Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 274 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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274 provides for consideration of H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour and 20 minutes of general debate with 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The rule waives all points of orders against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.

The rule makes in order only those further amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution; in this case, eight Democratic amendments and four Republican amendments. The amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendment except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived.

The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Finally, the rule permits the Chair, during consideration of H.R. 1538, to postpone further consideration to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the American people and this new Congress demand, through this rule and this legislation, that the executive branch move beyond the rhetoric of ``support our troops'' to concrete actions that sustain our brave men and women in uniform and their families by providing the quality health care they deserve when they return from the battlefield.

Supporting our troops does not mean that you simply salute as you send them off to war, ask them to serve in sacrifice for our great country, but it also means that they are supported when they come home, their families are respected, and our wounded warriors receive superior health care for their physical injuries and mental scars.

This might sound familiar from the Washington Post: ``The conflict in Iraq has hatched a town of desperation and dysfunction, clinging to the pilings of Walter Reed. The wounded are socked away for months and years in random buildings and barracks in and around the military post. Mostly what the soldiers do together is wait: for appointments, evaluation, signatures and lost paperwork to be found. `It's like,' one military wife said, `if Iraq don't kill you, Walter Reed will.' While a part of Walter Reed has a full bar, there is not one counselor or psychologist assigned there to assist soldiers and families in crisis-- an idea proposed by Walter Reed social workers but rejected by the military command that runs the post.''

To the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I say what a shame that the American people had to have their eyes opened by two dedicated Washington Post reporters as to the treatment of our veterans, the incompetence and the profound disrespect. These reporters spent hundreds of hours documenting the intimate struggles of the wounded warriors who live at Walter Reed. Their stories triggered others from across the country, like in my hometown paper, the Tampa Tribune.

The Tampa Tribune last week told the story of soldier John Barnes who was injured by a mortar in Iraq just last year. Barnes was fortunate, he had a mother who was a dedicated nurse who stood by him during his days at Walter Reed.

Barnes, now 23, was frequently left unattended, his mother, Valerie Wallace said, even though he had a severe brain injury. He fell repeatedly. Orderlies failed to arrive on time to wheel him to appointments. Medicines were given in the wrong doses; paperwork was lost or never filed.

`` `I don't think anybody planned this war far out,' said Wallace, an energetic woman who looks younger than her 45 years. `If you are going to invade a country and you are expecting to be there for years, you've got to know there are going to be thousands of casualties,' she said. `How are you going to take care of them? Where are you going to put them?'

``Wallace is a registered nurse who has worked for more than a decade at Tampa General Hospital. She wasn't intimidated by the staff at Walter Reed, and she knew what questions to ask. Still, the layers of bureaucracy were overwhelming. The need to remain constantly vigilant was exhausting. Trust quickly evaporated.

`` `Nobody tells you anything,' Wallace said. 'Nobody prepares you for anything. You're very much on your own in a world you don't know or understand, and you are so overcome with grief and worry that you can't think straight anyway.' ''

Well, these and other stories emboldened military families across the country and all Americans to stand up and demand better treatment for our troops and families who have sacrificed so much.

As Speaker Pelosi reminds us often, the support provided to our troops by the Bush administration has not matched their sacrifice, and, Mr. Speaker, we will rectify that today.

I wish, back in late 2003, when an Army specialist from Tampa named Corey Magee contacted my office, because I was a county commissioner before I was elected to Congress. His family contacted me and said Corey has been shot in the fire fight in Fallujah after an IED blew up his tank. He was shot in the neck and paralyzed and eventually flown to Walter Reed. In some God-given circumstance, I happened to be traveling to Washington that weekend and was able to assemble a care package from his family to deliver to Corey. But they couldn't find out what his situation was. We called and called. We enlisted the help of a United States Senator at the time who was on the Veterans' Committee. We

still couldn't get through the bureaucracy.

I had to travel with the Senator's staff to Walter Reed Hospital, and track down the doctor to find out what brave Corey Magee's prognosis was. He was a brave young guy, and really in his condition couldn't ask for help on his own. And do you know, after that he thanked us profusely for contacting his family and filling them in. He said, ``I am sure we won't have to call you again. They are going to take good care of me.''

He returned to Tampa, and I was surprised a few weeks later to get a phone call from this brave Army specialist because he was having trouble getting his physical therapy appointments at the Veterans Hospital.

So this bill, though it is a step in the right direction today, comes a bit too late. I wish this bill and I wish the attention had been focused earlier and the respect paid to these families by the Bush administration.

As I visited the Bay Pines VA Medical Center in St. Petersburg just a few weeks ago, you see there are a few brave soldiers there who are very symbolic of soldiers across the country that are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

One of the soldiers was in his early 20s, had served in Iraq, come back, trying to get his life together, but it was too much. The mental scars were too much. The post-traumatic stress set in. His young marriage faltered. He lost his job, meaning he eventually lost his home, and ended up as an alcoholic, a homeless alcoholic in his early 20s because of post-traumatic stress disorder.

