Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, over the last 7 years, President Bush has only vetoed four bills. The President's first two vetoes involved legislation that would expand Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which has the potential to unlock the doors to cures for diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer's. Two times, congressional Republicans sided with the President enabling his veto to stand and thereby denying hope to millions of American families.

The President's third veto came on the war funding bill that finally included a deadline to bring our troops home from Iraq. Again, Republicans sided with the President, and our troops continue to be bogged down in a war that the President himself says could continue for another decade. Then, last week, the President vetoed a fourth bill that would provide private health insurance to 10 million low-income children. It received strong bipartisan support in Congress, and there are enough votes in the Senate to override the President's veto.

The question now is will House Republicans once again side with the President or will they stand with the 10 million children who need and deserve health care.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the life of suffragette and abolitionist Martha Coffin Wright. Martha Coffin was born in Massachusetts on Christmas Day 1806, the youngest child of Thomas and Anna Coffin. After her father's death from typhus in 1815, Martha's mother assumed the responsibilities of the family's business, setting an example of an independent, self-reliant woman that would shape Martha's views about the role of women in society. In 1824 Martha Coffin married Peter Pelham. Soon the couple moved to a frontier fort in Florida where Martha would give birth to her first daughter. Tragically, Peter died 2 years later in 1826 leaving Martha a 19-year- old widow with an infant child. To support herself and her daughter, she moved to Auburn, New York, to teach painting and writing at a Quaker school for girls. Soon after relocating to Auburn, she met and married a law student named David Wright with whom she would have six more children. In July of 1848, Martha's older sister, Lucretia Coffin Mott, a prominent Quaker preacher visited Martha's home in Auburn. During the visit, Martha, Lucretia, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton met to plan the Seneca Falls Convention at which 68 women and 32 men would sign the Declaration of Sentiments. This revolutionary document, modeled on the Declaration of Independence, stated that all men and women are created equal. It would be another 72 years before the 19th amendment gave American women the right to vote.

In the years following the Seneca Falls Convention, Martha Coffin Wright was also active in the abolition movement. With her sister, Lucretia, she attended the founding meeting of the American antislavery society in Philadelphia in 1833 and later presided over numerous antislavery meetings, including two in upstate New York, in early 1861 that were disrupted by angry anti-abolitionist mobs. Martha bravely opened her home in Auburn to the Underground Railroad in Auburn where she harbored fugitive slaves. In 1863 Martha and other women's rights activists formed the Women's National Loyal League to carry petitions for the abolition of slavery which would finally be achieved in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th amendment.

After the Civil War, Martha was also instrumental in the formation of the American Equal Rights Association, which attempted to merge the issues of black suffrage and women's suffrage; and in early 1874 she was elected president of the National Woman Suffrage Association. In December 1874, Martha took ill with typhoid pneumonia and died in Boston on January 4, 1865, at the age of 68.

Madam Speaker, Martha Coffin Wright's dedication and commitment should inspire all of us. I am proud to represent the region of upstate New York where Martha Coffin Wright and countless others fought tirelessly for equal rights for all. I am proud to represent the people of Seneca Falls, New York, who established the National Women's Hall of Fame in 1969 to honor the contributions of great American women with a permanent home. I was honored to attend the induction of Martha Coffin Wright into the Hall of Fame this past weekend.

I am proud to represent the birthplace of the women's rights movement, the importance of which was recognized by Congress in 1980 with the creation of the Women's Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to once again join me in honoring the contributions of Martha Coffin Wright and reaffirming the historical significance of Seneca Falls, New York with a voice vote in favor of House Resolution 588 recognizing the achievement of a truly great American, Martha Coffin Wright.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 704 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of this 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 insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 704 provides for consideration of H.R. 3246, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

I rise today in strong support of this rule and H.R. 3246. I want to thank the distinguished chairwoman of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee, Ms. Norton, Chairman Oberstar, and the ranking members, for drafting this legislation to authorize three new economic development commissions.

H.R. 3246 establishes the Northern Border, Southeast Crescent and Southwest Border Regional Commissions and reauthorizes the successful Delta and Northern Great Plains Regional Commissions. These five commissions will

help bring economic development to regions of our country that desperately need it.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation creates a Northern Border Regional Commission that will bring much-needed job creation and economic development resources to the Northeast region. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and upstate New York will all benefit tremendously from the establishment of this commission because it will assess and address the very specific needs, assets and challenges of this region.

