Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on September 18, 2007 and missed rollcall votes 870, 871, and 872. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for each of the three measures.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on September 17, 2007

and missed Rollcall votes 867, 868, and 869. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for each of the three measures.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate one of my district's true treasures: The Geva Theater. For the past 35 years, the Geva Theater has been providing world-class theatrical performances to the Rochester area, as well as arts-related workshops and educational programs. From its humble beginnings of lunch-time performances in the Rochester Business Institute building, to its current two-stage home in the renovated Naval Armory, the Geva Theater has maintained a stellar reputation for creative and artistic excellence.

The Geva Theater was established in 1972 by William Sheldon and Cynthia Mason Sheldon. The theater was housed in the Rochester Business Institute. Their first performances were a series of lunch-time plays in the fall of 1973. In 1982, Geva found a permanent home when the theater purchased and renovated Rochester's historic Naval Armory. Today, the Geva Theater Center is the home to the Elaine P. Wilson Mainstage, which produces seven shows each season and holds 552 patrons, and the Ron and Donna Fielding Nextstage, which houses a two- show season as well as Geva's other educational and interactive programs.

Theaters like Geva are increasingly important in light of studies that show the positive economic impact of arts in the community. ``Arts and Economic Prosperity III'', a study recently released by Americans for the Arts, found that the nonprofit arts and culture industry in the U.S. generates $166.2 billion in economic activity every year. The arts industry creates quality jobs, generates billions in household income, and in local, state and Federal tax revenues.

Furthermore, studies like Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development have proved that arts education increases students' cognitive development, motivates and inspires discipline, enhances confidence and inventiveness, and hones communication and problem-solving skills.

There is no greater example of the benefits of arts organizations for local communities than the Geva Theater, which draws over 174,000 patrons annually--more than 16,000 of whom are students. The Big Theater for Little People program allows thousands of students to experience original live professional theater. For each of these performances, Geva also provides workshops for teachers and accompanying study guides to enhance the learning experience. Artists also engage in question and answer sessions with students and are available to travel to schools to continue the dialogue. This type of interactive program has helped provide Rochester-area students with unique and well-rounded arts education experience.

Through its wide variety of educational, outreach and literary programs, including Big Theater for Little People, the Geva Theater truly accomplishes its goals of enriching and deepening the theater- going experience for its audience; providing access and affordable theater to the Rochester community; developing new plays and playwrights; and nurturing the audiences and artists of the next generation. And by recruiting talented actors, directors, designers, and writers at the forefront of American performing arts from all across the country, Geva ensures that it provides its audience with the highest quality performance.

However, given all of the contributions that the Geva Theater has given the Rochester community, perhaps nothing is more impressive than the atmosphere and energy that characterize each show that graces their historic building. From meeting friends at the Geva Cafe, to the personable confines of the theaters themselves, it is an experience that has thrilled a generation. As Geva moves in to their next 35 years, it warms my heart to know that more generations will be privileged to enjoy the same.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to reintroduce the Emergency Contraception Education Act. By improving education among the public and health professionals about emergency contraception (EC), my bill will help protect women's reproductive health, reduce unintended pregnancies, and prevent abortions.

Each year in the U.S., 3 million women face an unintended pregnancy, MORE than any industrialized nation. One in four of these end in abortion. Widespread and correct use of emergency contraception could prevent a significant number of unintended pregnancies, reducing the number of abortions in this country.

Emergency contraception is simply a concentrated form of the daily birth control pills taken by millions of women in the U.S. It does not cause abortion, but instead stops the release of an egg from the ovary. EC is a safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy--it has low toxicity and no potential for overdose or addiction; and because there are no important drug interactions, there is no need for medical screening, allowing for self-identification of the need. Furthermore, EC will not harm an established pregnancy. If taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure, EC can reduce the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent. But because of the narrow window of effectiveness, timely access to EC is critical.

In light of its safety and efficacy, the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have supported more widespread availability of EC. The Food and Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter access to the emergency contraceptive Plan B for adults. Yet, many patients and health care providers remain uninformed about this important contraception option. Only 1 in 3 women of reproductive age in the U.S. are aware of EC. In 2003, the Kaiser Foundation conducted a survey to examine teens' and adults' knowledge and opinions of EC in California. What they found was very disconcerting--nearly 40 percent did not know that EC was available in the U.S., and half of adult women who had heard of EC, mistakenly thought that it was the ``abortion pill,'' also known as RU- 486. Only 7 percent of adults who have heard of EC learned about it from their health care professional. Even women who had a gynecologic exam in the last year were no more likely to have learned about EC from their doctor.

