Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a long time coming. As a freshman Member of this body, I am proud to rise in support of the rule and this energy legislation that will make significant strides in our effort to address global warming, save our families money on their energy bills and at the pump, and bolster our national security by mapping out a more energy-independent future for our country.

This energy bill includes a long overdue increase in CAFE standards and improves vehicle efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first

increase of this kind since 1975. This significant increase in vehicle emission standards will save American families between $700 and $1,000 per year at the pump, reduce oil consumption by 1.1 million gallons per day by 2020, which is one-half of what we currently import from the Persian Gulf. And these new standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 28 million of today's average cars and trucks off the road.

Science tells us that CAFE increases are possible and necessary, and we must implement them now. And while implementing necessary environmental protections, this legislation will preserve tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs in places like Avon Lake, Ohio, where my constituents produce passenger vans.

This bill will provide our auto manufacturers domestically with the tools and incentives they need to produce the vehicles of tomorrow here in the United States, keeping jobs at home, and allowing us to all move forward together. Keeping high-paying auto manufacturing jobs in this country will in turn help retain hundreds of thousands of related jobs in the electronics, steel, textiles, glass, plastics and rubber, and countless other sectors that produce auto parts, while also laying the groundwork for jobs in the future.

The American people have spoken loud and clear that we cannot turn a blind eye to the crisis of global warming and astonishing gas prices squeezing the budgets for our working families.

I urge support for the rule and the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to commend the chairman of the Financial Services Committee for his extraordinary leadership and hard work on this legislation. I also want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Bachus, along with Mr. Frank for their extraordinary hard work. I also extend my thanks to Mr. Miller, the sponsor of this bill, as well.

Today I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3915 that I believe will take an important step in preventing avoidable foreclosures. The news stories we see every day remind us that this subprime mortgage crisis is not going away immediately. In fact, it is getting worse.

RealtyTrac just released its third quarter foreclosure numbers, and the numbers are staggering. Foreclosure filings increased 30 percent nationally from the second quarter, which translates to one foreclosure filing for every 196 American households.

Two of the largest metro areas in my district are among the 15 with the highest foreclosure rates nationally. Foreclosures in the Cleveland, Lorain, Elyria area are up 179 percent from last year. One in every 57 homes in that area is in foreclosure. In Akron, it is one of every 76. These are families in my district who are suffering.

Many of the loans involved in the current subprime mortgage crisis are hybrid adjustable rate mortgages. Though these loans typically begin with a low fixed ``teaser'' rate, it resets after 2 or 3 years, often to as much as two or three times the original payment.

According to a recently conducted survey, one in four homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages were not aware how soon their rates could spike, and three-quarters did not know how much their payments might increase.

A homeowner who does not know what is coming may not be able to ask for help until it is too late. The amendment I am offering today would take a simple step to help ensure homeowners have the opportunity to pursue all of the options available to them before the foreclosure becomes inevitable.

My amendment, which is based on a recommendation of the Ohio Foreclosure Prevention Task Force, will require lenders to send a notice to homeowners holding hybrid adjustable rate mortgages 6 months before their interest rates are due to reset. The notice will contain four key pieces of information:

It will include the new interest rate and an explanation of how it will be determined;

Second, it will require the lender to include a good-faith estimate of the monthly payment that will apply after the loan resets;

Third, it contains a list of alternatives the consumer may pursue before the date of the adjustment or reset if they feel they will have difficulty in meeting the payment obligations;

Finally, it will include the contact information of the local HUD- approved housing counseling agencies, as well as the State housing finance authority for the State in which the consumer resides.

Enhanced disclosures will help prevent avoidable foreclosures and ensure our families are not caught by surprise and trapped in a position that may ultimately force them out of their homes. I believe this disclosure is a vital tool for our families, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

I would inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, requiring lenders and servicers to include their best estimate of the amount that will be incurred when the loan resets is a commonsense way to deal with providing these borrowers with information that is essential if they are in a position to avoid foreclosure, and all we are asking under this amendment is for a good- faith estimate based on accepted industry standards.

The estimate need not be exact. A lender or servicer simply needs to make a good-faith effort to estimate the payment that will apply after reset.

It is important to keep consumers informed about the date of reset, but if they are not sure what they will face when the loan resets, it will be much more difficult for them to prepare what is coming. This is a simple requirement to insure that not only will homeowners know when this will happen, but also what will happen.

I appreciate greatly the remarks of the ranking member, Mr. Bachus, and of course the support of the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

All of us in this Chamber and in this Nation support our troops. They have fought bravely, with love of this great country uppermost in their hearts. They have done all that we have asked them to do. They have done their job well. And now in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, we must do ours.

The President has indicated that he thinks this war will continue for another decade. But, Mr. Speaker, we must not concede to a 10-year war. Over 3,850 brave American lives have been lost; 163 Ohio soldiers have been killed; more than 28,000 of our Nation's finest have been wounded. The year 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops since this war began 4\1/2\ years ago.

Mr. Speaker, just over 11 months ago I arrived in these hallowed Halls as a Congresswoman representing the people of Ohio's 13th Congressional district.

During my campaign, and now as a Member of Congress, I have spoken with workers and their families in Akron and Lorain and other communities throughout northeast Ohio. And let me tell you about these proud, hardworking people who I am so honored to represent. All they really want is a government that works with them, not against them. They want a good job that will allow them to care for their families, put food on the table, and help them send their children to college.

And one of the many things that they understand very clearly is that our global trading system is broken, and our workers, and our businesses, our farmers, and our communities are being left at a devastating disadvantage.

In Ohio, we have lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2001, and that means a lot of families are suffering. And last November, my constituents and the American people across this country, they cast their ballots seeking a new direction on trade. And that's why it is so important that this Congress understand the connection between what we do here today and the impact that will have not only on people's livelihoods, but on their beliefs and on their ideas about what we stand for.