Over the last several decades, upstate New York, including my congressional district, has experienced a consistent pattern of economic distress resulting from substantial loss in the manufacturing sector, coupled with an aging infrastructure and lack of opportunities for a skilled workforce. My district alone has seen a staggering loss of more than 14,000 manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2005. This has been devastating to our local communities; however, this loss isn't an anomaly. It is extremely characteristic of several States in the Northeast. A targeted regional approach like this one created by this bill can help bring economic vitality to this region.

The three new commissions are modeled after the highly successful Appalachian Regional Commission, ARC. The commission similar to the ARC will create Federal-State partnerships where local development districts and other nonprofits bring project ideas and priorities from the local level to the commissions to promote economic development.

Specifically, the Northern Border Regional Commission will be charged with investing $40 million per year, rising to $60 million per year by 2012, in Federal grants focused on local transportation and infrastructure projects, broadband development, alternative energy projects, agricultural development, and health care facilities. With regional planning, technical assistance, and funding of projects aimed at encouraging economic prosperity, this Commission will help local communities work together to support common developmental goals.

Simply put, the numbers speak for themselves. Since its creation, the ARC has reduced the number of distressed counties in its region from 219 to 100, cut the poverty rate from 31 percent to 15 percent, and has helped 1,400 businesses create 26,000 new jobs. In fiscal year 2005, each dollar of the ARC funding leveraged $2.57 in other public funding and $8.46 in private funding.

Speaking from personal experience, six counties in my upstate New York district have experienced similar success being a part of the ARC. The Village of Sherburne in Chenango County is a great example of how small ARC grants are extremely helpful in leveraging funds from State, local and private sources for economic development initiatives that create jobs. A $200,000 ARC grant to improve aging water infrastructure in Sherburne, New York, a problem that is plaguing many States in the Northeast, was able to leverage close to $4 million in State and local community investment.

Mr. Speaker, the Northern Border Regional Commission will not only extend benefits to economically distressed counties in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont; it will give upstate New York counties like Oneida, Herkimer, Cayuga and Seneca the opportunity to enjoy the same benefits their neighboring counties in the southern tier enjoy under the ARC.

We need to ensure that every American has access to job training, employment-related education and high-tech infrastructure so that we can retain and grow our global competitive edge. I am confident that the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act will help us achieve that end.

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

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

We have no additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Hastings. But I must say that I am a bit confused as to what earmarks and what the statements that he just made have to do with this rule.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman. With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. While some of my colleagues on the other side continue to criticize our new earmark rule, the fact of the matter is that the House Democratic majority has implemented the most honest and open earmark rule in the history of the United States House of Representatives. But don't take my word for it. In this week's CQ Weekly, Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense is quoted as saying: ``The House has given us more information than we have ever had before on earmarks, and they deserve credit for that.''

Mr. Speaker, the other side continues to talk about their plan to modify the earmark rule, but what they don't tell you is that their earmark rule would not cover any measure not already covered by the earmark rule presently in effect. It is important to remember which side actually abused the earmark process, and who actually stepped up to the plate to reform the system and provide transparency. We didn't wait until 2 months before the election; we responded to the people's call for more openness on the first day of this Congress.

It seems quite clear to me that the minority is more concerned with obstructionism, while we are focused on actually meeting the needs of our constituents. That is exactly what this bill does and what the underlying rule does.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

This bill today.

If I may reclaim my time, the bill today is covered by it. As I say, this bill is about helping Americans. This is about putting Americans back to work and about putting money back into the development of infrastructure, into financing hospitals, and doing the kind of things that I was sent to Congress to do today.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, passage of this bipartisan legislation, which this rule provides consideration of, is a critical step toward helping some of our neediest communities achieve economic parity with the rest of the country. The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act authorizes the creation of five regional economic development commissions under a common framework of administration and management. These commissions are designed to address problems of systematic underdevelopment in their respective regions.