What he explained to me was what he needed when he came out of the service was a helping hand. He needed someone proactively to say, are you all right, son, rather than to give him a checklist to check off to make sure he was okay.

These are tough guys. They are not going to own up oftentimes to the fact that they cannot sleep at night and they want to drink their sorrows and memories away.

Fortunately, I think the American people can be very heartened today to know that this is a bipartisan effort. Under the leadership of our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, I am very fortunate to serve on the Armed Services Committee under the leadership of Chairman Ike Skelton, and I salute him and the ranking member for moving this legislation quickly. We salute the Veterans' Affairs Committee and Chairman Bob Filner but, mostly, the leadership of the American people who have cried out for change.

Through this rule and this bill, we are going to improve the health care and mental health for our wounded warriors. We are going to tackle the bureaucracy on their behalf. We are going to establish a toll-free hotline so that families and soldiers and anyone who cares about them can report deficiencies in our system. We are going to require expedited action.

Thanks to the leadership of subcommittee Chair Vic Snyder, now Members of Congress that have desired information about the soldiers returning to their districts are going to be notified. Members of Congress oftentimes can be the best advocates for these returning soldiers, and now it will be a requirement in the law.

We are going to provide medical advocates to these soldiers. We are going to improve support services to families; and, rather than mismanage resources, we are going to turn the White House's privatization initiative around and require accountability.

Coming from Tampa, the home of the Haley VA Center and one of the four polytrauma centers in the country, I am especially heartened by the provisions in this bill that improve veterans health care by providing more physician residents in those polytrauma centers. ABC's News anchor, Bob Woodruff, brought this to life in his hour-long expose a few weeks ago. He visited the Haley Polytrauma Center in Tampa. These are where the most critically injured soldiers are sent for their health care, the brain injuries, the spinal cord injuries.

What Dr. Robert Scott, the medical director at that medical facility, told me a few weeks ago is, even though the polytrauma center is directly across the street from the University of South Florida College of Medicine, they cannot get the physician residents in training. The Feds are not providing enough. We need these doctors in training to learn and train about these critical war injuries and the physical therapy that our soldiers need.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge this new Congress to chart a new direction today and to erase the moral stain on our Nation's conscience.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio and distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Sutton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).

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

Mr. Speaker, 4 years after the start of the war in Iraq, and less than 100 days since the swearing in of this new Congress, this Congress will act today.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this legislation so we can pass the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007. Let's send a message, let's stand up for our brave troops in the field, not just when they are serving on the battlefield, but when they return home. Let's give the families the respect they deserve and make sure that we are providing superior health care whether it's a physical injury or a mental scar.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Rules Committee Chair.

Mr. Speaker, the Iraq Accountability Act under this rule is the most responsible way to chart a new direction to the Bush-Cheney stay-the- course policy in Iraq, to bring our troops home and to protect our national security.

The American people are way beyond the politicians at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Nevertheless, our government is at a crossroads. On the one hand, some want to continue to endorse the Bush-Cheney war without end, a war that the administration sought because they were blinded by the prospects of oil profits. They want to continue a blank- check, rubber-stamp, diplomatically impotent position.

On the other hand, I urge my colleagues to patriotically stand up for a greater Nation, be strategically smarter and support our brave men and women in uniform. That is the responsible course of action.

Ensuring that our troops in the field have all of the resources they require is the responsible thing to do. Focusing again in a meaningful way on al Qaeda and the Taliban is the responsible thing to do. Improving health care for injured soldiers and veterans is the responsible thing to do. And oversight of the misspending and waste by the executive branch is the responsible thing to do.

Requiring the Iraqi Government to provide for its own defense is the right and responsible thing to do, so that we can take our brave men and women in uniform out of the middle of the Iraqi civil war and bring our troops home.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am particularly concerned that the reckless Bush escalation will continue to undermine our country's readiness and ability to address other threats to our national security. Indeed, in recent testimony before our committee, the Army Chief of Staff testified that America will run a strategic risk by implementing the escalation and staying on the same course in Iraq.

The American people are demanding a new direction from the White House. This includes one of my neighbors in Tampa, Armando B. Arias.

Mr. Arias would meet anyone's definition of ``patriot.'' He loves his country and has served in two separate wars--World War II and Korea. When I asked him a few months back when I knocked on his door in West Tampa what he most wanted his new Congresswoman to work on, he replied immediately, ``get out of the war and ring our kids home.''

I am proud to be here today to keep that commitment to Armando Arias and Americans everywhere who are demanding fundamental change.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the Iraq Accountability Act.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 242.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 242 provides for consideration of H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 80 minutes of general debate, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.

