Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 214 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 214 provides for consideration of H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2007, under an open rule with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be considered as read. The rule provides that any amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute must be printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, House Resolution 214 is an open rule. This is the third open rule recommended by the Rules Committee during the 110th Congress. The committee's fourth open rule will be considered on the floor tomorrow.

The Democratic majority is backing up its commitment to greater openness with real action. The Rules Committee's two prior open rules permitted Members to offer 19 amendments on the floor. The House adopted the overwhelming majority of them. It goes to show the Members often can improve legislation when given the opportunity; and I am sure that we will have a good debate today, also.

The underlying legislation made in order under this rule represents a long-overdue, necessary investment in our Nation's clean water infrastructure. The Water Quality Investment Act provides sorely needed funding for cities and States to upgrade combined sewer systems.

Mr. Speaker, we all take our sewer systems for granted. Most of our country's wastewater infrastructure is out of sight and, for the majority of our constituents, it is out of mind as well. But once these sewers back up and overflow into our streets and rivers, sewers become an urgent issue.

Combined sewers are an older technology. They were built back when it made sense to collect wastewater and storm runoff in the same pipes. They do not have the same capacity of more modern infrastructure. During heavy storms, they often back up and overflow. When this happens, untreated wastewater stagnates in our streets and pollutes our rivers. Raw sewage seeps into basements, public parks and other areas where young children play. Public health is severely impacted.

The long-term investment fallout can be even worse. My hometown of Sacramento struggles with the problems posed by combined sewers. During the heavy winter storms which periodically sweep through California, these sewers in our central city can overflow. When this happens, over 500,000 gallons of wastewater flow into our public waterways and neighborhoods.

My constituents already face dangers of flooding from the two large rivers which ring our city. They should not have to worry about additional flooding from our underground sewers.

This problem is not unique to Sacramento. Over 700 cities across the country have combined sewer systems. These cities need help from the Federal Government to undertake the costly task of upgrading their infrastructure. A vote for this bill before us today is an investment in the health of these cities and towns all throughout our country.

I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for the focus he has shown in shepherding this bill through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This bill became trapped in committee under the previous majority. I think we are all happy to see it finally make it to the floor under the new majority.

We all have a stake in keeping our infrastructure up to date and protecting our constituents' health. Upgrading combined sewers today will do both of these things. I urge all Members to pass this fair and open rule and to support the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, wastewater infrastructure may not be the most glamorous of issues. Nonetheless, it is an important one for the health of our environment and our constituents.

No American should have to walk outside after a storm to see sewage in the streets. None of our constituents should have to fear that swimming or boating in rivers will expose them to industrial waste. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that our country's combined sewers are not up to the task of cleaning our waters.

The good news is that the underlying bill made in order under this open rule will help our local municipalities fix this problem. It is an opportunity to invest in our national infrastructure, protect our environment, and secure our public health.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chairman, I am truly proud to see the Employee Free Choice Act on the floor of the House. This represents a tremendous step forward for working families in this country. I want to thank Chairman Miller for crafting this excellent legislation and for his tireless efforts on behalf of workers.

A little less than a year ago, Chairman Miller and I held a forum on this legislation in my hometown of Sacramento. We heard emotional testimony from workers about their experiences in the workplace. They had been subjected to coercion and intimidation--and some had even been fired--simply because of their desire to join a union.

After sharing encounter after encounter, they asked Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. They know that this legislation would protect them from these abuses. It would repair the cracks in the current system. And it would allow them to make a real choice in deciding to join a union.

It is one thing to talk in the abstract about the policy. It is quite another to see first hand the human face, the real life consequences of that policy. What we are talking about is helping working Americans-- the middle class--meet the needs of their families.

Congress must take advantage of this chance to act. A strong middle class has been the bedrock of expanded prosperity and opportunity in this country.

And our middle class families are at a critical juncture. They face some daunting challenges. Wages are not keeping up with inflation. Yet, the costs the typical middle class family faces--such as housing, health care, transportation and college--continue to rise dramatically. We risk losing the strong middle class that has been the backbone of this Nation.

Throughout our history, protecting the right to organize has played a critical role in improving the wages and quality of life for working people, and in growing the middle class.

To preserve the middle class, it is critical that we continue to keep the central promise of our Nation's labor laws--that workers be empowered to make their own decisions about a collective bargaining representative.

NLRB elections, as they exist today, often do not allow such a choice. And that's where the Employee Free Choice Act comes in. As Chairman Miller has explained so well, it will take important steps to level the playing field for workers who are trying to organize. It will allow employees to make a real choice to join a union without intimidation. And it will provide for stronger penalties when companies engage in illegal practices. Because the right to organize and form a union is fundamental to ensuring a fair balance of power in the workplace.

And you know, this is not an anti-business bill, as its being portrayed by its opponents. This is a pro-workplace bill. What I mean is that when you have a card check system, it makes for a successful workplace--for the company and for workers.

At the forum I held with Chairman Miller in Sacramento, we heard from a second panel of workers whose employer had voluntarily agreed to a card check system. This employer, and the many others that have agreed to a card check system, understand there is a benefit to treating employees with dignity and respect. They understand that when a company lets workers weigh the pros and cons of joining a union--without harassment or intimidation--those workers will be more productive and more committed to the success of the company.

Frankly, if you care about working families, these reforms are simply common sense. They will make the organizing process simpler, more fair, and most importantly, ensure that the fundamental right of choosing whether or not to join a union rests squarely where it belongs: with this Nation's workers.

I promised my constituents that I would do everything I could do get this bill passed in the House. So I am proud that it is on the floor today. Members have an opportunity--by voting in favor of this legislation--to stand with the working families of this country. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of that opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I am hopeful today. Finally, 4 years into a very controversial war, Congress will begin to fulfill its constitutional responsibility as Representatives of the people. This week, every Member of the House of Representatives has had an opportunity to express their views on the war in Iraq. And today, every Member will cast their vote for or against the President's escalation of the war. This is only right.