In general, the five commissions authorized in this bill will utilize the successful Appalachian Regional Commission model, which facilitates a bottom-up approach. Local development districts, nonprofit organizations, and others bring projects and ideas to the commission from the local level, ensuring that the actions of the commission reflect local and regional economic development needs and goals.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a short while ago, the Northern Border Regional Commission created by this legislation builds on the success of the ARC. It would be charged with investing $40 million each year in Federal resources for economic development and job creation in the most economically distressed border areas of Maine, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont. This commission will help fund projects that both strengthen traditional sectors in the region's economy and help to diversify it. The Northern Border Regional Commission is focused on helping areas in the Northeast that have higher levels of unemployment, a significant loss of population, and significantly low household incomes.

This legislation is yet another example of true bipartisan cooperation often seen on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 704 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

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

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

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

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

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

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

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

one motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) in strong support of this amendment and the underlying legislation.

I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee for producing a bill that updates the National Federal Insurance Program to meet the needs of the 21st century. It improves flood mapping; increases financial accountability; and is comprehensive, responsible public policy that will benefit thousands of Americans in the highest risk areas.

Mr. Chairman, across my district in upstate New York, the increasing frequency and destructive power of rainstorms and snow melts in recent years has caused flooding disasters which have seriously damaged homes and businesses in a number of communities.

Some of these communities in the Susquehanna River Basin, like the city of Oneonta, suffered a fate last year similar to the areas in Pennsylvania situated in the Delaware River Basin. The city of Oneonta experienced very damaging flooding in June of 2006 caused by severe rainstorms. However, it is now September of 2007, and there are local homeowners and businesses still wrestling with FEMA's burdensome claims process waiting on settlements they were assured as National Flood Insurance Program policyholders.

Mr. Chairman, the same is true for the local city government in Oneonta. It took almost 1 whole year after the disaster for FEMA to fully reimburse the city for repairs to public infrastructure severely damaged during the floods. Even after many months of persistence at the regional FEMA office, the city was left with no recourse and had to seek the assistance of my office for intervention.

Finally, after encountering hurdle after hurdle for a year, the city received their reimbursement from FEMA. We should ask ourselves, should we not strive to create more efficiency in an agency that is still learning lessons in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita?

Mr. Chairman, the amendment Mr. Murphy and I are offering today will study the feasibility of creating an independent office within FEMA. Its primary task will be to help local homeowners and business owners in Upstate New York and across the U.S. to navigate the often tedious and complicated Federal flood insurance claims system within the National Flood Insurance Program.

The amendment establishes a National Flood Insurance Advocate, which would be tasked with providing insurance policyholders across the U.S. with a type of ombudsman to represent the public interest by investigating and addressing complaints. The amendment also requires that the National Flood Insurance Advocate report to Congress with analysis of the major

problems facing the National Flood Insurance Program. This National Flood Insurance Advocate is based on the successful model of the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which has helped countless constituents navigate the Internal Revenue Services.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this amendment, and I urge support for passage of the bill.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 9 a.m., for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for allowing me the opportunity to discuss this vital economic development issue for Upstate New York.

Chairman Oberstar, thank you first for your leadership on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and for bringing forward this bill.

As you know, this past February GAO reported that the very unique airport which is closest to our Nation's capital, National Airport, is underutilized. In fact, the GAO reported that National Airport is the least congested airport of the top 30 in the Nation.

Residents of my Upstate New York district want to continue visiting our Nation's capital for business or pleasure at a reasonable airfare. However, because a very few airlines control the vast majority of landing and takeoff slots at National, that is artificially limited.

Mr. Chairman, like all of my colleagues, I appreciate your strong leadership and guidance on aviation issues and your genuine concern for regional interests. I therefore respectfully request that you strongly consider adopting findings of GAO's conclusive report and increase flying at National Airport by a very modest two round trips per hour so that new competition can be added, so that fares can be decreased.

Mr. Speaker, last month the Bush administration dealt yet another blow to uninsured Americans, this time focused on millions of uninsured children in our Nation.