Mr. Speaker, people seldom look very hard for things they don't want to find. But Members of this esteemed body should not be so blinded by their yearning to support trade to not recognize the realities of its harmful effects on our families and communities.

Mr. Speaker, it may be easy to say that our current trade policies are working when you've not talked to families in Akron, looked into the eyes of their children, or walked down the streets in Lorain.

It may be easy to think that our broken system is benefiting our Nation's businesses when you ignore the voices of small businesses in Barberton and Elyria. And it may be easy to think we should continue down a crumbling path when you drown out the concerns of workers in Brunswick and Strongsville and Cuyahoga Falls.

But I learned, as we all do when we're young, that if something is broken, you fix it. You really fix it. If something no longer works, develop a new product that fits your needs and allows you to move forward. That's what we need to do with our trade policies. But, unfortunately, that's not what is happening here.

Mr. Speaker, the same promises that have been used over and over and over to justify passage of free trade agreement after free trade agreement are being heard here again tonight. Some are pleading that this is an historic breakthrough, and oh, how I wish that that were so. But it is not. And saying it is does not make it so.

It's clear that our current trade policies are not working, despite the same past promises made. We see this in the reality of a nearly $1 trillion trade deficit, tainted imported food and products, currency manipulation, illegal subsidies, offshore jobs, and devastated families and communities.

Mr. Speaker, we could develop a new model that addresses these issues and puts American workers and businesses in a position to compete on a level playing field and truly raises the standard of living for those in other nations, but, unfortunately, the Peru FTA fails to do this. It locks in problems with food safety, procurement, Social Security privatization, among others. And most importantly, we know very clearly it will not be enforced.

Just look at one of the agreement's strongest supporters, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They were very encouraged that the labor provisions in the bill could not be read to ``require compliance.'' And today, in The Washington Post, we learned from the Columbia law professor, Mark Barenberg, that the Peru FTA actually imposes lighter sanctions for labor standard violations than current trade law requires. Now, proponents will say that's not true. But that's what Columbia Law Professor Mark Barenberg says. The Peru FTA actually imposes lighter sanctions for labor standard violations than current trade law requires.

So, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do today for my constituents and those who elected us to move in a new direction on trade?

What will be the true legacy of this historic Congress? Will it be our legacy to pass more harmful trade policies and trade agreements like the one before us? Or will it be a different course, one of fairness, one of justice, one that will allow our workers and business a truly fair playing field?

I urge a ``no'' vote on the agreement.

Madam Speaker, I support the TAA reauthorization and appreciate the important improvements this legislation makes in the program. But, unfortunately, there's a larger problem at work, and TAA only addresses the symptoms, not the cause.

So-called free trade has been anything but free. Our current trade policies have been devastating for communities in northeast Ohio and across this Nation. One only has to look at our record trade deficit and this growing TAA program to see this reality.

Madam Speaker, people across this country know that our trading system is broken. The fact is TAA became necessary because this country kept entering into unfair and harmful trade agreements that cost American workers their jobs and hurt businesses and communities.

While reauthorizing and improving the TAA program is important, what our working families really need are trade policies that do not jeopardize American jobs in the first place.

In just the last 7 years, we've lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs in this country, and more than 200,000 in Ohio alone. Some estimates attribute more than 50,000 of Ohio's job losses directly to NAFTA. And we've seen the consequence of this job loss in the record numbers of families in foreclosure, and in families falling off of the health care rolls, and families sustaining benefits going out the window. These are families full of proud, hardworking Americans who have had their futures and opportunities undercut by our trade policies. It doesn't have to be that way. This country owes these workers the kind of assistance TAA aims to offer, because we must remember that very often it was our Nation's broken policies that set in motion the loss of their jobs. And because of this, it's this government's moral responsibility to try and help them land on their feet.

But wouldn't it have been better if those jobs had never been lost? And wouldn't it be better, Madam Speaker, to fix our broken policies so that they no longer allow other countries to engage in unfair trade tactics that leave U.S. businesses at a disadvantage and U.S. workers out of jobs?

This reauthorization bill recognizes the disastrous consequences that poorly conceived trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and the proposed Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korean free trade agreements have had and will continue to have for our manufacturing and service industries.

Make no mistake. Our policies must not just sound good on paper. They must work for our businesses, our workers, our farmers, and our communities. Indeed, they must work and be fair to this country. If this Congress does not act on this reality which is being felt in places like Lorain and Akron and in districts across this country, we'll need more and more TAA programs every year as more and more American workers are let down by a broken and mismanaged system.

Madam Speaker, all the good intentions and helpful programs in TAA cannot disguise the fact that we're going about things backwards. We should start with American workers and communities, and end with multinational corporations, not the other way around. We must make sure that our trade policies do not leave our businesses and workers at an unfair disadvantage or provide incentives to move jobs offshore.

Many displaced workers have been turned away from TAA in Ohio in the past, due to chronic underfunding and complex eligibility rules and requirements. And for others it's been very difficult finding new good- paying jobs to support their families. In Ohio, only 65 percent of workers laid off between 2003 and 2005 had found new jobs by 2006, and only two-thirds of those jobs were remotely of similar pay.

And while the improved funding and expansions provided by this bill are welcome and certainly overdue, the most important message we should take away from this TAA reauthorization is the fact that it recognizes how much damage has been caused by our broken trade policies.

We should reauthorize this program, and I certainly appreciate the improvements in the bill. But as I said earlier, TAA only addresses the symptoms, not the cause.

We know what the problems are, and American workers and businesses are facing them every day. It is time for this Congress to step up and recognize the reality that millions of Americans are facing these issues due to our broken trade policies and finally take real and effective action.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to former Congressman Charles Vanik, who served his constituents with honor and integrity in this body for 26 years.