The rule provides that in lieu of the substitutes recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Armed Services, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Rules Committee report shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. All points of order except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived against the substitute, and the substitute shall be considered as read.

The rule makes in order the two amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report and by the Member designated in the report. The amendments are considered as read, are debatable for 10 minutes each, are not subject to amendment and are not divisible. All points of order against the amendments except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, this rule and the legislation before us today is the Accountability in Contracting Act. This new act will restore accountability in Federal contracting. It targets conflicts of interest that have become too prevalent over past years.

During the first 100 hours of this new Congress, we charted a new direction in response to the American people's call for change and reform. We passed pay-as-you-go budgeting to require greater fiscal responsibility, we passed Medicare part D reform to require the executive branch to negotiate lower drug prices for our seniors and help the Federal bottom line, and we eliminated unnecessary tax subsidies for big oil companies that were making record profits while we paid record prices at the pump.

But if you recall, Madam Speaker, the first item of business during the first 100 hours of this new Congress was ethics reform. After the scandals of the past years, our commitment to the American people is to fight for higher ethical standards in the United States Congress and for all of the Federal Government by severing the connection between lobbyists and legislation, by banning gifts and travel from lobbyists, and ending the abuses of privately funded travel.

Today, the new Democratic Congress will continue our fight for ethics reform while we are still in the first 100 days through this rule and the Accountability in Contracting Act. This bill targets waste in Federal contracting, limits the use of no-bid contracts, minimizes sole-source contracts, and closes the revolving door between purchasing officers and private contractors. This bill addresses the past problems with wasteful and fraudulent contracts in Iraq, the Defense Department and in relation to Hurricane Katrina.

Congressional hearings have already shown that an estimated $10 billion in

Iraq reconstruction funds was wasted as a result of overcharging, poor tracking and mismanagement by U.S. contractors, three times more than was estimated just last fall. Unfortunately, these accounts have abounded under the Bush administration. Defense auditors estimate that at least one out of six dollars spent in Iraq is suspect, including $2.7 billion in Halliburton contracts.

Almost 19 post-Hurricane Katrina contracts worth a total of $8.75 billion have been plagued by waste, fraud and mismanagement; and only 30 percent of the more than $10 billion in Katrina contracts were awarded with full and open competition. And when it comes down to the small contractors who are actually hauling away the rubble and debris, they were not getting paid properly. This bill will help stop these kinds of wasteful contracts that keep the real work from getting done, that keep our neighbors from recovering from a natural disaster, and that keep the real workers from getting paid.

In my Tampa Bay area district, the Federal defense procurement revolving door has been the subject of Federal investigations in Federal district court proceedings in Tampa over the past several years. So it is vital we stand up for the folks we represent and demand their Federal tax dollars are spent correctly, especially when it comes to national security. That means having tough and fair oversight and a transparent system so there are no conflicts of interest.

So I commend the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Chair, Mr. Waxman, for his diligent efforts. I also commend the House Armed Services Chair, Ike Skelton, and my fellow members of the Armed Services Committee for their work on this legislation. When we marked this bill up in the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, this effort won bipartisan and unanimous support. It deserves no less by the full House today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, to correct the record, the cost that the gentleman from Texas referred to was in section 203 of the bill. That section was deleted in the Armed Services Committee markup and is not in the base text.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

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

From day one, this new Congress has been working to restore accountability in Washington, including adopting fiscally responsible pay-as-you-go budgeting and fighting for higher ethical standards in government.

It is heartening to the American people, I know, that much of this has been done in a bipartisan way. And indeed, on this bill this morning, I anticipate that the House will follow the unanimous and bipartisan votes of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

As part of our ongoing effort to fight for fiscally responsible budgeting and higher ethical standards, this week I know, today, we will pass this legislation and this rule that changes the way that Congress and the Federal Government does business. It shines a bright light on how government operates. We will continue to answer the call of the American people for change and reform.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, access to the highest quality health care for our seniors under Medicare is one of the most important issues facing this Congress. Unfortunately, the Bush White House has sought to undermine the great Medicare safety net by privatizing a great deal of health care under the Medicare system, turning it over to HMOs.

Just last week the former director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2001 to 2003 spoke at a conference in Tampa and a reporter caught him on record saying that this privatization effort ``was done to prime the pump and to get people to go back to HMOs. But it's a much bigger subsidy than we intended.''

You see, these private plans receive about 11 percent more per beneficiary than the government spends in original Medicare. And this director said that he had meant for the subsidy to be about half that.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do to stand up for our seniors and ensure the Medicare safety net works for everyone.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 229 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes 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.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 229 provides for the consideration of H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 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 clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the substitute reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, modified by the manager's amendment in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.

The rule makes in order only those further amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. The amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments, except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI, are waived. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

And I am pleased to point out, Madam Speaker, that under this structured rule, the six amendments made in order are split equally, three Republican and three Democratic.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 720 reauthorizes an important part of the landmark Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act protects our neighborhoods and water bodies from water pollution. Clean water is vital to the health of our citizens and to our country.