For my part, I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. Our need for a change of direction could not be more clear. But rather than change direction, the President proposes that we continue down our current disastrous path, only at a faster pace and with more human life placed in harm's way.

We should be bringing troops home, not sending more there. We should be ending this war, not escalating it. Considering this resolution is only the first step of many Congress will need to take to force a change in direction, but as Thomas Jefferson once said, honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom. Congress writes that chapter with this resolution, but it is only the first chapter.

Sadly, the burden created by the lack of honesty and wisdom this administration has brought to this conflict is shouldered by our brave men and women in uniform. Two years ago, I spoke with a group of women in Sacramento whose husbands were serving in the National Guard in Iraq.

One woman told me she had to buy her husband a Kevlar vest and a canteen before he deployed to Iraq, something all too many families were doing for their loved ones because the military was not providing it. A short time later, the administration assured the public that the issue had been addressed. And yet just this week we heard reports that the Army lacks armored Humvees and other equipment necessary for the troop increase the President is implementing; once again, a failure in vision and planning, and once again, our troops pay the price.

Escalation of this conflict will further increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point. Every Member of this Chamber knows this. Earlier this month, I spoke with a friend and reservist in Sacramento named Richard Beach. Richard shipped out to Iraq 4 years ago as a chaplain in the Army Reserves. He is home now. But he still keeps in touch with his old unit. Richard shared with me a note he sent to some of his fellow members of the 114th.

He wrote, ``I remember 4 years ago we were getting ready for our trip to Fort Lewis and then on to Iraq. I hope as the fourth anniversary of the war comes up, you are all in good health and living life to the fullest. I, too, pray that soon this war will end and we will stop sending our soldiers off to war.''

Four years later, he reports that many of the same soldiers and their families are making the same sacrifice. But that is a heartbreaking reality here. Implementing the President's policy will mean that members of his regiment along with so many others will have to endure more and more of the back-to-back deployments to Iraq.

The notion of shared sacrifice is something that helped make this country great. Americans are strong believers in shared sacrifice. But all too often in this war, only our troops and their families share the sacrifice. That is too much to ask on behalf of policies that have not worked.

The administration offers us scant reason to believe this troop increase will work when it has tried and failed with several previous troop increases. This proposal offers us nothing but more of the same.

Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. It is our political leadership that has failed. There is a saying, It takes two people to speak the truth: one to speak it and one to hear it. I hope the administration will choose to hear the truth and I hope that we pass this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time and for her outstanding leadership on our committee.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. There is no issue more serious or more urgent. The American people said loud and clear in the last election that they consider bringing this war to a close to be the singular imperative of their leaders. Yet rather than beginning to bring the troops home, the President has proposed escalating this conflict.

The American people deserve to know where their elected representatives stand on this, the most critical issue at this moment in history. This week the people will get their answer.

Mr. Speaker, here is where I stand: I opposed this war from the beginning, and I support several responsible proposals to bring this war to a close. I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. It will most likely result in an increase in violence while only postponing the hard political choices the Iraqi people must make. It will also increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point.

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to make clear that Iraq has spiraled into civil war because of the failure of this country's political leadership, not our troops. Our brave men

and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. The real tragedy is how ill served they have been by their political leadership.

I have heard firsthand from many families in Sacramento the impact this has had on their lives. Linda, a concerned mother, told me about her son, Nicholas, who serves as an Army sergeant in the 82nd Airborne in Germany. Shortly, he will be returning to Iraq for his third tour. And there are some 30 soldiers in the Sacramento area who have died in this war. I have met several times with members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Every Member knows what I am talking about. We have all done it. We all know the pain.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this administration has failed to meet the most basic requirements of responsible leadership. As a result, it has abdicated any claim to deference from this Chamber on this war and has certainly relinquished the moral authority to send men and women into this catastrophe.

Undoubtedly, this Chamber will need to take more forceful action if we are to bring this war to a conclusion. But today is an important first step.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to oppose this gravely mistaken proposal to escalate the war.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. There is no issue more serious . . . or more urgent. The American People sent a message in the last election. That message was that they consider bringing this war to a close to be the singular imperative of their leaders.

Yet rather than beginning to bring troops home, the President has proposed escalating this conflict . . . sending tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq.

Rather than change direction . . . they would instead continue down our current, disastrous path . . . only at a faster pace and with more human life placed in harm's way.

This week, every Member of the House of Representatives will have an opportunity to let their constituents know where they stand on the President's proposed escalation. That is only right.

The American people deserve to know where their elective representatives stand on this, the most critical issue at this moment of our history.

Mr. Speaker, here's where I stand. I opposed this war from the beginning, and I support several responsible proposals to bring this war to a close.

I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. His stubborn insistence on pursuing the present course has been rejected by our military leaders . . . the independent Iraq study group . . . and a strong majority of the public. And with good reason.

This escalation will most likely result in an increase in violence while only postponing the hard political choices the Iraqi people must make.

Escalation of this conflict will also increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point.

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to make clear that Iraq has spiraled into civil war because of the failure of this country's political leadership . . . not our troops.

Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. They courageously put their lives on the line every day for us.

The real tragedy is how ill-served our men and women in uniform have been by their political leadership.

I have heard firsthand from many families in Sacramento about the impact this has had on their lives.

In 2005, I spoke with a group of women whose husbands were serving in the National Guard in Iraq.

One woman told me she bought her husband a Kevlar vest before he deployed . . . something all too many families were doing for their loved ones because the military wasn't providing it. Imagine the stress . . . sending a loved one into danger without the confidence that he would be given the needed equipment for protection.

And I have heard countless stories about the hardships being created by the multiple tours this conflict has demanded.

Linda, a concerned mother from Sacramento, told me about her son, Nicholas, who serves as an Army sergeant in the 82nd Airborne in Germany. He lives on-base with his wife and two children, ages four and five. Another child is on the way.