Unfortunately, lack of knowledge and the failure to provide patients with information on EC is a familiar trend throughout this country. Only one in four ob/gyns in the U.S. routinely discuss emergency contraception with their patients. Less than 18 percent of hospitals provide emergency contraception at a woman's request without restrictions. And, tragically nearly 50 percent of hospitals do not provide EC to a woman who has been sexually assaulted, even though it is often the only contraceptive option for the 300,000 women who are raped each year.

Healthy People 2010, published by the Office of the Surgeon General, establishes a 10-year national public health goal of increasing the proportion of health care providers who provide emergency contraception to their patients. My bill will move us much closer toward achieving this goal. The Emergency Contraception Education Act will initiate a large-scale education campaign to better inform women and health care providers about emergency contraception. Specifically, this bill will direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop and disseminate information on EC to health care providers, including recommendations on the use of EC in appropriate cases, and how to obtain copies of information developed by HHS for distribution to patients. The Secretary will also be required to develop and disseminate information on EC to the American public.

EC could help women prevent unintended pregnancies and therefore reduce the need for

abortions in the United States. However, barriers to information and access hinder this preventative contraceptive method from reaching its full potential. We can and we must do more to protect women's reproductive health by increasing knowledge of emergency contraception and expanding access to this critical preventative solution.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to cosponsor my bill today.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the College Student Credit Card Protection Act. This bill seeks to address a growing problem among college students in the United States: devastating credit card debt.

Nellie Mae's Student Credit Card Usage Analysis in 2005 found that the outstanding balance for the average college student was $2,169. Final year students carried an average balance of $2,864 while freshmen carry an average balance of$1,585. Additionally, as students progress through school, credit card usage swells. Ninety-one percent of final year students have a credit card compared to 42% of freshmen. The study also found that the average American college student is graduating with more than 4 credit cards to their name.

College freshmen are typically offered eight credit cards during their first semester. Semester after semester, students open their mail boxes to find envelopes notifying them that they are pre-approved for credit cards with a $500 limit and no annual fee. When they check their e-mail, there are more credit card offers. When they answer the phone in their dorm room, there are even more offers.

Credit card companies pay college students generously to stand outside dining halls, dorms, and academic buildings and encourage their peers to apply for credit cards. With each completed application, the student applicant receives free gifts--from t-shirts to indoor basketball hoops--and the credit card company receives another interest-paying customer.

I have heard horror stories from my district about college students overwhelmed by credit card debt. One third-year college student had amassed a whopping $14,000 of debt. The question that cries out for an answer is: why are we making it so easy for our young people to amass such outrageous amounts of debt?

With interest rates climbing, fees increasing, and the number of credit card holders going up every day, credit card companies should not be allowed to expand their unfair, predatory business practices by exploiting our Nation's future. College students are often inexperienced consumers who can get sucked into unfair credit card deals or simply get in over their heads with the numerous underlying and unknown fees. Many simply sign up for a credit card without any knowledge of the interest rate, fees, and penalties that come along with their card. We must address these unfair lending practices and fees to help American college students avoid enormous financial burdens from which, as adults, they may never recover.

College graduation should be a time of excitement and new beginnings; a time when students can watch the skills they have learned in college manifest into successful careers and happy lives. But instead of seeing endless possibilities, too many students are burdened with endless debt. Studies now show that the likelihood of homeownership decreases as student debt increases. It is heartbreaking to me to think that recent graduates could jeopardize their future because we have allowed creditors to lend them sums of money they have no hope of paying back.

That is why I, along with Congressman Duncan, my friend from Tennessee, have reintroduced the College Student Credit Card Protection Act. The bill will take important steps toward reducing credit card debts to college students by requiring credit card companies to determine whether a student applicant has the financial means to pay off a credit card balance before they are approved. It would restrict the credit limit to minimum balances if the student has no independent income, and require parental approval for credit limit increases in the event that a parent cosigns the account.

It is time for credit card companies to be responsible lenders. For the sake of our college students and their futures, it is critical that we pass legislation that prevents credit card companies from plunging young men and women into debt.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address this critical issue facing college students nation-wide, and I urge the House to consider and pass this bill quickly.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 601 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to continue to express our great sorrow to the people of Minnesota on their tragic loss. In a way, they're almost victims of war. A Nation in perpetual war does not have the money to meet its infrastructure needs. And as we heard this morning, there are bridges that are in serious condition all over the United States. So I express my great sorrow for the families who are suffering and for all the people who have been lost.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you, Mr. Dreier.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 601 provides for consideration of H.R. 3159, the Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule considers as adopted the Armed Services Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has taken us into uncharted territory as a Nation and as a society. During the Vietnam war, 4 percent of the general population served in the military. During World War II, fully 12 percent of our people served. Forms of personal sacrifice and national service were to be found everywhere, planted in victory gardens or held in war bonds. Even during the Civil War, a conflict from a different age, more than one in ten Americans fought.