The bill before us today reauthorizes the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund by providing $14 billion over the next 5 years to local agencies to fight water pollution.

We have come a long way in this country. We have the technology and the engineering experience to prevent water pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates a huge shortfall in funds available for wastewater improvements across the country. This shortfall is significant because, without considerable improvements to the wastewater treatment infrastructure, much of the progress made in cleaning up the Nation's rivers, creeks and streams and bays since the passage of the Clean Water Act is at risk.

Clean water is a top priority for the families in my district and throughout the Nation. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership over the past few Congresses has failed to support this part of the Clean Water Act. Although legislation was introduced in the Congress then, it never made it to the House floor.

President Bush and the White House also proposed slashing this Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund in his latest budget proposal. But, nevertheless, we are hopeful today that a bipartisan vote in support of this measure will send a signal to the White House that clean and healthy water is absolutely vital to our communities. In fact, in my hometown of Tampa, Florida, the Clean Water Act Loan Funds for wastewater improvements have vastly improved the water quality of Tampa Bay. The expansion in wastewater treatment significantly improved the quality of water running into beautiful Tampa Bay.

In past years, Tampa received over $54 million for wastewater treatment plant expansion and thereby improved water quality. It has also played a role in significantly improving the water in our rivers, bays, creeks and streams as we are able to control the pollutants that run off into these vital water bodies.

This is the same story across the country for the improved health of our communities, on the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes and other water bodies throughout our country. Check with your local governments and your neighbors who live around and who are mindful of the quality of the water in our lakes, rivers and bays in your hometown.

Appearing before our Rules Committee, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar said it best: ``This is not just a good bill. It is a necessary one. The good health of our communities depends upon it.''

And as a former county commissioner, I can tell you that the vast majority of costs in cleaning our water falls upon our local communities. And if we don't act now, we will be shifting a greater cost to future generations.

So I urge the Congress, Madam Speaker, to enact this rule and this important legislation to keep our communities, rivers, lakes and bays clean and, most importantly, to improve the health of our children, seniors, and all citizens.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank my colleague and I note that my colleague, unable to criticize the heart of this legislation, which is reauthorization of an important part of the Clean Water Act, instead reverts to attacking a portion of this legislation that is vital to workers across America, the Davis-Bacon provisions.

The Davis-Bacon Act prevents lower-cost out-of-State contractors from having an unfair ability to compete for local publicly funded construction, which protects local interests and construction workers.

Unfortunately, it has become all too familiar from the other side of the aisle to attack workers across America. They blocked the minimum wage until this new Congress was elected. We have a White House that has favored outsourcing of jobs over time.

But now, through this legislation, we are able to reaffirm again that it is our policy, in fact, it is Congress's longstanding continuing tradition of applying prevailing wage requirements to federally funded construction projects. Studies have shown that by attracting more experienced, better-trained workers, that wage requirements lead to higher productivity and they reduce overall costs, which offset any higher wages.

The Davis-Bacon Act protects communities by ensuring that wage determination also for individual counties is based solely on the local workforce costs. Oftentimes, this means that projects come in under budget and on time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas if he wouldn't mind, prior to my closing, that we allow the distinguished gentleman from the Rules Committee to speak. He arrived as we were completing our dialogue, and I would like to yield him 2 minutes.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we don't delay any longer and that we take action on this rule and this legislation that reauthorizes an important part of the Clean Water Act.

I understand where some of the debate is going to occur today, and I understand that a sizable number of Members on the other side of the aisle oppose the Davis-Bacon requirements for fair wages across the country. But the Rules Committee has made in order an amendment on Davis-Bacon, and Members in this body will have an opportunity to debate and vote on that issue. It is important, however, as we enter that debate, that we recognize that Davis-Bacon ensures a higher- quality work product and ensures that the work is done right the first time as higher-paid workers are the best trained and most experienced.

I urge Members to defeat that amendment and continue in the new direction that is being charted by this new Democratic Congress where we stand up for the hard-working men and women across this great country.

It is too important to delay any longer this reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It is imperative that Congress now pass the Water Quality Financing Act, H.R. 720, which will provide critically needed funds for clean water infrastructure. It will protect the public health, the environment and our quality of life. It will restore the viability of the Federal, State and local partnership to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. And ultimately, if we take action today, we will protect and improve the health of our citizens across America.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 19 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 9, 2007, at 9 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative Sutton from Ohio, who has been fighting her whole career for the hardworking families in Ohio and now in the Congress is fighting for American workers throughout our country.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. This legislation serves as tangible evidence of the new direction being charted by this new Congress under Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

A few weeks ago, this new Congress voted to raise the minimum wage. Well, like the minimum wage, the Employee Free Choice Act demonstrates our values and our commitment to stand beside hardworking men and women against powerful interests. This bill will restore the balance in the workplace and restore the National Labor Relations Act to its original purpose.

