole, and in the long term, to reduce our reliance on carbon.

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental responsibilities that this Congress has is to protect taxpayer dollars. That has become an enormous challenge, as many of the taxpayer dollars that are appropriated are paid to private contractors.

The growth in contracting in the past 6 or 7 years has exploded. Procurement spending in 2000 was $213 billion. Procurement spending is when we enter into a contract with a private company to deliver goods or services. That amount exploded last year to $412 billion. Much of that is going to Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of this is being subject to waste, fraud and abuse.

The Oversight Committee under Mr. Waxman and Mr. Davis has done vigorous oversight and identified in 2006 that there were 118 contracts valued at $745 billion that were found by government auditors to include a significant component of fraud, abuse and mismanagement. And, in fact, it got worse.

In 2008, that report identified 187 contracts valued at $1.1 trillion, where they were plagued by waste, fraud and abuse.

The bottom line is, will we, as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, be vigilant in protecting taxpayer dollars? We have to do that, especially when there is documented evidence of rip-offs, wicked rip-offs that have occurred with taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

There's two goals that we have. The first that we widely share is that every taxpayer dollar will be accounted for, and that the taxpayers who were working hard to support this government and our troops will see that their money is spent on proper things that are in the contract. We have to protect the taxpayer.

The second is we've got to protect the troops. If we are spending money in Iraq and Afghanistan for the intended purpose of bringing our troops home and improving our national security, any dollar that's wasted that results in any additional injury, or one day prolonged in the conflicts, is a dollar that is improperly wasted. We cannot do that.

So I believe that this loophole, however it got there, by mistake or by sleight of hand, however it got there, it's got to be closed. Obviously, if you have a regulation, as it was written, that says we will report fraud when it is a rip-off on a domestic contract, but we won't when it's on a foreign contract, we're sending a very unambiguous message. There's a green light to rip off taxpayers if the money is being spent abroad. That's not a defensible position. And that's why we're closing this loophole to make it absolutely clear that's unacceptable.

Now I think it does make sense. What Congressman Davis proposed as a new way of proceeding is fine with me. And here's why. The bottom line is protecting the taxpayers and protecting our troops. And if we can accomplish that better by finding a way that has bipartisan support, we can all have more confidence that we'll be successful.

So I'm glad to work with Chairman Davis in order to have this get done in a bipartisan way. I want to thank very much Chairman Waxman and the great work of my chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Towns, for bringing this forward so quickly and so effectively.

As a cosponsor, I strongly support this legislation.

It was pretty shocking what we heard when this came up. Mr. Eric Prince of Blackwater was in before our committee, and the question was, how did your contracting go from $75 million to over $1 billion. And then in the course of it, what was your salary. He admitted to about $1 million in salary but then also disclosed there's about a 10 percent profit, which would mean, just by doing plain math, $100 million just in the bottom-line profit to the sole owner. We don't know exactly whether that's the case, but that's certainly the way it looks.

Mr. Murphy's legislation will let the taxpayers know how much they are spending that goes to the bottom-line profit of an individual in this war when our soldiers are working so hard in such danger and getting so little pay for it.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during the consideration of this rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1125 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5819, the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes controlled by the Committee on Small Business and 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule makes in order 17 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Since its inception in 1982, SBIR has assisted small businesses to compete for Federal research and development awards. It does that by reserving a percentage of the Federal R&D funds for qualifying small firms which would not otherwise be able to compete in the Nation's R&D arena with larger companies.

SBIR is a unique collaboration that allows Federal agencies to fund projects to meet specific agency needs while expanding opportunities for small businesses, including women and minority-owned businesses. SBIR has enhanced the role of innovative small businesses and higher education research institutions in federally funded research and development while fostering competition and productivity in economic growth.

SBIR, Mr. Speaker, targets the entrepreneurial sector because that's where the innovators thrive. The risk and expense of conducting serious R&D efforts are often beyond the means of small businesses, so SBIR funds are a critical start-up in development stages, encourage the commercialization of technology, product or service, which

in turn obviously helps the United States economy.

And the results, by the way, speak for themselves. Not only are 85 percent of the businesses competing in SBIR small firms employing 20 or fewer persons, but the program has generated 50,000 patents over 25 years. SBIR has helped thousands of small businesses drive enhancements in our Nation's defense, new protections for our environment, and advances in health care.