Never in our history has America fought a war of this magnitude, or one that is this difficult, with an entirely voluntary military force composed of only 1 percent of the general population. And while so much of what is going on in Iraq hearkens back to past conflicts, what is occurring within our society does not.

It is true that the historically high percentage of National Guard troops fighting abroad has spread the reach of this war farther than some anticipated. But for nearly all Americans the immediacy of the war has been dulled by distance. We have never been asked to sacrifice as people. We have, instead, been told to go about our lives as usual and ask merely to support the troops in a vague sense.

Within this mass of normality lies the lives of those Americans who have actually fought in Iraq, the mothers, husbands, sons, daughters and siblings who have been sent there and who have seen things that few of us can relate to or even imagine. They have been asked to fight in a conflict whose architects have largely receded from the public view, but not before the failures of these officials made themselves felt every time a soldier was forced to enter a battle without proper body armor or without a vehicle that would keep him or her safe. In a very real sense, the families of these soldiers have been asked to endure the same reality and forced to live every moment of their deployment with the fear that their loved one will be injured, or worse.

Despite it all, despite everything that the members of our military and their families have been asked to bear for year after year, the talk of what is to be done in Iraq is often clinical: We should increase troop numbers; we should lower them; we should place more troops here, send more troops

there. Troops are spoken of as if they were simply another machine to be moved about and to be used at our will.

Our soldiers are human beings. They are our fellow citizens. They have dignity. They have rights. They do not deserve to be cast around as the administration stumbles forward seeking to find a solution to a problem of its own creation.

Already, a flawed war plan has forced the members of our military to endure not just the brunt of battle but also to make up for miscalculation at home. Tours have been extended and then extended again in an unprecedented way. Previously unknown burdens have been placed on our men and women in uniform as a result. At a certain point, we as a society have to say enough is enough.

The legislation before us is supported by men like Senator Jim Webb and Representative John Murtha for a reason: Former soldiers know what current deployment schedules are doing to our soldiers and to their families. It will restore some order to the process by prohibiting the deployment of any active military unit to Iraq unless that unit's soldiers have rested for at least as long as they have fought. It is a simple premise that was followed in virtually every war America has fought. It should be followed again today.

Mr. Speaker, this bill should not tie the hands of generals. If national security or the safety of our troops would be put at risk by shortened deployment, the bill's requirements can be waived. But the President will have to do so publicly and certify to Congress that his decision is vitally important. With everything our soldiers are asked to do, it is long past time that the President was forced to explain to Congress and to the American people why it is all necessary.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about who we are as a society and about the values we hold. Our fellow citizens have been sent to fight in this conflict and have asked nothing from us in return. But we certainly owe them everything. We owe them our support, not in a rhetorical sense or in blind allegiance to the administration's claims but in a real sense, by making sure that they are given the proper training and armor, by making sure they are allowed to rest for an adequate amount of time between deployments.

Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to live up to our responsibilities as a people today. I hope this body is ready to face that challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), whose compassion and conviction on this issue is probably unsurpassed in the House.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any other speakers?

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, despite our great respect and affection for those who brought their amendments to the Rules Committee yesterday, it is well known in this House and in the country that the Democrat majority intends to bring the war to a close as quickly as possible and as quick as it is practicable to do so.

To reinstitute the Iraq Study Committee, to refinance it, put it back together, wait for a report would take far longer than we frankly are willing to give.

But this bill before us today, the underlying bill before us, is humane. And it says, for goodness sake, don't redeploy troops over and over and over again unless they have had at least as much time at home to rest as they have had in combat.

This is a different kind of combat, Mr. Speaker. Soldiers before have always been given recreation and rest after intense combat. Not this time. The soldiers in Iraq and all the military people of Iraq face almost instantaneous death every moment of the day and night without any respite at all. We are seeing the results of that brought home with the posttraumatic stress syndrome which is rising so rapidly.

In addition to that, we are demanding at last, because we didn't have the opportunity before by not being in the majority, that these troops be equipped properly.

The New York Times said on a front page story recently that 80 percent, Mr. Speaker, of the marines that died in Iraq would have lived, those with upper body wounds would have lived with the proper equipment. How can we live with that?

We know now that instead of sending useless Humvees that were of no use at all to them against the IEDs, if we had always sent MRAPs, a technology we have known for 30 years, heaven knows how many of the nearly 4,000 who died would have been saved and how many of the more than 30,000 who have been wounded would have been spared that.

That weighs heavily on the conscience of those of us in the House of Representatives, and it angers the people that we represent.

We've talked to the parents of those who have been sent back two, three, four times. I have talked to one father who told me as his son was being deployed for the fourth time; if he gets killed, I will kill somebody. The anguish of these parents is palpable; and, as I stated before in my earlier statement, we don't fight this war. The 1 percent of the military people and their families are fighting this war. We've been asked for no sacrifice of any kind.