New guidelines set forth by the administration require that children must go without health insurance for at least 1 year before States will be allowed to provide them with coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program. The administration also requires States to enroll at least 95 percent of the children below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level before they can provide health coverage to other low- income children, a standard that no State in the country can currently meet. The Bush administration is limiting the very flexibility that has made the CHIP program successful.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable for the President to require low- income children to spend a year of their lives without health insurance, especially when we have a program in place that can provide them with the coverage they need today. It is time for the President to stop playing political games with the children's health care and to vow to work with us to strengthen, not weaken, the CHIP program.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 660 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 660.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 660 provides for consideration of H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act of 2007 under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate to be controlled by the Committee on Financial Services. The rule also makes in order the substitute reported by the Committee on Financial Services, modified by the amendment in part A of the Rules Committee report, as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The self-executing amendment in part A would ensure that the bill complies with the new PAYGO requirements. It would require the enactment of a joint resolution to permit Federal compensation under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. The joint resolution, approving a certification by the Secretary of Treasury, in concurrence with the Secretaries of State, Homeland Security and the Attorney General, that there has been an act of terrorism, would be considered by Congress under fast-track procedures.

The rule makes in order two amendments printed in the Rules Committee report, each debatable for 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Terrorism Insurance Program was originally enacted as a short-term backstop for an insurance industry that was very hard hit by the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. In the years since, we have seen that the private insurance market is unable to cover the risk of both domestic and foreign acts of terrorism without assistance.

The original legislation, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, referred to as TRIA, was set to expire at the end of 2005. The Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 extended the government backstop for two more years, through the end of this year, but left the long-term questions surrounding the program unanswered. Those unanswered questions include: whether the government-run terrorism insurance program is really necessary; how to manage the possibility of a nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack, and how best to allocate the risk of terrorist attack between the government and private insurers. The rule provides for consideration of a bill that answers those questions.

Experience has shown that there is a true need for government involvement in terrorism insurance. The exposure for private companies is just too great. In the wake of September 11, 2001, many companies opted to exclude terrorism risk from private insurance policies, leaving no coverage in the event of another attack. TRIA requires primary insurers to make terrorism insurance available to commercial clients that wish to purchase it while at the same time helping those insurers manage their exposure to risk of loss.

The legislation this rule provides for consideration will extend TRIA for 15 years and make necessary revisions aimed at furthering the development of a private market of terrorism risk insurance. Such a long-term extension is vital because it provides certainty and stability to the insurance and real estate markets.

People may think that TRIA is only an issue for businesses in New York City, but that is clearly not the case. In the upstate New York district which I represent, small insurance companies like Utica First, Preferred Mutual and Utica National felt the dramatic impact that 9/11 had on the private market. In the year that followed the September 11 attacks, Utica First saw the volume of policies they were writing in the New York City area increase 27 percent as other companies ceased offering coverage. In order to do so, they risked both their existing surplus and their industry ratings and also incurred greater expense because their own reinsurance required that they purchase a separate terrorism cover. Small companies like this, that continued to offer coverage, are to be commended for taking on greater risk exposure in order to provide the necessary coverage and allow businesses to continue in business and people to continue to work to support their families.

The legislation would also require insurers to offer coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorist acts. Small insurers, like those in my district, are especially concerned about the effect of adding the nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological requirements to TRIA, but the risk of such an attack is real, and not having any system in place would enhance the devastating effect such a horrific attack would have if it were to happen again in our country.

This bill strikes a good balance because it not only phases in the nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological coverage beginning in 2009, but also provides small insurers, those whose direct earned premium is less than $50 million, the ability to apply for an exemption of up to 2 years with the possibility of further extending that exemption.

This legislation would also make several other critical changes to the terrorism risk insurance program. It would change the definition of terrorism under TRIA to include domestic terrorism, and reset the program trigger level at $50 million. It would expand the program to provide for group life insurance coverage, would decrease deductibles for terrorist attacks costing over $1 billion, and reduce the trigger level in the event of such an attack. Finally, it would require studies on the development of a private insurance market for terrorism risk insurance.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a critical step in protecting our national and economic security in the fight against terrorism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

I think the gentleman is right, this may be unprecedented; but the attack on 9/11 was unprecedented as well, and sometimes unprecedented events require unprecedented action, and that's what we are attempting to do today, create a rule to enact legislation like TRIA to create a backstop so that insurance companies can continue to create a stable environment for business to thrive in New York City.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia asks, What is the

rush? He then talks about the theater of the absurd. What I find to be absurd is the fact that we are doing everything that we possibly can to try to prevent this legislation from being passed.