On behalf of the people of Ohio's 13th District, I want to express my deepest sympathies to his wife of 62 years, Betty Best Vanik, their two children, John Vanik and Phyllis Vanik, his two grandchildren and the rest of the Vanik family.

We have lost a man who dedicated his life to serving our great State and this great country. Prior to being elected to Congress in 1954, Congressman Vanik served on the Cleveland City Council, in the Ohio State Senate and as a Cleveland municipal judge. He also served in the Navy during World War II.

In Congress, he earned a reputation as savvy legislator and a tireless advocate for the people of northeast Ohio. His 1974 amendment to the Trade Reform Bill is widely remembered for forcing the Soviet Union to allow fair treatment and increased emigration of Soviet Jews. This accomplishment had a significant impact on American-Soviet relations.

And Congressman Vanik was ahead of his times on civil rights, sacrificing his own congressional seat in 1968 so that Louis Stokes could become Ohio's first African American Congressman.

But Charles Vanik was so well-regarded in northeast Ohio that voters from the neighboring district would not stand for him leaving this House, and they chose to send him to Congress instead of the Representative who had served for nearly 30 years. Congressman Vanik returned to Congress and continued to work with Congressman Stokes and others to advocate for the people of Ohio.

Although I did not have the privilege of serving in the House with Congressman Vanik, I am honored to follow in his footsteps as a public servant and a voice for the people of Ohio.

It is truly an honor to stand on the Floor of the House of Representatives, where Charles Vanik stood for so many years fighting for northeast Ohio, to celebrate his life and his accomplishments.

And it is wonderful to hear so many touching stories about the memories my colleagues have of him and the influence he had on this House and its Members.

Although Congress, the United States, and the State of Ohio have lost a great statesman, he has been outlived by his legacy, and I am confident that we will continue to fondly recall Charles Vanik and the great work he did for years to come.

Again, I want to express my condolences to the Vanik family.

I thank the gentleman for his introduction here and I thank you for your leadership. The gentleman from Kentucky is taking us, hopefully, on what will be a bipartisan effort to restore the responsibilities of this Congress has under article I and just sort of bring that back to the forefront because checks and balances are very important in this government. I also want to commend the leadership of our president, Tim Walz, the gentleman from Minnesota, who is an outspoken advocate for the people that he represents, and, frankly, that's what article I is all about.

As you point out, when we were elected to Congress, we were elected to represent the people of our districts. Not lobbyists on K Street and not operatives at the White House or even the President himself. Our responsibility and our loyalty are to the Americans, the people, first and foremost, who sent us here. That means we have to do the job that they asked us to do. And that job is important, and we know exactly what that job is because article I in some ways is a job description. As you point out, it's not about really just authority; it's about responsibilities. Nowhere in that job description in article I does it say we have to protect egos or political interests of the executive branch. Nowhere does it say that we have to do only things that the President tells us to do. And nowhere in that job description does it say that Congress answers to anyone but the American people.

There has sort of been a slope here where past Congresses have ceded legislative power to the executive branch, and, frankly, I believe that when that happens, Congress is falling down on their job. I am really glad that we are here tonight to reinvigorate and rededicate ourselves to make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations and our function under article I because it is vitally important to so many issues, from the war in Iraq to all these judiciary issues.

I thank the gentleman. What great points, and thank you for reading that because we can all use sort of that reminder that the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of an imperial Presidency where edicts from the White House might carry more weight than laws passed in Congress or rulings handed down by the court. And that is what we are here to do, to get things back in balance.

Unfortunately, as we have sort of expressed earlier, some of us, that the White House at present has routinely refused to provide information to the Congress. As the gentleman from Minnesota points out, that is not what was envisioned when our Founding Fathers put together the fantastic, amazing, living document that we are here today to reclaim.

Earlier this month, I heard testimony from executive branch witnesses that they were refusing to answer questions before Congress on whether or not there is corruption in the Iraqi Government. We hear this right after we hear our distinguished colleague from New York talking so eloquently about what he saw and what he witnessed. And we hear about our responsibility to come forth with the knowledge that we gain when we go to Iraq and I, too, have visited Iraq. We hear witnesses come in, though, from the administration when you start to ask questions about corruption that may be going on in that country, where we have paid, those of us here, the American soldiers, the troops, the price that they have paid. You speak so eloquently of them, Congressman Hall, and their dedication and their heart. I have to tell you, they are breathtaking to watch in action. But we have to question if money is missing. We have to question when equipment is missing because the troops pay a price. The American people are paying a price for what we are doing in Iraq.

At any rate, the reality of an administration that instead of providing information so that we can investigate, they stonewalled providing information and in that case and in so many other cases, and I am sure others are going to mention them, it is our responsibility to ask the questions, to get the information and make sure that we make policies that are worthy of those soldiers and are worthy of the American people.

I am so proud to be here with you all tonight, the members of the freshman class as we begin this campaign to reclaim our responsibility. Before I yield back, I just want to mention one thing that was striking. The gentleman from Minnesota mentioned that the President has rights under article II. But I think that we would all be better served that rather than thinking of the President having rights, he should think of them as responsibilities, because they are not personal rights. It is a job description for him, too, in article II.

Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I thank the gentleman for the time. As we began, the 2006 election was not simply a change of course, but a return to checks and balances. Members were elected, as my colleague over here says, to hear from their constituents. We were also elected to speak for our constituents, and we have to be their voice. That is what article I is all about.

So I am glad that this is probably the beginning of many hours to come, where we are going to come to this House floor and we are going to talk about article I and reclaim that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 765 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 765.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 765 provides for consideration of H.R. 1483, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule also contains a self-executing provision to the base text consisting of a technical correction that

inserts a map reference for a map that was not completed yet by the National Park Service prior to filing the reported bill. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin to address the rule and the underlying bill, I want to also extend my feelings of empathy and concern for those out in California dealing with the fires that are plaguing that area of our country. We are all watching and we are all, in spirit, hoping that the fire ravaging will end. We appreciate the hard work and the fearless dedication of our fire service and our firefighters, and we hope that that situation is under control in the very, very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. At the outset, I would like to commend my Republican colleague and neighbor, Congressman Regula, for his leadership in sponsoring this bipartisan piece of legislation.