Nicholas recently learned that he was going to have to return to Iraq for his third tour.

Linda wrote me and said that his family . . . and I'm quoting . . . ``. . . will be all alone in Germany when he leaves and each time he has gone, the children have terrible nightmares and anger issues because they do not understand the long separations.''

Another Sacramento couple that wrote me are the proud parents of three Army soldiers . . . one is currently serving his second tour in Iraq . . . the other two have already completed two tours in Iraq. They ask . . . will their sons be asked to go back a third time?

My friend Richard Beach served as a chaplain in the U.S. Army Reserves in Iraq. Richard served in Iraq early in the conflict, and realized that four years since he went there, many of his fellow reservists are still serving there.

Richard shared with me a note he sent to some of his fellow members of the 114th. He wrote . . . and I quote . . . ``I remember four years ago we were getting ready for our trip to Fort Lewis and then on to Iraq. I hope as the fourth anniversary of the war comes up you are all in good health and living life to the fullest. I too pray that soon this war will end, and we will stop sending our soldiers off to war.''

Four years later . . . and still many of the same soldiers and their families are making the same sacrifice. But that is the heartbreaking reality here.

There are some 30 soldiers in the Sacramento area who have died in this war. I've met several times with members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Every member knows what I am talking about. We've all done it. We all know the pain.

The notion of ``shared sacrifice'' is something that helped make this country great.

But with this administration . . . only our soldiers and their families share in the sacrifice.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this country has tried troop increases before . . . to no avail. Sadly, this administration simply lacks credibility when arguing that this proposal will work.

As a result of this administration's failure to meet the most basic requirements of responsible leadership, it has abdicated any claim to deference from this chamber on this war . . . and it has certainly relinquished the moral authority to send additional men and women into this catastrophe.

Today's step is only a first step. Undoubtedly, this chamber will need to take more forceful action if we are to bring this war to a conclusion. But it is an important first step.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution . . . and to oppose this gravely mistaken proposal to escalate the war.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California (Mr. Berman) for yielding me time; and I would like to thank my good friend from California (Mr. Honda) for his leadership on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is a reminder that from great injustice can come great awakening.

We take up this resolution to mark the 65th anniversary of Executive Order 9066. The resolution is a reminder that each of us has a responsibility to ensure that something like Executive Order 9066 never happens again.

In a time of war, thousands of innocent American citizens were rounded up, forcibly removed from their homes, and shipped to internment camps. Sadly, this was an avoidable consequence of racial prejudice and wartime hysteria. The government at all levels was blinded by war. It is imperative that we learn the lesson this moment in history has taught us. That is why I applauded the creation of a grant program to preserve the internment camps and related historical sites where Japanese Americans were detained during World War II. We must preserve these camps as a physical, tangible representation of our government's failure to protect the constitutional right of every American, and also as a symbol of our Nation's ability to acknowledge our mistakes. Further, these designations will ensure that future generations will be able to visit the internment camps to gain a better understanding of the previous generation's experience.

Mr. Speaker, we may have won World War II; however, we were not victorious because of our treatment of Japanese, Italian, and German Americans, but in spite of it.

Now, 65 years later, we are once again engaged in armed conflict overseas, and once again the undertones of suspicion and mistrust toward particular groups of people lurk beneath the surface of our society, which is why it is more important than ever to recall our past, so we do not repeat our mistakes.

I hope every American will take this day to reaffirm their commitment to our Constitution and the rights and protections it guarantees to all of us. The resolution before us today recognizes the past injustices and points the way toward a future where such wrongs are no longer perpetuated in this country. Each Member of this Congress as a servant of the people is duty bound to apply these lessons of the past to the challenges we now face. In doing so, we show our continued efforts toward ensuring that our country avoids similarly misguided policies now and in the future.

Madam Speaker, almost a year and a half after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is clear that more needs to be done to protect and prepare homeowners from future catastrophic flooding. This is why I have reintroduced the ``Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2007'' The intent of this legislation is to increase the overall participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) while moving the program toward long-term stability and solvency.

My legislation will forge a stronger partnership between the Federal Government and local floodplain managers. It will:

Create a grant program within FEMA to educate property owners about their flood risk and about the importance of flood insurance; and

Funds this grant program at $50 million dollars annually over 5 years.

People at risk of flooding need to know their options and our local floodplain managers are our best partners in this effort. To put it quite simply, with 20,000 participating communities in NFIP-one size does not fit all. Our local partners know the risks, they know the landscape and in many cases they know the people. They know how to reach out to the people in their flood plain.

They can focus on the estimated 20 to 25 percent of property owners who have fallen through the cracks of our flood insurance system. People who are supposed to carry flood insurance, but do not carry it. Or use the money for an educational campaign directed towards people living in areas protected by levees, but not subject to the Federal flood insurance requirement. Spreading the message: Levees can fail or overtop in severe weather. So it is common sense to carry flood insurance, even if the federal government no longer requires it.

This program can work.

A little over a year ago, with the support of a $162,000 FEMA grant, my local flood protection body, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), conducted just such a flood insurance outreach initiative.

SAFCA reached out to more than 45,000 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholders in the American River floodplain. In February of 2005, this densely populated region was released from the Federal flood insurance requirement.

SAFCA's efforts yielded impressive results.

More than one year after SAFCA conducted outreach, seventy-four percent of the 45,000 NFIP policyholders who were removed from the Federal requirement had maintained their flood insurance protection.

Of this group, forty-three percent now carry Preferred Risk flood insurance. Preferred Risk Policies provide property owners, who have been released from the Federal requirement, but remain at risk of flooding, with full flood insurance protection for about half the price of a Standard flood policy. Because of their lower cost, it is likely that these Preferred Risk Policies will result in a higher level of policy retention over time.