The National Research Council and the National Academies' report, in assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, states, ``The SBIR program is sound in concept and effective in practice. The SBIR program has created a competitive entrepreneurial environment upon which small, independently owned businesses can compete to strengthen America's high technology economy. Many consider SBIR to be one of our most successful technology development programs.''

This rule allows for consideration of a welcomed reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs. Just very briefly, what it's going to do is increase the existing set-aside for SBIR to 3 percent, and for STTR to six-tenths of a percent, increase SBIR and STTR grant award levels, increase congressional oversight and evaluation of programs, make changes to shorten the application review periods, and create an outreach development program for underrepresented States, regions, types of businesses, and numbers in the workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Research.

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

I am the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have mainly listened as this debate has unfolded, and I have an observation. This is a sad spectacle. The Congress of the United States has before it now a bill that is intended to address an urgent need to provide research funding for our small businesses.

Small business is the backbone of our economy, it is where most jobs are created, it is where some of the best innovations occur, and where our small businesses need some assistance to put together the financing package required to explore innovative research and development ideas. Our small businesses don't have the funds that are available oftentimes through big venture capital operations. And what we are hearing in this debate is a complete and utter disregard for the content of this bill and, instead, turning it into a political debate that veers wildly away from any truth about what the history of this whole gas crisis is.

Number one, the basic question before us is, are we going to help the research and development needs of our small businesses? We believe it is urgent that we do so, and we won't be deterred by what is now a political argument.

Second, since our friends on the other side have made an accusation that there has been Democratic culpability, almost a conspiracy, in raising gas prices, I want to respond to the absurdity of that.

We have heard from our speakers how the price of a barrel of oil when President Bush took over was $25, it is now $119. We know that the war in Iraq, when it started, that catastrophic war, the price was $35, it is now $119. But what we also know is that under the leadership of the Republican Congress, we turned a blind eye on the Government's responsibility to look out for the middle class. Why? We destroyed regulatory oversight that is necessary to help folks pulling up with their pickup truck to fill up their gas tank.

This Enron loophole, snuck in, in the middle of the night with the complicity of a Republican Congress is, Mr. Speaker, and I say this intentionally, unconscionable, unconscionable to meeting the needs of average Americans who are trying to work hard and pay their bills. Fifty cents at least in the price of a gallon of gasoline is because the speculators, the hedge fund managers, are singing every day as they make wire transfers to their bank accounts at the expense of everyday Americans.

And my question is, why will not those who are expressing concern about the cost of gasoline and how that impacts small business and impacts our families, why will they not get behind Congressman Stupak and support The PUMP Act, get rid of the Enron loophole? Why will they not join with many of us who have sent letters to the President imploring him to release the strategic petroleum reserve or at least stop buying. One action would reduce, according to Goldman Sachs, the cost of a gallon of gasoline by 25 cents. And then there is the legislation that we passed that the Republicans voted against.

So what we have is an accusation made by people who every time they have had an opportunity to take a concrete specific action that would help, have said no, have said no to the Enron loophole reform, have said no to The PUMP Act, have said no to stop buying in the strategic petroleum reserves.

So it leaves me with a question. Is what we are hearing about politics, or is it about policy? I have come to my own conclusion. But we are here on a bill that is going to help small business. That is our job. And our job in this rule should be to make that bill a better bill, not to hijack what is a good bill and turn it into a political food fight.

We have got two issues here that have been injected. One is, are we going to help small business or not? There is broad bipartisan support. The two committees of jurisdiction have done an excellent job.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the option of the previous question, it shall

be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the

proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of

lowering the national average price per gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as

read, shall he debatable for thirty minutes equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be

subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand

for division of the question in the House or in the Committee

of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For

purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a

statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record

by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration

shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.

Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall

introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill

to provide a common sense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the

appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1

of rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished Chair of the Small Business Committee in a colloquy.

First of all, I would like to thank you. Your committee has done extraordinary work throughout the year, probably produced more good legislation than any other.

I want to thank you for working with me on this issue that is raised on this bill regarding the ability of small businesses to continue to use the SBIR program. Specifically, I want to thank you for agreeing to work with me to monitor agency actions to ensure that smaller firms are not represented in the agency's distribution of SBIR awards.

Also, I want to say that I am pleased that you agree to work with me and in Congress and that this matter needs vigorous study, and we will work to ensure that a National Institute for Standards and Technology study, which I would like to place in the Record, is included in the conference.

Thank you.

I thank my colleague, the Member from Florida, and I also thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, Representative Miller and Representative McKeon.