This bill will provide additional support to nine national heritage areas and allow for the designation of six new heritage areas, making them eligible for Federal support.

I am proud that the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway is among these nine national heritage areas. And I can tell you from firsthand experience that I've had with the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway, that these heritage areas are an invaluable asset, both to the local communities and to our Nation, from the preservation of local culture and history, to increasing tourism, and as centerpieces for economic growth.

The designation of heritage areas provides for a partnership approach to heritage development, allowing the sites to be locally managed with a local organization coordinating in partnership with local residents.

These areas provide unique opportunities to understand the larger context of these regions' traditions, landscapes and people, and the heritage of this great country.

The Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway is not a traditional park. It's a lived-in region where the national, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a nationally significant landscape that celebrates the significance of the Ohio and Erie Canal and its contribution to the region, the State of Ohio, and the United States.

The Ohio and Erie Canal helped connect the Ohio frontier with New York and New Orleans in the early 19th century, playing a key role in linking a previously isolated Ohio with economic centers east and south. And the canal was crucial to the development of Ohio's economy, attracting businesses to the area and providing a viable transportation route for emerging industries.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that with increased Federal support, the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway and other heritage areas included in this legislation will continue to play central roles in their communities and equally important roles in our national heritage.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act will provide support to the National Coal Heritage Act in West Virginia, the Tennessee Civil War Heritage Area, the Augusta Canal and National Heritage Area in Georgia, the Steel Industry American Heritage Area in Pennsylvania, the Essex National Heritage Area in Massachusetts, the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor, America's Agricultural Partnership in Iowa, and the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in New York.

This legislation will also recognize and bring the benefits of heritage areas to six new communities throughout the Nation: Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area in Virginia, Niagara Falls National Heritage Area in New York, Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area in Alabama, Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in Illinois, and Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area in Arizona.

And it's important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation specifically includes language that protects private property rights. And the bill makes clear that a national heritage area designation does not alter existing regulations or land use plans.

This is a good bill that will help communities and our country celebrate our heritage and use our history for future prosperity and collective pride. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. And, again, I would like to thank Congressman Ralph Regula from my home State of Ohio for introducing this bill and for being a champion of Ohio's heritage.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague from Washington that this legislation does not affect private property rights. The bill makes it clear that a National Heritage Area designation does not alter existing regulations or land use plans, either.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I only wish the same commitment and tenacity on behalf of veterans that is being expressed here today continues into the future, and I wish that it had been a little bit more at the surface in the past.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats, when they came into the majority in this House, passed the biggest increase for veterans health care in history. They passed in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill $6.7 billion above the fiscal year 2007 budget, which, by the way, was the largest single increase in the 77- year history of the VA, $3.8 billion above the President's request. So we are indeed on the same page in terms of protecting our Nation's veterans, and we are working diligently, not just with our words, but with our votes and with our actions to make sure that we live up to the promise that we make to our veterans.

Returning to the legislation and the rule at hand, Mr. Speaker, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act would provide support for some of our Nation's cultural treasures and will expand support to additional heritage areas. I cannot overstate the importance of many of these areas, not only to the local communities and the regions in which they exist, but to preserving the history of the United States, that history that those veterans fought for, by the way, and these heritage areas stand out for national parks and they are overseen by a coalition of local leaders, community members and local organizations all with an interest in the preservation in their areas' traditions and culture and in the continued vitality of their communities. These heritage areas play a key role in spurring economic development, which serve as a bridge to the future for communities as well as a constant reminder of our past and the cumulative history that has led to where we are today.

I know what the Ohio and Erie National Heritage Canalway means to northeast Ohio, and I know what increased Federal support will do to help it continue serving our community and our Nation.

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

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

Amendment to H. Res. 765 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, on October 13, Ohio Attorney General Mark Dann, U.S. Attorney Gregory Lockhart, and USDA Agent Mark Barnhart received the 2007 Humane Law Enforcement Award from the Humane Society and the National District Attorneys Association. They were honored with this prestigious award for conducting one of the largest, best coordinated crackdowns on dog fighting in the Nation.

I am extremely proud that my home State of Ohio is taking a lead in cracking down on this vicious blood sport, but this raid also demonstrates the difficulty authorities have of prosecuting offenders under Federal law.

I have introduced the Dog Fighting Prohibition Act, which would strengthen Federal penalties for those participating in dog fighting and broaden the scope of the law to allow prosecution of everyone involved, from spectators to trainers to dealers. We need to do all we can to end what has become a lucrative gambling business; and to accomplish that, we must give our law enforcement officials like Mark Dann, Gregory Lockhart, and Mark Barnhart the tools that they need. I want to thank them and congratulate them on their efforts, and encourage support for the Dog Fighting Prohibition Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1727, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Quality of Life for Persons with Paralysis Act. And as I express my support for this legislation today, I would like to recognize an outstanding organization in my district, Linking Employment, Abilities, and Potential, or LEAP.

LEAP provides hope and empowerment for tens of thousands of people with disabilities and their families throughout Northeast Ohio.

Through legislation such as the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, Congress sends a message about people with disabilities--that they matter, that they can and do make valuable contributions to society. That is a message that LEAP and so many disability rights advocates send every day.

LEAP is deeply committed to empowering people with disabilities in the workplace through specialized skill development programs, at home through independent living training, in the medical system through access to the best medical care, and in so many other aspects of society. LEAP's Disability Employment Training Program, in particular, aligns with the goals of Christopher and Dana Reeve, who fought so hard for integration and acceptance for those with disabilities in our communities. LEAP has an 80 percent success rate in employment training and placement and has a tremendous impact on the community, recognizing the many talents of people with disabilities and the potential to be productive citizens.