Through this partnership with SAFCA, FEMA was able to retain a high number of flood insurance policies in the Sacramento region--a region that accounts for nearly 1 in 4 of all flood insurance policies in California.

Increasing the number of people who carry and hold on to their flood insurance will only strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program. And as Katrina made painfully clear: We need a strong and functional program to be there for our constituents in times of crisis.

While this grant program would be funded at $50 million dollars annually and authorized for 5 years, I want to emphasize that this grant program has an excellent return on its investment.

For FEMA to recoup its initial grant to SAFCA, five hundred and fifty Preferred Risk Policies had to be sold to property owners who otherwise would have canceled their flood insurance. SAFCA accomplished this . . . more than 20 times over.

Because of the FEMA and SAFCA partnership, more than 35,000 property owners who did not have to carry flood insurance stayed in the Federal flood insurance pool. What is more, nearly 13,000 policyholders in the American River floodplain switched to Preferred Risk Policies.

In short, FEMA got its money's worth. And this says nothing of the Sacramento premiums that will continue to come into the Federal flood insurance pool each year these policyholders maintain their flood insurance.

Again, most of these policyholders no longer have to buy flood insurance. They do so because it is the safe thing to do. Because SAFCA has alerted them to the on-going flood risk in their community. And because they saw what happened on the gulf coast.

If we can have this type of success in Sacramento, I am confident it can be replicated across the country.

These local outreach efforts will augment and benefit FEMA's existing marketing program by targeting property owners who are most likely to leave the NFIP--those who have been or will be released from the Federal flood insurance requirement.

The lesson learned here is that people whose houses, apartments and businesses are vulnerable to flooding are willing to enter and stay in the National Flood Insurance Program when they are informed of the risk they face and the options available to them.

Let me be clear, I speak from experience. When it comes to flood risk, my district of Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the Nation.

My highest priority is to provide the city of Sacramento, my neighbors and my constituents with the best flood protection possible. We are making strides in strengthening and reinforcing the levees in Sacramento and making improvements to Folsom Dam--but whenever I talk about these efforts I remind my constituents, ``If you live behind a levee, you should purchase flood insurance.''

Finally, I am encouraged by the efforts we are making as a nation to develop a comprehensive flood protection agenda.

FEMA is in the process of implementing their Map Modernization Program that will update our Nation's flood maps.

Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a national levee inventory. When completed, this inventory will provide communities a greater understanding of their flooding vulnerabilities. It will also provide us with a good indication as a country as to what long term investments need to be made toward our flood protection infrastructure.

Both the FEMA Remapping initiative and the levee inventory are important to the long term safety and economic security of our country. The ``Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2007'' would be an excellent resource for communities to augment these initiatives.

This bill is a step in the right direction in providing for comprehensive flood protection for property owners and communities. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for yielding me time. He has quickly become an excellent contributor to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, Federal energy policy has been lagging behind forward- looking States like California. It is now time for the Federal Government to lead America's transformation to a clean energy economy.

Here in Congress, we must enact smart policies that demonstrate a serious commitment to changing the way this Nation produces and consumes energy.

In the House, we took an important first step as part of the 100- hours agenda when we repealed $14 billion in subsidies and incentives for oil companies, and redirected that money to a clean energy fund.

That legislation sent a clear and strong signal to our constituents and to industry. I can tell you that businesses, universities and research institutions in my hometown of Sacramento are enthusiastic about helping America move forward on clean energy technologies.

One of those technologies, biofuels, has tremendous potential to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and if we are serious about incorporating alternative fuels into the economy, we need to ensure that our infrastructure is compatible with them.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 547 because it is a commonsense next step on biofuels. Chairman Gordon's legislation will allow for research and development to ensure that alternative fuels, such as E-85, biodiesel and advanced biofuels can be handled by our gas stations and pipelines. This is a smart investment because it makes a lot more sense to modify the existing infrastructure than to rebuild it.

I hope all my colleagues will be able to support this important legislation. But this is just a first step. We know that. Congress must continue to send signals that we are serious about transitioning to a clean energy economy. That means supporting the range of technologies, including clean alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, as well as energy-efficient technologies for buildings and transportation.

Congress and the administration should not pick winners and losers. There will be no magic bullet. When it comes to research and development, we must hedge our bets.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to move toward a clean energy economy effectively and expeditiously. This is the most important domestic priority for Congress and a generational challenge for the Nation. There is absolutely no time to waste.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the McClatchy Company's 150 years of journalism in Sacramento. On this date in 1857, the first issue of the Daily Bee was published in Sacramento marking the historic establishment of what is now the second largest newspaper company in the United States. Headquartered in Sacramento, the McClatchy Company and the Sacramento Bee have earned a legacy of providing reliable news for Sacramentans and the nation.

The rise of the McClatchy Company began with founding editor James McClatchy who moved west from New York during the height of the Gold Rush. The company's newspapers would be owned and operated by McClatchy family members for the next 130 years. James McClatchy helped craft the company's values of quality journalism, free expression and community service.

The Sacramento Bee was one of the first newspapers on the West Coast. In the newspaper's first editorial, McClatchy explained the name of the newspaper: ``The name of The Bee has been adopted as being different from that of any other paper in the state and as also being emblematic of the industry which is to prevail in its every department.'' Over the years, the McClatchy Company expanded on that name and characterization by establishing the Fresno Bee in 1922 and acquiring the Modesto Bee in 1927.

In recent times, the McClatchy Company has continued to expand its portfolio. In 2006, it acquired 32 daily newspapers when it purchased Knight Ridder. Today, the McClatchy Company is the second largest newspaper company in the United States and publishes 32 newspapers in 16 different states with unparalleled market success. These achievements were evident in 1999, when the McClatchy Company revenues exceeded $1 billion. By 2004, the McClatchy Company entered its 20th consecutive year of daily circulation growth, an achievement unmatched by any other newspaper company in the United States.