It is unfortunate that in the blinding zeal for profits, inordinate profits, for a few, there are unscrupulous employers that stall for time after they learn that employees want to band together to advocate for a better workplace.

Let me give you some real life examples from my part of Florida. One very large Central Florida employer used delays and its insistence on a secretive election to put together a highly structured unlawful campaign of coercion and intimidation. Hundreds of supervisors were trained to conduct scripted meetings with small groups of employees and then the employees were forced to attend meetings replete with promises and threats. Day after day, week after week, the company ground down these folks in this illegal psychological war on employees. This must end.

In another example, one central Florida company used the time waiting for the election to film employees in the workplace and then produce a film that wove in their pictures, their smiling faces, into a virulent anti-union film. In this illegal activity, the employees were forced to watch the film, which was slanted to give the false impression that those employees who had supported the UAW had switched sides. These are real-life examples, but it should not be this way.

The people of America know what has been going on. For too long, powerful special interests have held sway in the halls of Congress. Well, this new Congress in its first 100 days has stood up to these powerful special interests, whether it is raising the minimum wage, standing up to the big drug companies, standing up to the big oil companies.

There is a new day in America, and I am proud to stand today with my hard-working neighbors against powerful interests that would like to keep the act of joining a union more of a risk, rather than a right. I am proud to stand today with our Speaker and this new Congress to chart a new direction for our country.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 days Republicans who support the President's troop escalation plan have had two main message points. The first is that the resolution opposing the President's plan is nonbinding and meaningless, and the second is that the resolution will be the ``end of civilization,'' to borrow a term from a columnist. They cannot have it both ways.

What we are doing over these 3 days of debate is having a real discussion about changing the course of the war in Iraq. For those who support the Bush-Cheney escalation, this debate serves as a prime opportunity to explain why they think this escalation will work when four other surges have not worked.

It is a shame that some have ignored the merits of the resolution and focused on political calculation. In fact, several Republicans sent out a letter saying this debate should not even be about the Iraq war today. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.

Far from it, Mr. Speaker. No one will lose by having a debate. In fact, our great democracy benefits and the American people win by knowing that we are charting a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Rules Chair.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring this debate to the floor of the Congress. I oppose escalation of the war in Iraq that is being pushed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Their intention to send more young American men and women into what is largely a sectarian civil war is more of the same ``stay the course'' mentality.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly concerned that the reckless Bush escalation will undermine our country's readiness and ability to address other global threats to our national security. Indeed, in recent testimony, the Marine Commandant and the Army Chief of Staff testified that America will run a strategic risk by implementing the escalation and staying on the same course in Iraq. The generals confirmed that if our personnel and equipment are tied up in Iraq, then our ability to handle future threats and contingencies is reduced.

For example, in my State of Florida, the National Guard does not have all of the equipment it needs to train and deploy soldiers. They are only 28 percent equipped.

President Bush in essence confirmed that the escalation will harm our Nation's readiness when he sent over his proposed 2008 budget last week. He requested an additional $235 billion for this war. That is on top of already $350 billion of taxpayer money. In effect, Bush's war in Iraq is swallowing the defense budget and our country's ability to prepare for any other threat to our national security.

The Bush plan also sacrifices health care for children and our seniors and investments in our own towns and neighborhoods, while continuing this war without end.

We will debate budgets and appropriations in the coming months, but after 4 years of war, over 3,100 deaths of Americans, $350 billion, and the Bush-Cheney failure to aggressively pursue a political solution, it is important that we have this debate in the House of Representatives this week. It is important for Members to go on record, and it is important to demand a new direction on behalf of the American people.

I thank my colleague from New Jersey, who has been such a leader for the American people for access to better health care. He is absolutely right, that the President's actions don't match his words. I have also been combing through the Presidential budget proposal. One of my hometown newspapers said that the Presidential budget should begin with these words: ``Once upon a time,'' as in a fairy tale. I am a mom with two young daughters at home. We do a lot of reading at night and try to get the homework done. We will do reading of fairy tales. This, what the White House has sent over, is a political fairy tale. Unfortunately, it is going to hurt a lot of folks. It is going to hurt a lot of our constituents back home. I thought we could explain that a little bit.

Oftentimes we talk in such technical terms in government. When we talk of Medicaid and people say Medicaid, sometimes they get Medicaid and Medicare mixed up.

Medicaid, these are pregnant women, infants, children in families earning about $25,000 a year, foster kids, medically needy adults, a lot of our senior citizens in nursing homes. So when you hear there are Medicaid cuts, I would like us to really put a face on that and say they are going after the most vulnerable in this country, infants, poor kids, foster kids and seniors in nursing homes.