Once again, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1727, and to honor Linking Employment, Abilities, and Potential.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 702 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

H. Res. 702 provides for consideration of H.R. 2740, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for three amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill which helps to address one of the most disturbing and pressing issues to come before the Congress this year, the lack of oversight and accountability of contractors abroad and here at home. And it is vital that we are passing the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act today to address at least one of these critical issues.

Currently, there are estimated to be at least 180,000 contractors working in Iraq under contracts awarded by the Department of Defense, the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other Federal agencies. Yet under current law, only contractors working for the Department of Defense can be held responsible for crimes they commit while working in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the world.

At present, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, leaves felonies committed by contractors working for other Federal Departments unpunished. This is unfair and unacceptable, and this Congress must act to ensure that justice is not a selective American principle.

Our current law has given private mercenary armies like Blackwater USA free rein to do as they please without fearing the repercussions. And as we have seen, that unbridled freedom from any accountability has resulted in sometimes egregious criminal behavior. But under the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, Federal contractors working for every Department and agency will be held responsible for criminal acts. It will also direct the FBI to establish units to investigate crimes committed by contract personnel operating abroad.

Mr. Speaker, it simply makes no sense to hold contractors to a different standard than American citizens living at home or even the brave soldiers who risk their lives every day in Iraq. It is a travesty of justice that we allow private armies to evade punishment for serious crimes, especially considering we have prosecuted our soldiers for the very similar actions.

In a recent incident that has received significant scrutiny, Blackwater guards were involved in a September 16 shootout in Baghdad that left 11 Iraqis dead and a number wounded. This event spurred such a tremendous public outcry that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had to apologize to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

And we have learned from reports compiled by Blackwater themselves that since 2005, its employees have been involved in at least 195 incidents in Iraq that involved the firing of shots by Blackwater guards. Blackwater's contract with the State Department stipulates that Blackwater may only engage in defensive use of force. However, in the vast majority, over 80 percent, of these shooting incidents, Blackwater's own reports revealed that its guards fired the first shots. In one incident that has recently come to our attention, Blackwater guards shot a civilian bystander in the head. In another, State Department officials report that Blackwater sought to cover up a shooting that killed a seemingly innocent bystander.

Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, and despite numerous instances where the military has found probable cause that a crime has been committed and has referred the case to the Justice Department, there has been only one successful prosecution of a civilian contractor for wrongdoing.

Without fear of reprisal, these reckless contractors have operated with no regard for the private property of innocent Iraqi citizens. In a November 2005 incident, a Blackwater motorcade collided with 18 different vehicles. Written statements from team members were determined to be invalid, and a Blackwater contractor on the mission stated his tactical commander ``openly admitted giving clear direction to the primary driver to conduct these acts of random negligence for no apparent reason.''

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the number of contractors increase exponentially as the Bush administration has placed an unnecessary strain on our Armed Forces through the war in Iraq. In 2001, Blackwater had less than $1 million in Federal contracts. By 2006, that figure had grown to over half a billion dollars, an increase of more than 80,000 percent. Today, there are approximately 180,000 Federal contractors in Iraq alone, a number greater than the American military presence. Because of the President's policy of escalation in Iraq, we have become more reliant on these contractors to protect American interests there. For every Blackwater mercenary the United States Government hires to protect embassy officials, Blackwater charges $1,222 per day, which is over six times more than the cost of an equivalent American soldier.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of oversight of Federal contractors committing crimes overseas is an example of how the system of Federal contracting is broken. Earlier this year, this Congress got off to a strong start by passing H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act which helped restore integrity to the contracting process. I am also proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 2198, the Contractor Accountability Act, which will require the head of every agency and department to ensure that every Federal contract recipient is fulfilling their obligations after they are awarded that contract. It requires that every Federal agency and department awarding contracts submit a report on the status of those contracts to Congress. This is the type of oversight and accountability that is necessary to ensure that the problems that are happening in Iraq with Federal contractors and here at home can finally be put to an end.

Today, with the passage of the MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act, we are addressing a critical loophole in our contracting crisis by ensuring that those contractors who commit crimes are held accountable for their actions. What we seek to do today is simple but important. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act will hold Federal contractors operating overseas to the same standards we hold ourselves and to which we hold our brave troops. And let's be clear. This bill does not prevent contractors from using force if the situation calls for it. Our bill simply allows contractors to be punished for committing acts of murder and other felonies. Nobody should be immune from the law. This legislation will ensure that no one, even if he is a private contractor in Iraq, is.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, I would just like to say that in the process of this bill coming forward, not a single Republican offered an amendment in the committee. Though the committee reported the bill by voice vote, not a single person voted ``no.'' Only one Republican offered an amendment for the floor, and it had nothing to do with the scope of the bill and was nongermane.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman for his question.

I think that the important thing here to look at is there was an opportunity for the Republican side to offer amendments, and only one was offered yesterday in committee. There was an opportunity, obviously, for those to be presented.

Certainly.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the reality of this is there was an opportunity to offer amendments as explained. Somebody did offer an amendment. Unfortunately, that amendment was nongermane.

At this point I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the author of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to reiterate, without beating this to death, that not a single Republican amendment was offered in committee. There was opportunity to provide amendments yesterday in the Rules Committee. This is an important bill that we need to stay focused on the substance of as well.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is an honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker at this time on my side, so I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina on this strong bipartisan bill. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act is critical, commonsense legislation to hold contractors responsible for criminal behavior, just like we hold our troops responsible for crimes when they are committed, and just like we hold American citizens responsible for following the law.

Those who argue against this measure seem willing to tolerate lawlessness in countries where our military is seeking to restore justice. The truth is, every time we see an incident with an Iraqi civilian being killed and American contractors escaping accountability, our men and women in uniform suffer. They see support from the insurgents rise and they lose the trust of the Iraqi people.