How glib it is for us to stand on this floor and say, leave it to the generals and look how well they're doing. The number of generals who have resigned their commission so that they could speak out against this carnage and this despicable war that was unplanned and planned by people who have left the scene cannot go on any longer.

And I will tell you that we have to go and look families in the face, and there are a number of times that I've gone to services, and my position on the war is well-known, and I've wondered if the families, how they would accept my presence. I have never been to a single one where they didn't say to me, bring them home, bring them home.

For heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, if it's not just for that alone, those of us here have that obligation to bring them home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Hastings, to assure everyone that the FISA bill is on the calendar for this week.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

I have no other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I again want to assure my colleagues that FISA is on the calendar before we go home, which may be the middle of next week. We're not going to leave here without getting that fixed.

Let me also state that, in addition to the dreadful, awful loss of our service persons and the terrible wounding and mangled 30,000 or more, there's another cost to this war, Mr. Speaker. A new estimate is that the war in Iraq will cost the taxpayers of the United States $1 trillion. We are spending at the rate of $10 billion a month. Obviously, this is money that we don't have.

We're borrowing mainly from four sources, the first one being China, Japan, South Korea; and, Mr. Speaker, as this debt piles up, it will take generations for our children, our grandchildren, our great- grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren simply to pay off.

So let me stop as I began, to again express my sorrow to the people of Minnesota and make it clear that the spending on this war, which is rife with corruption, I do need to say, that in addition to 160,000 military persons in Iraq, we have 185,000 contractors, spending tax money at an enormous rate. We are beginning for the first time in 6 years, as we've taken the majority, to really look at where that money has gone and try to ferret out the corruption, the cronyism, the unbid contracts and all of the other scandals that have gone on there.

Just this week again we learned that millions of dollars spent in construction to turn things over to the Iraqi people is unacceptable to the people of Iraq because of the shoddy workmanship. This is a scandal of major proportions, Mr. Speaker. It really is important that we bring this to an end and try to clean up and maybe hopefully get our international reputation back to some degree.

But the most important thing is that this bill says simply this: Our soldiers need rest. How dare we send people into the battle day after day, night after night, without saying from this House and from this government that what we want for them is what the military always had in the past, an opportunity to rest and renew? It's not only critical for them personally, but it's critical for the units in which they serve that they are in top form. The fact is that we could do that quite simply here just today with this bill and also make certain that we don't ever again send one of them out on one of those roads to patrol unprepared, untrained and unprotected because we failed to spend the enormous amount of money on the right kind of equipment.

It's time, Mr. Speaker. We owe it; and I'm ashamed that all these years, that for the past 6 years, no oversight, not any, no hearings, have been held on this war. No hearings have been held on where all of that money has gone, and we're just beginning now to scratch the surface.

But the first obligation that we have, far more than money involved, the largest obligation we have is to the men and women that we say would you please set your life aside and go and fight. We owe them everything in the world that we can give them.

I'm happy that we have put a lot of money this year on our side into the Veterans Administration, and certainly it's for traumatic brain injury which we see so much of it and that the Veterans Administration is in no way equipped to handle. We have enough money now in the bills so we can send them to the places where they can get the very best help available. But young men and women that are 18, 19, 20 years old, maimed for life. And Mr. Speaker, it is time some intelligence here in the House reigned.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I am enormously proud of the accomplishments that we can credit to the Democratic-led Congress. From education to health care, from national security to increasing the minimum wage, great strides have been taken to make our country stronger, healthier, and better prepared for the future. And there is more to come.

But it is with special pride that I rise today, because I feel that what motivated me, and so many of my colleagues, to come to Washington in the first place was the thought that on any day a vote could be held that would improve the lives of millions of people throughout our beloved country.

And that is exactly the chance that we have been given today, the chance to vote for a bill that will improve medical care in the country, improve the health of our citizens, and offer new hope for literally millions of children who would otherwise be left with neither.

Madam Speaker, I think that everyone listening today recognizes the reality of the situation we face. Addressing the state of health care in our country is one of the most important issues to the American people for one simple reason: Our health care system is failing far too many Americans. Tens of millions of our citizens have no insurance and tens of million more are underinsured. For them, all of the medical wonders in the world that our doctors produce might as well not exist. When they fall ill or, worse, when their children are hurt or have a fever or need care, where do they turn? Far too often the answer is: Nowhere.

We need a comprehensive solution to this problem, and the citizens of the country expect and deserve no less. That is a challenge that we must confront together, and it will take time. But today, here and now, we have the chance to make a real dent in one of the most galling and shameful inadequacies of our health care system, and that is the lack of health care for America's children.

Congress created SCHIP in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. As a result, 6 million children currently have health care coverage that they otherwise would not have. In my home State of New York, nearly 400,000 children are enrolled, which is the second-highest number in the Nation.