Throughout the decades, the McClatchy Company newspapers have been honored for their journalistic integrity through numerous awards. McClatchy's flagship newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, has earned numerous distinctions, including Pulitzer prizes for Editorial writing, Beat Reporting and twice for the Public Service Gold Medal.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to the McClatchy Company for its distinguished commitment to journalistic integrity and success throughout the years. As the McClatchy Company's colleagues and friends gather to honor their 150th anniversary, I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing them continued prosperity.

Madam Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Petri, and I are reintroducing the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act. I am proud to bring this bipartisan effort before the House in the newly-elected 110th Congress. I first learned about the Troops to Teachers program at a California Purple Heart Veterans Day event in my district. Two different veterans who are participating in Troops to Teachers spoke with me about how the program offered them the chance to continue to contribute to our country. After serving their country in the Armed Forces, they were now able to teach in high-need school districts.

With a slogan like, ``Proud to Serve Again,'' Troops to Teachers is a unique program that provides stipends to military retirees to obtain the necessary certification for a second career in teaching. Equally important, the program places much-needed math, science and special education teachers in the classroom. In fact, over 55 percent of Troops to Teachers participants teach in these critical areas. Right now, our country is seeing 7 percent of its teaching force leave every year, and we have a need for highly-qualified science and math teachers. Additionally, veterans who participate in the Troops to Teachers program fill another void for male and ethnic minority teachers. Qualities learned in the military including: discipline, problem solving and leadership skills make veterans ideal role models for our students. Simply put, the Troops to Teachers program has never been more important.

Since first learning about the Troops to Teachers program, I have had the pleasure of hearing many stories of how participants' lives have changed after transitioning from the military to the classroom. One of my constituents has such a story. After 21 years in the Air Force, Kelly Sullivan retired from the military, with two young children to care for. Using a $3,000 award from Troops to Teachers, she was able to pay for graduate school classes, as well as nine required teaching certification exams. Needless to say, the award was a financial relief for her, especially as she set out to begin her second career.

Kelly is now teaching English at Hiram Johnson High School in Sacramento. She has found that her two decades in the Air Force gave her the maturity, wisdom and life experiences that enable her to motivate and encourage her students to succeed in school. These skills are especially important as gangs and increased violence are all too prevalent in her school's neighborhood. One thing is for sure, when her students need help Kelly is there--thanks to Troops to Teachers.

Kelly is a prime example of the goal of the Troops to Teachers program, which was authorized in 1993 to help members of the military obtain teaching credentials to teach in large districts with low-income schools. A variety of retired, separated, active duty and transitioning military members and veterans--including disabled veterans--are eligible to participate. Those who are interested are required to have a bachelor's or advanced degree. If applying for a vocational or technical teaching position, candidates are required to have at least 6 years of experience in the field. The program has successfully recruited and placed almost 10,000 veterans in school districts since it was created. In my home state of California, 571 veterans are currently participating in the program.

Unfortunately, a small change under the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, of 2001 greatly affected where veterans could fulfill their teaching obligation. In some areas of the country, retiring military and veterans interested in the program now have to drive 50 to 100 miles to find an eligible school. This has resulted in a 20-30 percent drop-off in veteran participation, which has seriously hindered this productive and necessary program.

The bill that my esteemed colleague Mr. Petri and I are reintroducing today would fix this error. It would allow participants to fulfill their teaching obligation at any school considered high-need under NCLB, meaning that the school receives Title I funding. Prior to the NCLB change, participants were able to fulfill their teaching obligation in any school within my district in Sacramento, as they all receive Title I funding. However, under the more restrictive rule, only 211 of the 350 schools in my district are eligible. Currently, 61 percent of the high schools in my district are not eligible.

I continue to believe in this program and want to see disabled and retiring military offered a second chance at serving our country. Just last week, the Troops to Teachers program had a conference in Washington, DC. Once again, we heard stories of participants' dedication to serving our country and the sense of fulfillment they receive from educating future generations. Additionally, the program brings important math, science, and foreign language expertise to our classroom and fills a critical need among our educators. These characteristics make Troops to Teachers an excellent source of highly- qualified educators.

Mr. Petri and I are committed to fulfilling the intent of this program, and we introduce this bill so that more veterans, like my constituent Kelly, will continue to be able to serve our country-- whether in the military or in the classroom. I look forward to swiftly passing this bipartisan bill in the 110th Congress and urge my colleagues to continue to work to support the Troops to Teachers program.

Madam Speaker, I rise in tribute to Sacramento County Supervisor Illa Collin and her esteemed career. Supervisor Collin built a lasting legacy in Sacramento County and her presence on the board of supervisors will be deeply missed. As her friends, family and coworkers all gather to celebrate her career, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the dedicated service of one of Sacramento's finest leaders.

Illa Collin was first elected to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in 1978. She immediately made her presence known by tirelessly working to strengthen neighborhoods and revitalize urban corridors. Through

her 28 years on the board of supervisors, she has preserved much of Sacramento County's natural beauty and open space.

Supervisor Collin has consistently been praised for her environmental record and leadership. She helped create the Sacramento Tree Foundation and the American River Parkway Foundation. She has received the Outstanding Service Award from the California Parks and Recreation Society as well as the Outstanding Public Official Award from the National Association of County Parks and Recreation Officials. In 2005, Supervisor Collin received the Environmentalist of the Year Award from the Sacramento Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Supervisor Collin performed an instrumental role in the women's movement From 1973 to 1975, Illa helped lead the League of Women voters in Sacramento and in 1977 she became the first woman to serve as the President of the State Reclamation Board. She has also received the Hannah G. Solomon Award from the National Council of Jewish Women for improving the lives of women, children, and families.