Our troops are not responsible for the strain that the President has placed on our Armed Forces which has led to the need for mercenaries to carry out missions that our troops capably handle, and it is tragic that the troops are targeted for the negligence of private contractors. We owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to ensure that contractors are held to the same standards of justice as everybody else. Only then will we see a true deterrent to vigilante behavior and reckless actions by private citizens working overseas for our Federal agencies and Departments.

It is simple, Mr. Speaker. The MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act extends policies that are in place for the

Department of Defense to contractors for other agencies.

And let's be clear: Nobody is accusing every single contractor of committing the criminal acts we have talked about today. But when a contractor does commit a crime, they must be punished and we must have consequences to serve as a deterrent. It should not be controversial to punish people for committing murder and other felonies. This is a giant loophole in our law that is hurting our reputation abroad, hurting our troops in the field and is making a mockery of the American sense of justice.

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

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

Amendment to H. Res. 702 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 701 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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 701.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 701 provides for consideration of H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in

order the Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported substitute. The rule makes in order all five germane amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act. I am very proud to be a Member of this new Congress because over the last 9 months we have made huge strides to better our great country.

We have empowered our workers. We have fought to lift up our citizens. And today, I am proud to join my colleagues once again as we press for greater government accountability and work to restore the trust of the American people in this great institution.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today will amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 to ensure necessary government oversight and strengthen the role of the Inspectors General.

Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the Inspector General Act. Offices of Inspector General now exist in more than 60 Federal Departments and agencies where they work to combat waste, fraud and abuse.

The Inspectors General have many vital tasks. They act as government watchdogs, conducting audits and examining complaints from agency employees. They actively promote efficiency in government programs, and encourage employee disclosure of waste and fraud.

Our bill today acts to strengthen and clarify their tenure, resources, authority, oversight and autonomy. It is an important action that we are taking today. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in recent years, politics has crept into the inner workings of the Inspectors General leaving the door open for political pressure and influence to prejudice the job that they are supposed to perform.

Under President Bush, only 18 percent of the Inspectors General have audit experience while 64 percent have political experience. This is in comparison to President Clinton who appointed far more, 66 percent, of Inspectors General with audit experience versus only 22 percent with political experience.

And what's more, over one-half of the IGs appointed by President Bush had made contributions to his campaign or to other Republican candidates and over one-third had worked in a Republican White House prior to their appointment; whereas none of the IGs appointed by President Clinton had worked in a Democratic White House.

These statistics are concerning because the hallmark of Inspectors General must be their independence from the departments and agencies within which they are housed. This independence is crucial because the inspectors are charged with submitting reports to the agency heads and to Congress regarding any failures on the part of their agencies.

When this independence is compromised, the missions and goals of the Inspectors General lose credibility. Their work is critical to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being used wisely and that our government is working efficiently and effectively.

The Improving Government Accountability Act will strengthen the independence of these important watchdogs. First, it clarifies when the inspectors can be removed from their posts. Under current law, they have limited protection from removal from office. In fact, inspectors that are appointed by the President can be removed by the President without cause. The only requirement is that the President must report the removal to Congress after the removal has already been accomplished. It is much more difficult to be independent when you know that the head of the Department that you are critically evaluating can remove you and that there are no checks on that power.

Our bill specifies that they may only be removed before the end of their term for permanent incapacity, inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance or conviction of a felony, or conduct involving moral turpitude. This takes the politics out of a position and a decision- making process where it never should have been in the first place.

Under this new law, removal of an Inspector General must be communicated to both Houses of Congress at least 30 days before that inspector's removal.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today encourages inspectors to remain in office for at least 7 years by setting a fixed term of office and allowing the inspectors to be renewed at the completion of their term. This allows for greater continuity and increased independence on the part of the inspectors.

Under this legislation, an Inspector General will be allowed to submit budget requests directly to the Office of Management and Budget. This is a vital change. Inspectors General must not be at the mercy of administration officials who have the unbridled power to cut their budget because of disagreement over their findings or improper political influence. Budget autonomy is crucial to the independence of these inspectors.

Further, H.R. 928 establishes the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. This council's task will be to increase the professionalism and effectiveness of the Inspectors General staff. The council will seek out fraud, waste and abuse in Federal programs.

Today, through the Improving Government Accountability Act, we will give the Inspectors General more power to do their job and, more importantly, to do so with heightened independence and integrity.

The trust of the American people is a precious thing. The bill today guarantees that our departments and agencies are worthy of that trust.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he has any remaining speakers.

Okay. I'm the last speaker for my side, so I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and yielded back his time.

Mr. Speaker, in 1978, the House committee that was then known as Government Operations envisioned Inspectors General as watchdogs to bring accountability and oversight to our agencies. Now, almost 30 years later, we act to update and improve this valuable program.

This important bill will not only bring enhanced continuity and accountability to the Inspectors General; it will strengthen their most important quality: their independence from the Departments and agencies that they inspect.

The American people should have the utmost faith that their precious taxpayer dollars are being used in the most efficient manner. This bill ensures the accountability that our citizens demand and which they deserve.

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

The material referred to previously by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote; the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 678 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 678.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 678 provides for consideration of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order the Committee on Education and Labor amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

The rule makes in order the two amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee and are printed in the Rules report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.

The central Ohio town of Marion is located about two hours from my hometown of Barberton, Ohio. Marion has the unique distinction of being known as the ``Popcorn Capital of the World.'' Just this month, the town of Marion hosted its yearly popcorn festival, complete with a popcorn scholarship pageant, parade and 5K run.

Unfortunately, these fun-filled festivities are not the only symbols of Marion's popcorn industry. It was recently discovered that a chemical used in the production of microwave popcorn is the cause of fatal lung disease in popcorn workers across the country, including the Popcorn Capital of the World, Marion Ohio.