There is a reason why President Bush pledged that he would fully fund SCHIP while he was on the campaign trail in 2004: It was because this program is enormously effective and enormously popular with the public.

And, yet, there is so much more to be done. Nine million American children still remain without health insurance. It is a situation that remains quite unconscionable.

The bill allows us to take an enormous step forward. It will cover 5 million more children, which will make 11 in total. That would be a truly historic change. Such a vast improvement is reason enough to support the legislation, but the bill does even more to strengthen the health of Americans.

It strengthens Medicare by expanding preventive benefits, as well as mental health services, a matter of grave importance to many of our citizens.

It reduces the costs for seniors and people with disabilities, who also often have low incomes; and it extends the policies that protect access to health care in rural communities, of vital importance to all of us.

What is more, the bill would prevent a proposed 10 percent cut in the Medicare reimbursement to physicians, replacing it with an increase for 2 years. We cannot afford to have more physicians say they can no longer afford to have Medicare patients. This is especially important for districts throughout the country, districts like mine where we are having trouble holding on to good doctors because of financial concerns that until now have not been addressed.

Finally, this bill will raise the tax on the price of cigarettes by 45 cents a pack, a significant preventative health care initiative in its own right. This act alone is projected to save tens of thousands of lives and billions in future health care costs by preventing more than a million children from taking up smoking.

Madam Speaker, in spite of these undeniable benefits and in spite of the overwhelming popularity and accomplishments of this program, SCHIP is under attack.

Sadly, the President proposed to greatly underfund SCHIP, a decision which would severely limit its effectiveness; and Republicans on the other side of the aisle agree with this approach.

But not content to merely limit the reach of SCHIP, we will today witness an attempt on the Republican side to sink this bill entirely, as, indeed, we have seen already several times this morning. In the face of all of the positive results coming from this program and all that it is set to achieve, the harshest rhetoric is going to be cast against it.

Madam Speaker, we all know that my Republican colleagues cannot really believe what they are arguing. Instead, their objective is a different one: to deny the Democrats a chance to talk about yet another legislative accomplishment. They are willing to do it at the expense of the health of the Nation's children, but we will not allow it. And those who argue against passing this bill are arguing in favor of the status quo, the same situation we faced more than 10 years when bold attempts to fundamentally reform our Nation's health care system were subjected to withering attacks.

What was the result? Reforms were blocked, and the national situation grew worse and worse with every passing year of Republican control.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and a ``yes'' on this bill, not only just for America's children but for their parents as well.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 748. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 748.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet Thursday, August 2, to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act.

Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, August 1. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration.

Amendments should be drafted to the bill as introduced. A copy of the bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee.

Amendments should be drafted by the Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first I want to give my thanks to Chairman Olver and to Mr. Knollenberg for doing a wonderful job on this bill.

I intend to withdraw this amendment, but if I can just take a moment or two to discuss the importance of HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control, I would like to do that.

The funding is crucial in reaching our goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning nationwide by 2010. The grants provided by HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control allow cities and States to correct serious lead hazard in low-income and high-risk homes.

Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, this is not just an isolated problem. Lead poisoning affects over 250,000 American children under the age of 5 each and every year. High levels of lead in the blood have been linked to childhood asthma, brain damage, hearing loss, hyperactivity, developmental delays, and in extreme cases, exposure to lead has caused seizures, comas, and even death.

Mr. Chairman, this is simply unacceptable.

In my district alone, over 2,000 children fall victim to lead poisoning every year. Over half of all the homes in Niagara and Erie counties were built before 1950 and are therefore very likely to contain lead. And just in Erie County, 1,000 children have unsafe lead levels in their blood.

The city of Rochester is among the top 10 cities in the United States with the worst lead paint problems. In 2004, 900 children in Monroe County were reported to have high blood lead levels. We have a city ordinance in effect to try to deal with that, but we have not enough money obviously to take action.

The grants are so important. They are targeted to help the most vulnerable of our citizens, children under 5 years of age. But in order to be more effective, they have to have adequate funding. Since the bill before us only funds the Office of Lead Hazard Control at $130 million, we wanted to put in this amendment.

But I commend the chairman for putting together this thoughtful and solid bill, and I hope we can work together in conference to try to do more.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Madam Speaker, today, as we mark the anniversary of the first ever women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, I am proud to celebrate the accomplishments of our foremothers by introducing the National Women's Rights History Project Act.

In contemporary American society, women enjoy rights to education, wages, and property ownership. However, it was only 87 years ago that women were finally granted the right to vote. Yet few Americans have any real knowledge of the long struggle to obtain the rights that we take for granted today. The National Women's Rights History Project Act will provide Americans with the opportunity to learn more about the female heroes that fought tirelessly to secure these rights.