Also the budget sent over from the White House will hurt our seniors. The White House proposes to cut Medicare. Now, I am from Florida, and a lot of folks retire down to Florida. They have worked hard all their lives, and this is really one of the only benefits that we can give them, in addition to Social Security. So what the White House budget is proposing to do is ask them to pay even more. They are asking our hardworking doctors to take a cut as well.

What that does in my community in Tampa Bay is it discourages the best doctors from participating in Medicare. You see, I want my seniors to have the best medical care. I want them to see the best doctors, and I want those good doctors to stay in the Medicare system.

This would also hurt our children, our kids back home. My colleague from New Jersey knows this very well, that under the State Children's Health Insurance Program, we have a lot of needs. The States, our local communities, the Feds, we have been doing a pretty good job. But, do you know what? We can do a whole lot better. We must do a lot better.

So it was very disappointing to receive this budget from the White House that says: Do you know what? Even though we are making such progress, and we have such tremendous needs in this country for children to be able to go in and see a doctor, get their immunizations, get some advice on how to take care of themselves, they say we are not going to do that.

Their priorities are out of whack. Instead, I think it is a blatant political statement that we are going to continue these tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and we are going to sock it to the most vulnerable, our seniors and our kids.

We talked earlier about how the White House budget proposal we received this week is a fairy tale, but its impact on our veterans really is a nightmare. The State of Florida where I am from, we have the second highest number of veterans in the country, and in my district, I have the busiest VA center in the country, the James Haley Center, which saw over 1.5 million vets last year. That is more than the population of the State of Kansas we saw at the Haley Center in Tampa.

The Haley Center is specialized for current Iraq war vets injured, coming back, that are suffering the IED blasts, spinal cord injuries, brain injuries. And in Florida, out of all the VA medical centers, Haley, the busiest, we have

gone now over the past 10 years from 2 million visits to over 5 million visits. And how can we say this is a reflection of values? How can we say we are going to step back from that responsibility? How can the White House send us a budget that steps back, at a time where they are escalating the war in Iraq, they are going to deescalate the commitment to our veterans? I don't think so.

In this Democratic Congress, we are going to take a new direction. There is new leadership in Washington, DC. And I am proud to be joined by some of the new Members, my colleagues, tonight, and also join with the efforts of leaders like my colleague from New Jersey. And I yield back.

You all are absolutely right. It is very difficult to understand why the White House wants to sock it to our safety net hospitals. Have you all been to the emergency room lately, tried to get in? The long lines? People are ending up in our emergency rooms for their primary care because they have the flu. They are clogging the emergency rooms.

I was a county commissioner before I was elected to Congress, and the brave men and women in fire rescue said they would transport to the emergency room. It would be so busy and so full, they would have to stay with the emergency patient in the EMS truck for hours because the emergency room was clogged.

We have a crisis in this country, and it is inexplicable that the Bush administration would say by administrative rule and through this budget that has been sent to the Congress this week that we are going to cut money to those hospitals that provide the charity care in our country.

In my district, in the Tampa Bay area, the impact on Tampa General Hospital, which is a level one trauma center, $64 million. The great All Children's Hospital across the bay in Saint Petersburg, $31 million; the great St. Joseph's Hospital, another $20 million.

I would like to go back to SCHIP and also talk about the real-world, children's health insurance, because a few months ago, I ran into a friend of mine from high school, haven't seen her since I graduated 20- something years ago, and I saw her at a children's health insurance discussion.

She told me her story. Her name is Nan Dorton, and she lives in Tampa. She is married and has three kids. Her husband went through a tough time, and he lost his job, so they lost their health insurance. They didn't know what to do. It was very, very tough times. They didn't know about children's health insurance in Florida called KidCare or Healthy Kids, because the State has cut back under Governor Jeb Bush and the Republican legislature and they don't do any more outreach, so it is hard to find out about it.

Fortunately, he got a job. They were provided with health insurance through the employer. But you know how much it costs for that family to have the kids covered, $700 a month. She said it was hard to choose whether to put food on the table or take the kids to the doctor and sign them up for health insurance. She said, you live in constant fear of your child having to go to the hospital.

But then she found out about children's health insurance and KidCare, and signed them up. She said it revolutionized their lives because under these

health services, they pay a $20-per-month copayment for all three kids, and they don't have any copays for hospital visits or prescriptions. You know how much money that is saving us because they are not showing up in the emergency room, which is passed on to all of us in our health insurance? That is going to save us because that family is healthier today, and we are going to save that money later on down the road.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my district in the Tampa Bay area to herald the terrific achievement of our hometown hero, Tony Dungy. While Coach Dungy is the first African American coach to win a Super Bowl title, he is also a living testimony to faithful leadership.