Prior to her service on the board of supervisors, Illa worked to improve Sacramento on a number of fronts, including social services and community planning. Now, after seven terms, Illa will be departing from the board of supervisors. The people of Sacramento will miss her leadership, experience and dedication. Our community has been fortunate to be graced by the presence of such an extraordinary woman.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor one of Sacramento's most distinguished citizens, Illa Collin. Her success and steady voice has been an inspiration to Sacramento residents throughout the years. I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Illa Collin and wishing her continued success and happiness in her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 65 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), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I am, as many in this Chamber are, a proud parent and almost embarrassingly proud grandparent. All parents and grandparents are different, of course, but I believe almost all of us share one thing in common, and that is a hope that our children and our grandchildren will have a chance to do a little better, to go a little further, to have a little easier time than their parents and grandparents. That aspiration has a name in this country; it is called the American Dream. And the American people understand that education is the key to making that dream a reality.

Today, we consider legislation to combat a very real threat to that dream. The unfortunate reality is that skyrocketing college costs are putting a college education out of reach for many middle class families. Tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41 percent after inflation since 2001. At private universities, tuition has increased by 17 percent after inflation. It is worth repeating because it is truly shocking: these figures are after inflation.

Indeed, according to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent almost 4\1/2\ million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another 2 million from attending any college at all. Those statistics are very sobering, and the sound they make is that of the door of opportunity being closed on many young people.

That is why I am very pleased that our congressional leadership has made cutting interest rates on student loans one of its top priorities for the first 100 hours of this Congress.

The legislation being considered today will cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next 5 years from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent.

As a result, we will help around 5.5 million more students afford college.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are demanding quick action on this legislation, and with good reason. With Sacramento State University in my district and the University of California at Davis nearby, they are all too aware of the impact rising tuition costs are having on students and their families.

A recent study demonstrated that this legislation would, on average, save the average student borrower in California starting school this year almost $2,500 over the life of the loan. For students beginning college in the year 2011, the legislation will save almost $5,000. We will need to do more to make college affordable, but my constituents in Sacramento who are struggling to afford college will welcome this very important first step.

Mr. Speaker, helping all qualified students attend college is essential for our economy, for our competitiveness and for our future; but not only that, it is essential for ensuring that the American Dream remains a reality for our young people. That is why there is a remarkable consensus supporting this proposal across our country.

Newsweek reports that 88 percent of the country supports this legislation, including wide majorities of both Democrats and Republicans. We are not talking about the Democratic dream or the Republican dream, but the American Dream.

Further, this legislation meets our pay-as-you-go requirements and, therefore, will not add to our budget deficit. Fully five of six of the offsets have been approved previously by the Bush administration or Republican congressional leaders. That, again, is a remarkable consensus. It is now time to act.

All too often the American people look at Congress and they hear a lot of argument and see a lot of activity, but wonder though what Congress is doing to improve their lives. If we act on this legislation quickly, however, students will start to see a difference as soon as July 1. So let us surprise our skeptics, take action, and pass this legislation now on a bipartisan basis.

It has been gratifying to be a Member of Congress for the first few weeks of this Congress, which by wide bipartisan majorities has increased the minimum wage, approved potentially life-saving research and enacted genuinely bipartisan recommendations to improve our Nation's security.

Our first 100 hours has been a good time for the middle class and for Americans who favor progress over partisanship. This legislation is another such opportunity. Americans of every political stripe understand that if we allow college education to become too expensive for hardworking and qualified middle class students, we will have lost something very special in this country, we will have lost a part of the American Dream. Let's show them today that we understand that as well, and that we are doing something about it.

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

We are dealing today with our agenda of 100 hours. As my colleague from Texas understands, the American people have spoken, and we intend to make progress quickly; that is why we are doing this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that during last year's debate on budget reconciliation, the contrast in approaches could not be sharper. In that bill, in a time of war, the Republican leadership passed an enormous tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. Most of it was paid for by running up a deficit for our grandchildren to pay, but a small slice of it was paid for by cutting $12 billion in Federal student loan support. I think it is clear that the American people rejected that kind of short-sightedness this past November.

Today, Democrats are cutting student loan rates in half, without adding one cent to the deficit. That is common sense for students, and a responsible policy for this country's working class.

Now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the new Member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a new Member, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to you that we are doing this because the American people have spoken. They spoke in November. They want us to make progress; and that every single reform in the Democrats' 100-hours agenda has passed with broad bipartisan support thus far. And today, we are cutting student loan rates in half in the same manner they garnered broad bipartisan support last week.

I think that all Members realize that the American people want results. House Democrats plan on delivering for them, and we continue to work with

those on the other side of the aisle to do that. You have not heard the last of us from this side at all. This is only the beginning. This is a step forward.

Now, at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), who has been on the Rules Committee for 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. Spratt).

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

First, I wish to thank all the Members who participated in this discussion on the importance of increasing opportunity and affordability for all of our Nation's young minds. We are all in agreement on the importance of education and the central role it played in expanding the next generation's horizons.

Mr. Speaker, as I described in my opening remarks, the resolution before the House allows for a vote on a Democratic proposal to cut subsidized student loan rates in half over the next 5 years. It will reduce the cost of college to some 5 million students by an average of $4,400. This is good, responsible progress for America's middle class, for our working families looking out to provide the next generation with a brighter future. Today's vote on the issue can make it a reality.

Last week, as part of Speaker Pelosi's 100-hour agenda, Democrats acted swiftly to help average Americans. We voted to increase the minimum wage, expand Federal stem cell research, negotiate lower drug prices for our seniors, and implement 9/11 Commission recommendations.

All of these issues passed by wide bipartisan margins and enjoyed significant bipartisan support.

I expect that today's bill will be no different, so let's get to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the new Congress has begun and today we debate the first piece of our 100 hours agenda, H.R. 1--the implementation of some of the long-overdue bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendations.

As I have stated on numerous occasions, national security is our highest priority. By passing these long-overdue 9/11 Commission recommendations today, we will be taking significant steps towards better protecting our country. This means scanning all air cargo loaded onto passenger planes and seaborne cargo containers shipped into the United States, as well as encouraging intelligence information sharing among federal, state and local agencies.