Diacetyl is a chemical ingredient used in microwave popcorn that gives the popcorn a distinct buttery smell.

Diacetyl has been linked to illnesses in hundreds of workers in popcorn and other food production facilities across the United States. Diacetyl is specifically connected to a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans. This condition makes it difficult for air to flow out of the lungs. This difficulty is not reversible, and it is sometimes fatal.

In November of 2000, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted voluntary tests of workers at a popcorn plant in Missouri. The workers in that plant suffered from chronic cough and shortness of breath almost three times as often as people in the general population. Those plant workers are over three times more likely to suffer from abnormally low airflow through their lungs. The percentage of workers in the popcorn plant with asthma or chronic bronchitis was double the national rate. Several workers from this plant in Missouri had conditions that were so severe that they had to be placed on the lung transplant list.

Remarkably, Mr. Speaker, despite these reports from the Missouri popcorn plant and other plants across the country, there are currently no enforceable OSHA standards requiring exposure to diacetyl to be controlled.

It has been 7 years since the first cases of popcorn lung were identified. It has been 5 years since the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published its first report stating the inhalation of diacetyl was leading to deadly results. There is simply no excuse for the lack of action taken by OSHA in the face of this evidence. OSHA has failed to uphold its primary charge to protect the safety and health of American workers.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation fills that fatal void by protecting workers from this damaging chemical. The Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act directs the Secretary of Labor to create standards for workers' exposure to diacetyl in popcorn plants and in any location where diacetyl is used or manufactured. Our legislation requires that final rules for exposure to diacetyl be in place under the Occupational Safety and Health Act no later than 2 years after the bill is enacted.

For the popcorn workers of Marion, Ohio, things are starting to look up. The popcorn factories in their town have eliminated the use of diacetyl because of its linkage to the fatal lung conditions. They have done the right thing.

But not every production facility that uses diacetyl has recognized the danger. In fact, on Monday of this week, one of America's largest food manufacturers introduced their new toasted butter flavoring. What is one of the ingredients in this new butter flavoring? Diacetyl.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that some food manufacturers have gotten the message, but some are going to continue to ignore the science and put their workers in harm's way. Over 500 workers in Ohio are already suffering because of uncontrolled exposure to diacetyl.

Today, we act to protect our food industry workers from these harmful chemicals and dangerous conditions. We stand up for workers and their families. This legislation is not just about the conditions in food manufacturing plants across this country. It's about changing the way we treat working men and women. It's about respecting the risks that they undertake every day to feed their family. The hardworking people who make our world turn deserve safe working conditions, a living wage, and strong support from Congress.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a point of clarification; the earmark rule was not waived. And to the question about whether this bill today is premature, I would argue that it's not premature for the 500 workers in Ohio and those across this country who are now suffering from this irreversible disease.

I have heard the workers' stories from the Ohio popcorn plants. I have heard the story of a worker who worked 12-hour shifts in the popcorn factory outside of Marion, Ohio. His job was to mix the flavors, measuring and dumping butter-flavored powders and pastes into the vats of soybean oil. Now, Mr. Speaker, he is so crippled from breathing the vapors in the plant that he hardly has the strength to hold his granddaughter. He is racked with spasms that leave him dizzy and incapacitated.

In 2001, after an outbreak of diseases at the popcorn factory in Missouri, his employer guaranteed him that his plant was safe. Mr. Speaker, OSHA's failure to protect our workers by ignoring the reports, studies and warning signs has endangered the health of families. That is why we must act today. Our workers should never have to choose between their health and feeding their families. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 678 Offered By Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this hour by talking about a subject that has become one of the most significant issues of our time. I am going to be joined by members of the freshman class or the Majority Makers throughout this hour to talk about Iraq.

We have heard in recent days about what the President's idea of our way forward is. He has called for more money and more patience and a renewed commitment to U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, another stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path toward a $1 trillion, at least 10-year presence war in Iraq. On top of that, we have no convincing evidence that the political reconciliation necessary will be achieved even after so much sacrifice on the part of our brave troops will be realized.

I believe that the President's plan for Iraq amounts to an open-ended and dangerous commitment of American troops in Iraq and an open wallet from the American people to pay for it.

The question should not be whether we keep our troops in Iraq for 10 years. The question should be: How do we responsibly redeploy our troops? And how do we develop that plan that will do so while we continue to protect our homeland and fight against terrorists?

On August 19, we saw in the New York Times an editorial that was written by seven brave U.S. soldiers. I bring this to the attention, Mr. Speaker, of you and all those who may be tuned in because I think it is important that we listen to their vantage point. And while I won't be reading the entire article, I will read excerpts from it. Again, it is August 19, the New York Times, and I would suggest that everybody who can take a look at the complete editorial. It is entitled, ``The War As We Saw It.'' And it begins:

``Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population.

To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is farfetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.''

And then they say, in parentheses, ``Obviously these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.''

They continue:

``The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by some failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the `battle space' remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.''

And then they continue:

``Reports that a majority of Iraqi army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little or no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them in an incoherent chain of command who are really loyal only to their militias.''

They continue in this article, and they state, ``Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice that we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party to this conflict, as we do now, will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.''

These brave soldiers conclude this op-ed with the following:

``It would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.''

They say, ``We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.''

I share that because I think it's worth having out there for our consideration and our contemplation to add to the wealth of information that is being presented to the American people.

I'm sad to report that since this op-ed began, they started writing this, during the course of writing it, one of these brave soldiers was shot in the head, and he is recovering. But on September 13, the headline in the same New York Times sadly stated, ``Skeptical But Loyal Soldiers Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq.'' And two of these soldiers who had the courage not only to go and fight for our Nation but to do everything they were asked to do were killed in Iraq.