On July 19, 1848, a group of activists including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Mary Ann M'Clintock convened the first women's rights convention at Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York. The women's rights convention heralded the beginning of a 72-year struggle for suffrage. During the convention, 68 women and 32 men signed the Declaration of Sentiments, which was drafted to mirror the Declaration of Independence and set out such radical notions like women's freedom to own property, receive an education, and file for divorce.

In 1851, a second women's rights convention was held in Akron, Ohio. It was at this convention that Sojourner Truth delivered the famous ``Ain't I a Woman?'' speech. The woman's suffrage movement, however, was not solely limited to organized conventions. Under the leadership of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) was formed.

Susan B. Anthony also established the Equal Rights Association to refute ideas that women were inferior to men and fight for a woman's right to vote. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony and other women voted in the Presidential election, and were arrested and fined for illegal voting. At her trial, which attracted nationwide attention, Susan B. Anthony made a speech that ended with the slogan ``Resistance to Tyranny Is Obedience to God.'' She also campaigned for the rights of women to own property, to keep their own earnings, and to have custody of their children. I am especially proud that it was in Rochester, New York, that Susan B. Anthony fought so hard for the rights that women throughout this country rely on today. In fact, in 1900, she persuaded the University of Rochester, in my Congressional District, to admit women.

In the early 1900s, a new generation of leaders joined the women's suffrage movement, including Carrie Chapman Catt, Maud Wood Park, Lucy Burns, Alice Paul, and Harriot E. Blatch. During this era, the women's rights movement increased its momentum by organizing marches, pickets and other protests. Suffragette Alice Paul and other activists began chaining themselves to the White House fence and participating in hunger strikes to gain the attention of Congress.

The struggle for women's suffrage was not easy, and oftentimes it was made more difficult as a consequence of public misinformation and fear. Consider these remarks which, in 1912, appeared in the New York Times under the title, ``The Uprising of Women'':

The vote will secure to woman no new privilege that she

either deserves or requires . . . Women will get the vote and

play havoc with it for themselves and society, if men are not

wise and firm enough and it may as well be said, masculine

enough, to prevent them.

If by playing havoc, the New York Times meant becoming the single most sought after voting block in the country that often determines the outcome of elections, I guess they were right.

Because of the persistent dedication of Susan B. Anthony and other remarkable leaders, women persevered. Although Susan B. Anthony was not alive to see it, the efforts of the women's rights struggle came to fruition when the nineteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving women the right to vote, was finally passed by Congress on June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920.

We have clearly come a long way in 87 years--and we still have a long way to go. We must work to continue the momentum that started in Seneca Falls, by not only ensuring that all women vote, but that they do so with an understanding of the long fight to obtain this right and with a sense of responsibility to do their part in the struggle for women's equality.

To honor these important women, the National Women's Rights History Project Act will establish a trail route linking sites significant to the struggle for women's suffrage and civil rights. It also will expand the current National Register travel itinerary Web site, ``Places Where Women Made History,'' to include additional historic sites. Finally, this bill will require the Department of the Interior to establish a partnership-based network to offer financial and technical assistance for interpretive and educational program development of national women's rights history.

The women of this country have fought tirelessly to achieve equitable rights for our grandmothers, our mothers, ourselves, and our daughters. It is my hope that this bill will provide Americans with the opportunity to learn more about the female leaders who struggled to secure these rights.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members to join me in celebrating their accomplishments by cosponsoring the National Women's Rights History Project Act today.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act, a bill that will remove toxic lead hazards from childcare facilities, and put an end to an entirely avoidable public health crisis. It is critical that Congress provide our communities the tools necessary to make the places where our children spend their time safe and defend them from the dangers that exposure to lead poses to their health.

Exposure to lead is not safe for anyone, but children are most vulnerable among us. Even the slightest amounts of lead can do serious, irreparable damage because their bodies and minds are still in developmental stages. Among many other things, lead poisoning can cause learning disabilities, brain damage, organ failure, coma and even death in children. Despite the knowledge of the risks associated with exposure to lead hazards and the availability of tools that can prevent more children from suffering from lead poisoning, 310,000 American children are affected every year.

Unfortunately, lead poisoning remains a threat to our children in places where they ought to feel the most safe--our childcare facilities. According to a report from the Environmental Protection Agency, nearly 12 million children under the age of five spend 40 hours a week in childcare. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has reported that approximately 14 percent of licensed childcare centers across the U.S. have hazardous levels of lead-based paint. Children attending daycare centers in the Northeast and Midwest are at a greater risk of being exposed to lead hazards, as 40 percent of the childcare facilities in those regions were built before 1960.

In addition to lead hazards posed by paint at childcare facilities, these old buildings are home to corroded pipes and water lines which are also sources of lead exposure. A parent should not have to worry about their child consuming lead when their thirsty child visits a drinking fountain.