Since Coach Dungy's 11-year path to the Super Bowl title came through my hometown of Tampa, I think it is fair to say that everyone in the Tampa Bay area feels attached to his win, and we are proud to claim him as a resident. My friends and neighbors back home remember Coach Dungy as the former coach of the Buccaneers, who in that capacity brought a winning spirit and

gracious leadership to that team and our community.

We watched with pride Sunday when this man showed that nice guys can finish first. His team came from eight points behind, withstood the weather and won the game. Coach Dungy, as the first African American coach to win a Super Bowl, provides the perfect start to the month-long celebration of Black History Month. His victory follows the march of other men and women who have stood up for justice and opened doors for others.

Congratulations to him and all that understand that perseverance and teamwork is the best answer to life's obstacles.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, who has been a leader in this Congress on health care, and, yes, you are joined by a number of new Members tonight that were elected because of our desire to work on health care solutions for the American people.

So like my colleague from Wisconsin and my colleague from Pennsylvania, I also listened intently last week to what President Bush had to say on health care, and, unfortunately, I did not hear anything that will help one person go to the doctor's office and get health care. Instead, what he said is, you go to your accountant's office, not your doctor's office. You go to your accountant's office and you get a tax deduction and you work that out on your tax forms.

Well, that does not make sense for the vast majority of people, especially in the Tampa Bay area, 20 percent without health insurance today, having to go to the emergency room for their primary care, rather than going to a doctor's office for their primary care.

He says take a tax deduction. The problem is that so many people are just getting by. They are right there at the poverty level. That is $9,000 for an individual, about $20,000 for a family of four. Imagine trying to live off $20,000 for a family of four. They do not pay taxes. They do not pay income taxes. They pay sales tax, but that tax deduction that President Bush wants you to get to get your health care is not going to do anything for those hardworking families.

The second part of his plan is equally troubling because he wants to sock it to the hospitals in this country that are providing charity care. In Tampa, Tampa General Hospital provides millions of dollars in charity care, and they are able through Federal law to send up some money, match it and bring home some dollars, especially in Hillsboro County, a county of about 1.3 million people. We have an award-winning health care program where the citizens of the county and a lot of our tourists pay a sales tax, and we devote that to a system of clinics throughout our community. We also send up that money to the Federal Government, and they say you are doing such a good job on the local level, taking care of your citizens in a network of clinics and not in the ER, that we will give you further incentives through ``disproportionate share money'' they call it.

What the President would do is take those incentives away from local governments like mine, like in Hillsboro County, this network of doctors and

hospitals that we have built up, and say, you know what we are going to do with that stream of money, we are going to probably turn it over to the HMOs and privatize the system.

This, I think, is another attempt by the Bush administration to embark on a privatization scheme which sounds awfully similar to what he proposed for Social Security.

My locals, my hospitals, doctors and, most importantly, the hardworking families in my district are not going to be well-served by the President's health care proposals. What do you think this will do to hospitals in your area?

You are right. Add the Medicare part D privatization, all of those moneys going to HMO profits and pharmaceutical companies' profits, to Social Security privatization attempted by the Bush administration, why are hospitals' charity care next? Why the foundation of the last resort for so many families? Why do they want to take away resources from the hardworking doctors and our charity hospitals?

I thank the gentleman.

There is good news now that we have the new Democratic Congress, and this year we are going to reauthorize that children's health insurance program. The gentleman from New Jersey has been a true leader in this effort, and I look forward to working with you in that effort.

But here is a real success story over the years where, under President Clinton, out of a program that grew out of the State of Florida, so I have a bit of pride in that, children of working families, and we are not talking about the low-income, impoverished, we are talking middle-class families that don't have any other way to take their son or daughter to the doctor in an affordable way.

Well, this year is our opportunity to look at what has worked across the country. There are programs in many States. Many States have been very aggressive, and they understand how important it is for children to be immunized, for them to make sure that a cold doesn't turn into pneumonia, because ultimately we will pay those higher costs on the back end if we don't treat them on the front end.

Unfortunately, in the State of Florida, we are not living up to the initiation of the program and the grant, the pride that comes from that originating in Florida. I am going to have to get one of these nice fancy charts one day. But I have got one here that shows what a success it was in Florida when we started, but because of bureaucratic barriers created under another Bush, under former Governor Bush, we have lost hundreds of thousands of children off the rolls, which doesn't mean that all children in Florida are healthier, we are still a growing State, but they have created such a costly bureaucracy for parents and for doctors and for all health care providers that we are not able to serve kids like we should.

So that is one of the critical solutions that I think we have got to work on.

Let us cut out this bureaucracy. What is wrong with allowing parents to take their child to the doctor's office, just take them to the doctor's office and get the health care they need without creating all of this paperwork and bean counters in Tallahassee and bean counters in Washington that are having to spend a lot of time and a lot of our resources that could be going into the health care for our kids?