This whole question of the affordability of higher education we know is a crushing burden on middle class families. And it has been made much worse, as many of the speakers have pointed out, by the credit crisis, innocent victims caught up in the consequences of credit-gone- wild in the

subprime mortgage. So I really appreciate, and I think all of us appreciate, the quick work of the committee to provide flexibility in financing that's going to be beneficial to working families across this country.

One of the questions that has been on the mind of many of us, I think, on both sides of the aisle, however, is whether or not when we go to the well and ask taxpayers to put more money into student aid, as we've done and as we should do, and when we make loan eligibility more generous so families pinch themselves in order to take on additional debt and students take on additional debt, the question we're starting to ask is whether or not that becomes a way in which institutions of higher education simply increase tuition. And then at the end of the day, you find that the families are increasing their debt load. Their kids are going to school, but they're graduating with a mountain of debt that's equal to the mortgage on the house that many of us, when we first bought our home, is equal to.

So Representative Castle had an idea, and I joined with him, to ask for the first time to get a study from the General Services Administration to see what connection exists between tuition going up as student aid, both grants and loans, increases.

I am pleased that the committee has seen fit to support this amendment that Congressman Castle and I are offering because we have to do two things if we're going to make college affordable: One is, we've got to make grants and loans available to our students and the families. But two, we really have to ask the institutions of higher education to do something on the cost side. And that's the intent of this amendment, to start getting information that will be available to us to consider whether enough is being done on the cost side.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1103 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1103.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1103 provides for consideration of H.R. 2634, the Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule also makes in order four amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, each of which is debatable for 10 minutes. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, structured, responsible debt relief has been proven to be one of the most effective methods of fighting global poverty. In 1996 the World Bank and the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, developed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, or HIPC, Initiative to provide debt relief to the world's most impoverished nations. The 28 countries that participated in this program have been spending the debt relief on good things in their country for the very poor people, on education and health. In the first 10 years of the program, the IMF and the World Bank provided $62 billion of debt relief, cutting the countries' debt by an average of two-thirds.

The results speak for themselves. The participating countries now spend four times as much on health, education, and social services as they do on paying back debt. Tanzania, for instance, has used its money from debt cancellation to eliminate school fees for elementary school education. Think about it. The poorest countries, their kids were having to pay fees to go to elementary school, something that's not even required here, while Zambia eliminated fees for health care in rural areas. Multilateral efforts in Niger reduced debt from 76 percent of their

gross domestic product, and think about that, 76 percent of the gross domestic product was used in debt relief, in 2002 to 14 percent in 2006. With that savings Niger has been able to make investments in health and education. They've reduced the infant mortality rate, cut it in half. Primary school completion has increased from 16 to 28 percent, and access to drinkable water increased from 40 percent for the people in Niger to 69 percent.

The bill that this rule will bring to the floor today will build on this record of quantifiable success to expand efforts to reduce the debts owed by impoverished nations. This legislation makes debt forgiveness immediately possible for nine countries that meet the standards of the Jubilee Act. This is not a giveaway program.

These nations are among the poorest in the world with per capita incomes of less than $3 a day, $1,065 a year. Countries initially eligible under this legislation for debt relief would include Cape Verde, Georgia, Kenya, Mongolia and Vietnam.

But as I mentioned, the Jubilee Act does not give countries that borrowed money a free ride with debt forgiveness. It includes strict parameters to ensure that the participating countries: one, have transparent and effective budget processes; two, do not support terrorism; three, cooperate in international counternarcotic efforts; and, four, uphold human rights standards.

In addition, funds made available as a result of loan forgiveness must be directed toward antipoverty programs, and countries must publish an annual report to be accountable on how those funds were spent.

These criteria ensure the loan forgiveness funds are used wisely and well. They provide an incentive for noneligible countries to reduce corruption and improve human rights practices so they may, one day, become eligible for debt forgiveness.

Fifteen additional countries, including Bangladesh, Nigeria and Zimbabwe would be eligible for debt cancellation upon making required reforms.

This is the brand of leadership that America needs more of where we are doing our share, but we are working with our allies and where we are using the incentive of debt forgiveness. Many of these debts, incidentally, were taken by kleptocrats who formerly ruled in these countries, and now these countries are trying to free themselves of the yoke of this terrible leadership. This debt forgiveness program allows us, working with our allies, the IMF and the World Bank, to give them a boost.