Our childcare professionals must have the tools they need to guard our children from lead poisoning. The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act would establish a Select Group on Lead Exposure comprised of experts from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the Administration for Children and Families, the National Institute of Child Heath and Human Development, the Secretary of Education, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Select Group will conduct a study of child-occupied facilities created before 1978 and develop baseline standards that facilities must meet to receive grants under this Act. To help childcare facilities comply with the new lead- safety standards, the bill establishes a grant program to defray associated costs. Finally, the Act requires that all contractors hired for repair, renovations, or reconstruction of childcare facilities be provided with educational materials about lead hazards and the guidance necessary to avoid imposing additional risks.

The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act fills a major gap in our national policy to eradicate lead poisoning by 2010 by providing the guidance and resources need to protect our children from lead hazards in their childcare facilities.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 647 and 648, I was absent meeting with the military on Niagara Air Base. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 625, 626, 627, 628, and 629. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 625, ``no'' on rollcall vote 626, ``no'' on rollcall vote 627, ``no'' on rollcall vote 628, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 629.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 533 provides for consideration of H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 4 hours of debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except those arising under clause 9 or 10 under rule XX. The rule provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear about what we will be told today by the President. We will be told that adequate progress has been made in some areas of Iraq but more work needs to be done in others. What this really means, of course, is that once again security and political benchmarks have not been met, that vast areas in Baghdad that were supposed to be under control by now are not, that a drop in violence in some areas has been met with increases in violence elsewhere, that political compromises are not being made with sufficient speed by the Iraqi leadership, nor is there any available evidence that the situation is going to change, that the escalation will suddenly become more effective next week or next month. Instead, all signs indicate that in September when General Petraeus reports to Congress, he will deliver the exact same message that we are hearing today: to be patient.

But patience means nothing when deadlines are constantly moved. In January a leading Member of the minority said that we would be able to tell in a few months if the escalation was working. Now we hear it is still too early to tell. It has been 7 months. Which prediction are we supposed to believe?

As time has advanced, an absence in progress has not been met by an absence in tragedy. At the present rates, between now and September, another 200 Americans will be killed, 200 more families changed forever. And hundreds, if not thousands, more innocent Iraqis will have died as well.

We will hear today that to change our course in Iraq will signal defeat. But this willfully ignores the entire history of the Iraq War. After more than 4 years of relentless conflict, including recent months of historically high troop numbers, experts tell us that in Iraq al Qaeda is stronger than ever. A military official told ABC News yesterday al Qaeda's ``operational capability appears to be undiminished.''

The conclusion is clear: The American military is not being given a chance to bring peace to Iraq or to fight our enemies, not because our troops are not good enough but because the current mission is inherently flawed.

It is not weakness to admit a strategy is not working and to change it. It is the very opposite: a sign of strength. Our leaders corrected failing courses when they arose during the Civil War and during World War II. Why should this war be different?

What Democrats are calling for today is not a retreat. It is not a surrender. It is a statement that Congress will not wait for another ambiguous so-called progress report and will not give the administration another chance to move the goalposts. Instead, we will refuse to needlessly sacrifice our soldiers, weaken our military, undermine our national security, and bleed our country in ways that even the worst terrorists could ever dream of. And it is a statement to the Iraqi people that they will no longer have to live as dual victims: victims of violence and victims of a flawed military strategy that is at best failing to bring peace to the country and at worst perpetuating their suffering.

The bill will refocus our troops on fighting terrorists. By doing so, the disastrous strain being placed on our Armed Forces will be lifted without sacrificing security objectives, and their healing can begin.

Second, it will remove a strategy from the playing field that is certainly not working and throw open the door to new approaches which may actually succeed. For example, the legislation requires the President to report by January on how he is engaging U.S. allies and regional powers in the effort to bring stability to Iraq. Far from abandoning the Iraqis or lessening American security, we will finally make the rehabilitation of Iraq the international priority that it must become. The only thing we will be abandoning, in other words, Mr. Speaker, is this administration's mistakes.

And to my friends on both sides of the aisle, yesterday I received an advance copy of a report from the Defense Department's Inspector General that will be made public today. It detailed the work of some of the first companies to make armored vehicles and armored kits for our soldiers in Iraq. They were given sole-source, unbid contracts even though senior defense officials objected, favoring a competitive process instead.

I hope people heard what I said. Senior officials at DOD wanted competitive bidding for these machines, but they were overridden by the Under Secretary of Defense.

The results were sadly predictable. The companies failed to meet demand and sent critically important equipment late. Some of the armor that our soldiers were sent had cracks that had simply been painted over to try to fool them instead of fixing it. In certain instances two left doors were sent for the same vehicle. Troops already fighting a deadly foe had to use their precious time and energy to improvise and come up with ways to turn useless equipment into something that could protect them.