Well, under the new Democratic Congress, I think we now can show some leadership when it comes to health care solutions. We have such expertise out in our country in the various universities and the medical schools and with the researchers, and it is time for a little leadership on wellness care and preventive medicine.

I was listening very intently to President Bush last week, hoping that he would be true to his conservative principles and say we need to conserve energy and you need to be conservative in how you take care of yourself.

I think now is the time for Democrats to provide this kind of leadership on diabetes, obesity prevention that is running rampant among our children.

How do you prevent heart disease? Show how important it is to exercise, eat well and sleep. These are simple things that if we commit as a country to wellness and preventive care, we are sure to save millions of dollars later when it comes to funding Medicare and those types of programs.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to recognize the life of a talented student at the University of South Florida, Keeley Dorsey. I know my colleagues join with me in extending their sincere condolences to Keeley's family and friends who knew him well and loved him deeply.

The USF family lost a valued member of its community last Wednesday afternoon. Unfortunately, during a routine workout session with his fellow football team members, Keeley passed out, and efforts to revive him were unsuccessful. He was only 19 years old, but even during his short time among us, Keeley made a huge impact on those around him and set a sterling example for what hard work and perseverance can achieve.

Keeley was a star football player at Lincoln High School in Tallahassee, strong enough to play three positions--quarterback, tailback and wide receiver. As he excelled on the football field, he worked just as diligently on his academics and gained admission to USF. In Keeley's first football game last fall, he ran 52 yards for a touchdown. Over the course of the season, his talent on the field showed, and coaches were certain that Keeley, with his positive attitude and outstanding leadership skills, would be a cornerstone of the next season's football team. He had even been selected to be a host for visiting high school recruits, a duty usually carried out only by upperclassmen.

As I join with Keeley's family and friends in mourning a life lost so young, I know that they are proud of him and of the accomplishments he made in his 19 years. I know the University of South Florida family will remember him always.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, instead of giving away billions of dollars to big oil companies which made multibillion-dollar profits last year, the new Congress intends to chart a course in a new direction by investing in alternatives for the American people. This will help America become energy independent and ultimately lower the utility cost for average Americans.

Big Oil has held too much sway in the halls of Congress in past years. They even targeted drilling off of Florida's beautiful coastline, putting our tourism industry at risk. The Bush administration refused to get serious about a sensible and sustainable energy policy, even after President Bush proclaimed last year that our country is addicted to foreign oil.

The American people understand that what we really need is a far- sighted plan for energy independence, and they did vote for change. The new Democratic Congress will plan for a more sustainable future, independent of foreign oil entanglements that interfere with our foreign policy. The new Democratic Congress will encourage conservation and development of alternative fuels which in turn will lessen our dependence on polluting fossil fuels.

In my own district, the University of South Florida has developed initiatives at its Clean Energy Research Center to develop and promote new sources of alternative energy, and we can do more.

So let's take the first step together today and then commit to launching a broad new energy strategy for future generations.

I thank the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to act to cut student loan interest rates in half and thereby ease the financial burden of college tuition. Cutting interest rates is more than a cost-saving measure for parents and students, it is also the best means of ensuring access to higher education and, ultimately, a successful career.

This Democratic Congress is committed to making college more affordable for all. As a mother with two school-age daughters, I, like many parents across the country, look apprehensively at the cost of tuition today. Tuition costs have skyrocketed. The average tuition at a 4-year public college is almost $6,000, which is a 35 percent increase over the past 5 years. Today's college students typically incur over $17,000 in loan debt, which is a 45 percent increase over the past 11 years.

Now, last year, when the Republican Congress made it harder for families to afford college by refusing to increase Pell Grants and proposing a $12.7 billion in Federal student loans, I brought students from the University of Tampa and the University of South Florida together to speak out against the antistudent policies.

German Castro, an economics major at the University of Tampa, was worried he would not be able to complete his education without student loans. After all, the annual tuition at the University of Tampa is $18,000, not including room and board. He is working two jobs. He noted many students who have to work full-time jobs end up making bad grades, and bad grades result in loss of scholarship money and, eventually, students have to drop out.

For Jill Mitchell, at the University of South Florida, she would prefer not to have to move back in with her parents and take a job while she is concentrating on her studies.

This isn't merely about financial solutions, it is also about putting our students in a position to succeed.

Now, during the first 100 hours of this new Congress, we are here to change the priorities, to reflect the real desires of Americans. In some of our working-class neighborhoods, student loans are the only means available to pay for the dream of a higher education.

The health of our economy rests on having a highly skilled and well- educated workforce. By the year 2020, the United States is projected to face a shortage of up to 12 million college educated workers.

So, Mr. Speaker, today I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support students by encouraging their efforts to seek higher education. I ask that we pass H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007. This legislation will go a long way to provide relief to the 5.5 million graduates, making college education far more accessible for families.

Let us act to remind the families back home that we value education and we are willing to fight to ensure access to it.