Finally, Madam Speaker, it must be noted that because the international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are expected to pay the bulk of the debt relief, the tremendous improvements that can be achieved under this bill come at a very reasonable cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The cost of America canceling bilateral debt for the countries initially eligible is estimated to be $197 million. That is less than what we spend for 14 hours in Iraq, just to put it in perspective. However, this bill does not actually authorize any debt cancellation. It authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into negotiations to cancel debt. Any debt cancellation agreement reached by the Secretary returns to Congress for our approval. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation at no cost to the taxpayers.

Debt reduction has been proven to be one of the most effective, both cost effective and socially effective, ways to achieve significant reductions in global poverty.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.

Frank), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I am the last speaker on our side.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things. Number one, this legislation comes to you with bipartisan support from the Financial Services Committee. There was a recognition on that committee between the members on the majority and the members on the minority that this Congress had an opportunity to do something concrete, something practical, to help the most impoverished countries in this world.

This legislation is practical. It is going to give relief that translates into higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates and better access to education, and it is done at very modest expense to the American taxpayer. It also is America working with other countries and with international institutions, the IMF and the World Bank, to have a positive influence in foreign policy. It makes sense. It is bipartisan. It should be done.

I have to say I disagree with the suggestion of my good friend from Texas that we essentially transform this into a debate about extending the Bush tax cuts. That is a refrain we are hearing constantly that is brought up as a way of taking attention off of the things that we can do immediately in the legislation that is before us.

The fact of the matter is that what we have seen in the past few years under the fiscal leadership of the Bush administration is we have gone from a record surplus to a record deficit. We have gone from a point of paying down our national debt to increasing it to close to $7 trillion.

The reality is that this legislation is about one thing and one thing only: It is about helping countries where the daily income of its citizens is on average $3 a day. That is what it is. We can decide that we are going to take concrete action to help those countries move ahead, or use this as an opportunity to engage in a debate about whether to extend tax cuts, as is being requested by the gentleman.

So, Madam Speaker, by passing this proposed rule and this bill for which it provides consideration, Congress can build on this immensely successful debt relief effort we have had on a bipartisan basis and started more than a decade ago to provide relief for the world's poorest countries. It is an essential tool in the fight on the war on poverty.

Incidentally, it is money well spent. Much less of our money and the money of our allies is spent than when we have to engage in military conflict. The legislation represents what I believe should be the face of American leadership around the globe. I believe the sponsors of this legislation believe it will make the world a better place and make the world safer and more stable.

This is a good bill, a bipartisan bill. It enjoys the support not only of Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters, but of their Republican counterparts on the committee, our colleagues Congressman Bachus and Congresswoman Biggert. That is why I urge a ``yes''

vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished Chair.

There is a fundamental issue that we face in this rule, and it is this: Does Congress cede its authority under the Constitution to the executive, or does it exercise it?

Mr. Speaker, from a distance--I have only been here a little over a year--I watched with dismay as a citizen, seeing Congress year after year relinquish its authority, turn that over to the executive, not do its job of accountability and oversight, not do its job on trade, essentially not exercise the constitutional authority that we are custodians of, each and every one of the 435 Members who have been elected.

The President exercised his prerogative under a rule that was enacted by this House in 1974, but against the advice of the Speaker and against the advice of the Senate majority leader. The President did what he could do, and that is send over on his own timetable a trade agreement when it wasn't ready to be considered.

And the Speaker, in her judgment, and I support this, stood up for the prerogatives of this legislative branch, where we have the responsibility to be the final voice of the people who sent us here.

The bottom line question is: Will Congress assert the authority that it has under the Constitution?

We can exercise it. The best circumstances, we do it in cooperation and in consultation with the executive. But if it is unilateral, a my- way-or-the-highway approach that has been so often employed by this chief executive, then it becomes incumbent upon us to stand up and assert the constitutional responsibility we have.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam, my cosponsor and traveling companion, the new Member, the distinguished Member already from Virginia, my cosponsors.

You know, they have said it pretty well. There's nothing that we can say or do that will acknowledge our appreciation for the sacrifice that the men and women of the uniformed services have given to this country.

What we are acknowledging here is that we have a common commitment to meeting the needs of those soldiers and sailors and airmen who return from active duty. What we are also acknowledging is that in this war, very much unlike past conflicts, our soldiers, benefiting from this extraordinary battlefield medicine, are returning with extraordinary injuries. That is what they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Many of us have had the opportunity to visit some of these soldiers out at Bethesda, out at Walter Reed. We are trying, in this small gesture, to acknowledge the sense that all of us have in Congress of our debt and our obligation and our appreciation to them.