Our soldiers have been asked to endure terrible hardships, as well have their families, some of which, I am ashamed to say, have been the direct result of the practices of this administration, and they are enduring them to this day and at this very hour. For Congress to leave them there, to ask them to continue fighting to survive under the mounting weight of a flawed mission--that, Mr. Speaker, is the true definition of abandonment. And after 4 years, Democrats are tired of this Congress abandoning our troops to a fate they have never deserved.

I would ask everyone in this Chamber how they would justify this continued carnage to the families of our soldiers. With all we know now, how can we still say to the children of those killed or to the young men and women maimed for life, your loss was needed?

We cannot. What we must say to them is this: You have given enough. It is time to come home.

The American people know what must be done and the majority of this Congress knows what must be done. And all that remains is for those of us here who are still opposed to this bill to decide that they too have had enough and that they will join their countrymen in voting not with the President but with the troops, with the people of Iraq, and with the people of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article from the Washington Post this morning entitled, ``White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up,'' and points out that the House voted 355-69 last month to reestablish the study group, but the President is blocking it.

[From washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2007]

White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up

(By Robin Wright)

Despite an overwhelming House vote last month to revive the

Iraq Study Group, the White House has blocked reconvening the

bipartisan panel to provide a second independent assessment

of the military and political situation in Iraq, said several

sources involved in the panel's December 2006 report.

Co-Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, several panel members and the

U.S. Institute of Peace, which ran the study group, were

willing to participate, according to Hamilton and the

congressionally funded think tank. But the White House did

not give the green light for co-chairman and former secretary

of state James A. Baker III to participate, and Baker is

unwilling to lead a second review without President Bush's

approval, according to members of the original panel and

sources close to Baker.

White House support is critical for any follow-up review.

``It is not likely to happen unless the White House approves

it,'' Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman from Indiana,

said in an interview. ``The group can't go ahead without its

concurrence or acquiescence, as we need travel support and

access to documents.''

The White House does not want independent assessments to

rival the upcoming Sept. 15 reports by Gen. David H. Petraeus

and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, U.S. officials said.

The White House indicated that it sees no need for an

immediate follow-up to the report, noting that it is

implementing a strategy consistent with many of the panel's

recommendations. ``The next report due in September by

General Petraeus must include an assessment of our objectives

as they relate to Baker-Hamilton. September will be the

appropriate time to determine how that strategy is

progressing,'' said National Security Council spokesman

Gordon Johndroe. ``We look forward to remaining in contact

with members of the group.''

The House voted 355 to 69 last month to allocate $1 million

for the U.S. Institute of Peace to reestablish the group of

10 prominent Republicans and Democrats, which included former

Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former defense

secretary William J. Perry and, until his appointment,

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Congressional sponsors called the White House's reluctance

a missed opportunity. ``The ISG provides an opportunity to

bring the country together. . . . If you had a serious

illness, you would want a second opinion. We are at war. You

want to have the best minds looking at a problem,'' said Rep.

Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who proposed the ISG and co-sponsored

the bill to reconvene it. ``Having another independent,

bipartisan assessment will take out the venom in the

debate.''

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), another co-sponsor,

warned that the White House's move would cost further support

among Republicans.

``It's really shortsighted,'' he said. ``It's going to

further isolate the president. . . . You can't rely just on

Petraeus and Crocker. They are good people, but they're still

in the thick of battle and you need the view from the

outside. The fact the White House doesn't want it indicates

they are afraid of what the ISG might say.''

The White House did not initially embrace the ISG report.

But it has gradually adopted key recommendations, including

the controversial proposal to pursue diplomatic talks with

Iran and Syria, the countries that have most aided or abetted

Iraq's insurgents and illegal militias. Last month, 23

Democrats and 34 Republicans co-sponsored a House bill to

implement all the ISG recommendations as the way forward in

Iraq.

But other groups are pursuing independent reviews of U.S.

policy and Iraq's performance. The Iraqi Security Forces

Independent Assessment Commission--made up of 14 former

generals and defense officials--is examining Iraqi military

capabilities. The panel, which is mandated by Congress, is

chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones. The group is

currently in Iraq; its report is due in October.

The Government Accountability Office is doing a separate

congressionally mandated study on the 18 benchmarks set for

the Iraqi government to meet. And the U.S. Institute of Peace

is reconvening many of the experts the ISG originally relied

on to discuss Iraq's future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, give me 3 seconds to say that under the Republican administration, not a single Iraqi measure was brought up under an open rule.

And now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, let me have about 2 seconds to say that we have allowed 4 hours of general debate. I think everybody will have an opportunity to discuss what they think of the deadline.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I have two.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time and ask if the gentleman has more requests.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we're always treated to the inventive memory of the former Chair of the Rules Committee.

Let me just state for the record that this time last when he was Chair, we had three open rules. At this time, we've had eight open rules.

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

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