We are here today to talk about this pressing, pressing issue. The light that

has been shed on this by these soldiers should be part of the discussion. I am joined here on the floor right now by a couple of my colleagues, leaders on this issue, I know, who feel it deeply. The gentleman from Florida, Ron Klein, a tremendous new Member, at this point I am going to just yield to him for his remarks.

Thank you, Congressman Klein.

I couldn't agree more that we need to have that kind of a plan. And unfortunately, a plan for responsibly redeploying and a plan for dealing with the broad scope of protecting America and what's in America's best interest is not being offered up. In fact, it's not even being discussed, because we're having the same discussion that we've been having for years now about staying the course in Iraq.

I would like to shift it over to my colleague from New Hampshire, Representative Carol Shea-Porter, who I know can shed a great deal of light on this as well as a member of the Armed Services Committee.

I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent remarks. I guess the question that comes to mind when you ask where are we on these domestic items, where are we going to be in 10 years on these domestic items?

At this point I would just like to shift it over to my great colleague, a new freshman Member, a majority maker who has brought a lot of valuable insight and knowledge to this body and on this subject, the Honorable Joe Courtney.

Thank you, Congressman Welch.

And we have been joined by another great new Member of the class and a great help on issues related to Iraq and so many more things, my colleague from the Rules Committee, the esteemed Mike Arcuri.

I yield to Mr. Arcuri.

Thank you, Representative Arcuri. That firsthand account and your observations are very enlightening. We appreciate you bringing them forward and, again, highlighting the fact that as we make this choice and as the President opts to try and keep us in Iraq for 10 years, or beyond, it means there are other consequences. Beyond all of those other consequences we talked about militarily and the effects on our military, there are those domestic issues, Representative Shea- Porter, that you point out and Mr. Arcuri points out that we will continue to fall behind on. I think that the picture is becoming a little bit more clear down here tonight that we need some comprehensive thinking that is smart and effective. And the question of a responsible redeployment and what that plan should look like is really the one that we need to be working on.

With that, I want to pass it over to another great Member of the new Congress, a freshman from Minnesota who I think is going to shed some light on the Blackwater situation.

I thank Representative Ellison for that addition to this debate this evening. It's important that all of this be exposed to the light of day so that we can make the inquiries that are appropriate as well as the policies that make sense from this Chamber.

At this point, I would like to throw it back over to Representative Carol Shea-Porter from New Hampshire. I think, Representative Shea- Porter, you were going to share with us some statistics and information from a report.

Well, I thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire. It is a sad state of affairs, but it goes back to the point that we have heard here tonight, and that is that unity in Iraq, really, at the end of the day, is going to be determined by the people of Iraq. We all know that our military has performed valiantly and selflessly and that they are true American heroes. But as you point out, it is not fair to keep them trapped in the middle of a civil war and refuse to acknowledge that all that has been discussed here tonight is going on. That is not a prudent plan. I think it is time. We have heard the call when we go home and talk to our constituents. It is time for a plan to responsibly redeploy. That is what the American people need from our President.

I will share just a few statistics with you that sort of buttress this need. We know that there was a great rollout when we had this so- called surge introduced as a new way forward. But let me just shed some light on some of the results. In June, July and August of 2007, it marked the bloodiest summer so far U.S. troops in Iraq have had, with 264 soldiers killed. U.S. casualties in Iraq are 56 percent higher this year than they were at this time in 2006. Since January of this year, we have lost 761 brave servicemen and women to the war in Iraq.

By the way, I should say that these statistics are as of September 10. I have fear they have grown since then. As of September 10, 3,759 U.S. troops have been killed and more than 27,770 have been wounded in Iraq since it began in March 2003. Think about that. Think about the cost in lives. Think about the cost in the casualties and the injuries that our soldiers are facing for the rest of their lives in many cases, the costs to them, which is unfathomable and enormous, and the cost to the American people as we do what we must do, and that is provide them with the health care and the resources they need and to fulfill the promise that we make to them when we send them into harm's way. We must take care of our veterans.

We also learn that, and you pointed this out, Representative Shea- Porter, that in Iraq, opinions are also that they would like our troops to be responsibly deploying. Just to share some information from a new poll that was jointly conducted and released by ABC News, BBC News and Japan's NHK, 47 percent of Iraqis want American forces and their coalition allies to leave the country immediately. That is a 12 percent increase over March. Remember, our soldiers are there in that environment. The polls showed that every person interviewed in Baghdad and Anbar province, a Sunni-dominated area where Bush recently visited and cited progress, said the troop increase has worsened security. Seventy percent believe security has deteriorated in the areas where the U.S. surge troops were located. Between 67 and 70 percent say that the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development. Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis say that attacking coalition forces is ``acceptable,'' more than three times higher than when polled in February of 2004. That is the environment we are keeping our troops in. The President's plan is to do so for the very foreseeable future.

It is time for a plan of responsible redeployment. Our military should not be asked to try to control a civil war, a sectarian civil war. We have heard all

the components of all the factions and all the dynamics that are going on in Iraq. Just think about our troops sitting in the middle of that and doing everything they are asked to do. We know from the report that Representative Shea-Porter referenced, and we know from the GAO reports. They confirm that our strategy is not working and that this conflict begs for a political solution, not a military one; though the United States can play a constructive role, and we will, and we have done so by providing, through high cost and blood and money, an opportunity to embrace a different way to the Iraqi people. We also know the toll that that country has, along the way, encountered.

Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they believe that the U.S. should withdraw some or all troops from Iraq. Sixty percent of Americans say the U.S. should set a timetable to withdraw our forces from Iraq and should ``stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'' That is not because we don't care. That is because we are looking at the evidence, and we are trying to make the responsible decision for our troops, for the safety of this country and for domestic policy.

At this point, I would like to turn it over to Representative Shea- Porter, and we will be wrapping up here in a few moments.

Well said, Representative Shea-Porter.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to close and yield back the balance of our time.