Madam Speaker, next week, we are going to have a group of these servicemen and -women visiting us in the Capitol. I'm going to be joining with my colleagues here today to welcome those men and women of the uniformed services to this Capitol, and I will encourage all of us to join in welcoming them personally to thank them for their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, there's a new regulation that was in the process of being promulgated that did a practical and sensible thing for taxpayers: it required contractors who receive over $5 million of taxpayer money to report fraud when they are aware it happened.

At the last minute, there was an exemption that was put in so that foreign contracts were not subject to taxpayer protection. That makes no sense and flies in the face of reason.

By exempting overseas contracts, and this is Iraq and Afghanistan particularly, the Bush administration is sending an unambiguous message: it's okay to rip off taxpayers when you spend money abroad; just don't do it at home.

Not only must we stop this reckless rule, but we must have answers: What was the rationale for the loophole? How did the loophole get slipped into the proposed rule? And who advocated for it?

Through a thorough investigation, we will stop this rule and get some answers.

Mr. Chairman, I believe you spoke for all of us on our side in putting in context the basis of this budget and the arguments of our friends on the other side.

I want to just add a few things about what this budget really is ultimately about. It's about real people, with real lives and real challenges, and the fundamental responsibilities of a governing body are to meet a budget and present a budget that meets the needs of its people. I want to tell a couple of stories about folks from Vermont.

Scott West, a veteran, of the National Guard, he lives in the town of Albany, in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. He used to drive a truck for a living before he went to Iraq. While he was deployed over in Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom he suffered very serious injuries to his shoulder, back and wrist.

In May the pain from his injuries got so bad he was no longer able to do his job as a truck driver. Nearly 9 months ago, Mr. West filed a claim for increased disability compensation from the VA. As of today, he has yet to have a hearing.

Now, the budget that we presented last year and passed, because you had foresight, has finally put in place new people to adjust these claims. We have got 1,800 new claims processors who are now going to help ensure that veterans like Scott will receive the support that they deserve in a timely manner.

I thank you for your leadership. That's the meaning of this budget to a man from Albany, and it's going to make a real difference to his family.

Peter and Irma McShane, they live in the southern Vermont town of Pownal. They are senior citizens. They live on $1,452 a month, so you can imagine how hard it is for them to make ends meet. Now it turns out that's $22 more than would be available if they were going to be eligible for food stamps.

So they have to scrimp and save every way they can. They get hit with this huge fuel bill. We have had a cold winter in Vermont. The budget presented by the administration cut low-income heating assistance. The budget that the committee is presenting tries to protect that, and it is absolutely indispensable to families like Peter and Irma McShane that they have the ability to heat their homes and not have to make a choice between medication and heat, between food and heat. This budget recognizes that.

I want to also share a letter I received from a couple from Fletcher, Vermont, in northern Vermont. Margaret Kinne and her husband. They are talking about the rising cost of health care.

They have worked in a woodworking business for 13 years, often 6 or 7 days a week. They don't complain about that. They like to work hard. But their insurance has gotten increasingly expensive and now their deductibles have gone from $5,000 to $10,000 to $25,000. What they wrote to me is this, this translates to me to no insurance. The administration budget would cause over a half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that would increase the cost shift and make that unaffordable insurance even more out of reach of this family.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the tremendous work that you have done in putting together a very good budget in very tough times.

Mr. Speaker, the basic question that we face in America is the basic question we face in Congress, and that is, are we going to turn the page on a fossil fuel-based energy policy that needs to change? Are we going to embrace an alternative energy policy that is going to allow us: A, to protect our environment; B, to create jobs; and C, to give us much more flexibility and independence in foreign policy?

This legislation is a step along the road of a new energy policy and a new future for this country. This is not just something that is going to do the things other speakers have spoken about, but it is a partnership with our States.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Vermont Senate approved a very wide- ranging energy bill that's going to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. The bill that we pass today will partner with that bill and work its way through the Vermont legislature by providing tax incentives that will stimulate a growing market all around the State and the country. This legislation is going to provide up to $3.6 billion in interest-free financing to help our State and our local governments finance environmental conservation and efficiency programs.

We all have our positions on how this affects oil. Oil is doing pretty well, $100 a gallon. Consumers aren't. We are looking for ways to provide relief, but we are looking for ways to protect our environment at the same time.

What this legislation embodies is a confidence that we have the technology and the intellectual strength in this country to forge a new energy policy that is renewable, that in the process can create jobs and work well with our States who are often ahead of us here on providing that leadership.