Further, it will increase the share of state homeland security grants provided to our communities, based on risk--an issue of particular concern to my home state of California. The current formula results in 40 percent of funding equally distributed to each state with the remainder allocated based on risk. With H.R. 1, each state is guaranteed a minimum of .25 percent of funding, while states that share an international border, or are connected to a body of water with an international border would receive at least .45 percent. This strikes a balance between risk-based allocations and ensuring a funding minimum for all states. Another result of this new distribution is that more funding will be directed towards essential programs such as the Urban Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program.

Concerns have also been raised about the gaps in the Department of Homeland Security's critical infrastructure asset database. Over the past year, I have repeatedly highlighted overlooked infrastructure with DHS, which led to the Department making changes to the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant. This bill will begin to close this gap by requiring annual assessments of information regarding critical infrastructure and the creation of a regularly updated asset databases.

As I have repeatedly stated, the federal government needs to do its job of protecting the American people. Part of that is providing leadership by setting standards as incorporated in H.R. 1 and the other is to provide resources.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has had far too long to implement these critical reforms recommended by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. I am pleased to be able to vote today in favor of H.R. 1. I know that these reforms will direct our limited federal funds toward areas facing higher threats, and ensure further safety standards for our transportation systems. Through H.R. 1 we will ensure that our country is better protected against and prepared for any future terrorist attack.

Madam Speaker, national security is our highest priority. Congress has created risk-based grants to direct limited federal funds toward areas facing higher threats, in order to ensure that our country is protected against and prepared for any future terrorist attack.

Over the past year, however, my attempts--along with the efforts of a bipartisan coalition of my colleagues--to work with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address concerns about one of those risk- based grants, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), have been fruitless. This experience has led me to question whether we are successfully directing funds as this grant was intended.

For this reason, I am introducing the Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act of 2007. Using the information I have gleaned over the past year, this legislation will ensure the grant functions as it was proposed. It will also make certain that instead of making arbitrary decisions, DHS uses conclusive data to inform its policy.

The questions surrounding the UASI grant arose last January, when DHS released a list of 35 urban areas considered eligible to apply for UASI funding through the FY 2006 process. Eleven additional areas, including Sacramento, the Congressional District I represent, were placed in a second group and notified that their UASI funding may be terminated in future years if they did not meet the new risk assessment standards.

When DHS announced that Sacramento's UASI funds may be in jeopardy, the decision seemed unwarranted. Sacramento has a population of almost two million people, and is the capital of California--the most populous state in the nation and the sixth largest economy in the world. The city is also home to dozens of critical federal and state government buildings and much of the state's water, electricity, and telecommunication systems are managed from Sacramento. To suffer an attack would have repercussions beyond our region.

Immediately after learning about the changes to the UASI program, I requested meetings with DHS officials to understand their new risk assessment guidelines. After unsatisfactory responses from DHS, I led a coalition of my colleagues to demand information regarding DHS's revised guidelines for eligibility in an effort to urge them to change their policy.

The Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, colleagues from San Diego and Sacramento, both of California's United States Senators and I requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into the UASI grant process. The preliminary findings of that investigation were completed in mid-December. GAO analyzed the risk methodology and the effectiveness of the assessment, in addition to reviewing planned changes to both in the upcoming year. The report confirmed that DHS had made many arbitrary decisions during their UASI determination that skewed the outcomes of the risk-scenarios and grant awards.

Of particular concern is that DHS arbitrarily cut the number of eligible cities to 35 and created a second group of 11 of which were only able to apply for ``sustainment'' funding. Additionally, DHS assigned arbitrary values to assets and population without running a study of how the variation in the output of models (numerical or otherwise) used for such awards can be manipulated--a process commonly referred to as a ``sensitivity'' analysis. This analysis would have ensured that any changes to these values have little or no impact on the ranking of each urban area.

Both 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the role our first responders play in any incident, whether an act of terrorism or mother nature. And the Urban Area Security Initiative is a critical component to ensuring the preparedness of those brave men and women and, ultimately, our nation's preparedness. We all recognize that we need to direct our limited resources towards the most at-risk locations. However, and DHS has acknowledged this, they have overlooked critical infrastructure. These arbitrary decisions may have influenced the outcome of the UASI grant. This is poor national security policy and in an era when national security is a priority, it is unacceptable.

DHS will shortly be announcing those urban areas that will be eligible to apply for funding. However, Sacramento and all heavily populated urban areas will have to worry each year about whether DHS will arbitrarily change the number of eligible cities and thus, if they will even be able to apply for funding. This places significant and undue burdens on our regional homeland security efforts, as first responders attempt to prepare for and protect against any future threat, without knowing from year to year whether they can even apply for funding.

That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The UASI Improvement Act will allow the 100 most populous urban areas, as determined by the census and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, to apply for UASI funds. While each urban area does not have to apply, this will guarantee that those urban areas who believe they need the funding or who find that they meet the eligibility guidelines as determined by DHS will be able to at least apply for these vital funds.

The bill also mandates that DHS conduct a sensitivity analysis. The GAO found DHS's decision to arbitrarily assign values during the risk- assignment without conducting a sensitivity analysis to be a significant flaw in the UASI grant determination process. By conducting such an analysis, DHS will have conclusive data rather than uninformed decisions to guide their decision-making.

Our local law enforcement and first responders continue to do an incredible job understanding the threats facing our country and are working hard to prevent and prepare for an attack. And while these heroes are doing their jobs, the federal government needs to do its job. Part of that is providing leadership by setting standards and the other is to provide resources. My concern is that the federal government has been shirking its responsibility, and so I am introducing legislation to make sure that Sacramento and all at-risk urban areas have the funding they need.

Madam Speaker, the Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act will guarantee that our most at-risk urban areas will have access to necessary federal funds, which our first responders and law enforcement need in order to protect our citizens. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill in the newly-elected ll0th Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, here in the first hours of the 110th Congress we rise to restore decorum and civility to what has been from its founding the greatest deliberative institution. In doing so, we open a new chapter in the history of the House of Representatives, one that is dignified.

Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loud and clear this past November, and I am proud to say that the Democratic majority is responding to that call. This legislation marks a new beginning. The Democratic reform package, H. Res. 6, enacts long overdue congressional reform: restoring an open government, an honest government, an ethical government; and it marks the restoration of the American people's priorities to the people's House. It is my hope that by enacting these changes we will be able to change the tone of how we conduct business in this Chamber and with each other.

I recall a time in the House of Representatives and not too long ago when Members had friends on both sides of the aisle. Our children played together, they got to know each other, they became friends. Our families ate dinner together. We treated each other as friends and colleagues, and debate on the House floor reflected mutual respect even when we disagreed and an understanding that we all have a role to play in the legislative process.

We are here today to say that this sense of civility and decorum is not dead. This institution is too great to permit any tarnish of its honor to become permanent or to allow the slights of yesterday to interfere with our efforts to build a better tomorrow. Civility can return to this great institution with the right style of leadership.

As we turn here and now in the first hours of the 110th Congress, part of that process is making sure that House rules can prevent the abuses of prior Congresses. This is the overarching intent of H. Res. 6. In particular, there are several provisions in title III of that resolution that will begin to restore civility and decorum to the legislative process and which will honor this Chamber's place as the people's House by making us more accountable to the people who sent us here.

The first provision of title III prohibits floor votes from being held open for more than 15 minutes for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of a vote. Voting is a Member's core responsibility and our primary means of giving voice to the view of our constituents. This reform is important and long overdue.

The other two provisions address the handling of conference reports, with the goal to end backroom deals for special interests. In the 110th Congress, conference committees will be conducted in an open and fair manner, and conference reports containing last-minute provisions will not be considered on the House floor.

A Chamber worthy of the title the people's House is one which conducts its business within the people's view. By making this reform package the very first item considered in this Congress, our new leadership is sending a strong message to all of the American people, Democrat, Republican, Independent, that we have heard the message you have sent us, demanding honest and ethical leadership, and we are heeding that call.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments so that all Members may keep in mind the heart of what we are doing today.

These two days of debate on the House floor mark a historic moment for reform of the people's House. The American people grew tired of a Republican Congress too unethical to conduct its business in the light of day and too deaf to hear the people's complaint. And so this past November the people exercised their right to vote in order to send a message. It was a mandate for change, to restore civility, decorum, and ethical behavior to Congress. Democrats are acting swiftly in response to their call.

When it passes the House later today, the Democratic ethics package will be the greatest reform of this institution in history. There will be no more corporate jet travel paid by special interests, no more roll call votes held open for hours in the middle of the night so that Members could be arm twisted on the floor, no more anonymous earmarks, no more last-minute provisions slipped in conference reports.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic reform package is far tougher than anything Republicans ever proposed or enacted, and it will restore integrity to this sacred institution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman, our new Member from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to Ms. Slaughter to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairman of Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to one of our new Members, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so if the gentleman from California would like to use his time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, these 2 days of House floor debate will culminate in a reform of House Rules unlike any other in history. This reform is a response to the American people to their mandate. This past November, the people exercised a right to vote in order to send the message. It was a mandate for change to restore civility, decorum and ethical behavior to Congress.

As I said in my opening remarks, debate on House floor must reflect mutual respect, even when we disagree. I look forward to restoring decorum and civility to this House, restoring integrity to what is truly the people's House. I urge all Members to join us in that effort.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an important piece of legislation I will reintroduce early next year, along with my colleague, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, to encourage the deployment of broadband high-

speed Internet service throughout the United States. The Broadband Expensing Act of 2007 will allow immediate depreciation of the costs of new infrastructure investments providing broadband connectivity. In previous Congresses this measure has received extensive bipartisan support with as many as 225 House cosponsors and 65 Senate cosponsors. As the Congress and administration consider various methods of encouraging innovation in America, a broadband incentive of this nature must be of high priority.

This bill was a priority for my late husband, who worked with Mr. English, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, and the late Senator Moynihan to craft it in 2000. They all worked hard on it for several years and built tremendous bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. My husband spent a lot of time discussing this measure with his colleagues in the House, explaining how it would work, seeking cosponsorships. It has been a popular measure. On three separate occasions it has almost passed the Congress, but each time fell short in the House. Three times this bill has passed the Senate, and three times it has been rejected in conference with the House, to the disappointment of my husband, my colleague Mr. English, and many other members of this body who supported it and felt it could make a significant contribution to improving America's telecommunications and information technology infrastructure.

Now we are prepared to make another push for this bill in the 110th Congress. The Broadband Expensing Act will provide a temporary two- tiered tax incentive to stimulate new investment in this crucial infrastructure: 50 percent expensing for investment in ``current- generation'' broadband infrastructure in rural and underserved areas, and full expensing for ``next generation'' broadband investments in those same areas, as well as residential areas generally. Moreover, it is designed to be technology neutral, making delivery of service, not the delivery medium, the factor for eligibility. Any broadband provider meeting the required speeds, measured in megabits of data delivered to and from the consumer per second, is eligible, whether such service is provided over telephone wire, cable modem, optical fiber, wireless, satellite, or other forms of technology.

It is important to act quickly. Recent reports by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Telecommunications Union find the United States lagging in broadband penetration compared to other nations. We should not sit idly by and allow the United States to fall behind in this crucial area. Just as the federal government stepped in to provide national availability of electrification and transportation in the mid-1900s, we must now ensure a national system of electronic information.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important measure. I look forward to working with my cosponsors and the leadership of both parties to see the Broadband Expensing Act become law in 2007.