This is critical legislation. This is important not just to New Yorkers, this is important to the entire country. This is a critical piece of legislation that must get passed, and the steps that we are taking today are necessary if we are going to create the stability in business that is necessary to continue and allow our economy to grow.

I don't think it's absurd for the people who were there on 9/11. I don't think it's absurd for the insurance companies that now want to begin to insure the businesses and buildings in New York City. Oh, no, this is not absurd at all. This is the business of Congress. This is what we do, and this is what we do best.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from New York (Mr. King) for his words. He has worked hard on the TRIA legislation, and we appreciate that.

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

I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the fact that today, everything we hear from the other side is smoke and mirrors. They want to talk about everything except what we are here to talk about today, and that is the rule on the TRIA legislation.

My friend from Texas infers that the Rules Committee is not open, honest and ethical. Well, I resent that. I think we are very open, we are honest, and we are very ethical. He knows that, and he shouldn't put petty partisan politics ahead of what we are here today to do, and that is to pass a rule on TRIA legislation.

Protecting the security and safety of America is without question our top priority and the reason that we are here in Congress as Members of this institution. The horrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, had a devastating effect on so many people in this country; not just New Yorkers, but people all over this country.

It also had a devastating economic impact on the commercial insurance market. Many primary insurers stopped writing policies. Special guidelines were instituted when insuring buildings thought to be likely terrorist targets and other properties surrounding them. Reinsurers, those companies that insure the insurance companies, excluded terrorist events from coverage altogether.

To address this market failure, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, and that was under the Republican Congress, because it was the right thing to do. And we will continue to do the right thing here today.

TRIA has been a success. Primary insurers are able to write policies and business owners are able to obtain coverage. Stability was restored to this vital market. If we do not act now to extend TRIA, this program will expire and we will be back where we were following the September 11 attacks.

H.R. 2761 extends TRIA by 15 years to provide added certainty to this vital sector of our economy that a mere 2-year extension cannot provide. The bill also lays the groundwork for the inclusion of coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorist acts, while at the same time allowing for an exemption for small insurers that would be unfairly impacted by this necessary expansion.

The circumstances before us are unlike anything we have confronted in our Nation's history. We must not allow terrorist attacks to force valuable businesses to fail because they cannot afford insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today as a member of the new Democratic majority, watching out for the interests of our Nation's business community by providing much-needed predictability in the terrorism risk insurance market.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the great State of Ohio for organizing this and bringing us all together here, and I thank all of you for being here.

Like so many other Members of Congress, I have had an opportunity to go to Iraq. And recently I came back from there, about 3 weeks ago, and I couldn't help but be so impressed with the incredible job that our troops are doing there. The men and women that are there are doing everything that is asked of them and much more in an incredibly hostile environment.

And they're doing it not just as a job, but they're doing it with intensity and passion. And they're doing a great job at what they do in just incredibly hostile circumstances. I am convinced, after seeing the job that they did, that our military, in a just cause, could accomplish anything we ask of them, anything in the world. And I was just very impressed with how hard they're working.

But you can't help but be troubled by the fact that the mission there continues to change. I can't help but think about, the old example that they use in football is every time that the team sets up to kick a field goal they move the goalpost back. It just seems like that's what we're doing. First, as my friend from Vermont just said, we were told we were going to Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. That didn't pan out. We were told we had to remove a dictator in Saddam Hussein. Our soldiers did that, and they did it magnificently. Then we were told we had to stay until there were free elections. We had free elections. Then we were told that we had to stay there; in fact, we not only had to stay there, we had to increase our numbers there, we had to have a surge so that we could reduce the violence so that the government would have an opportunity, would have a chance to come together. And that's exactly what our soldiers did. And despite that fact, we are still told that we will continue to be there. This is just unimaginable.

Our soldiers have done everything that we have asked of them, and much more, in an incredibly hostile environment, and yet they continue to be told that they have to stay in Iraq. And for what?

I am convinced, after meeting with Dr. Salam al-Zubaie, the Deputy Prime Minister, that the factions in Iraq will continue to fight, they will continue to use America as a crutch for as long as they possibly can. We gave them time. We did exactly what we said we would do. And what did they do? They squandered that time. They continued to posture for a better position, and they continue to do that today. Blood is spilling, Iraqi blood, American blood, and they continue to posture. Violence increases, and they continue to posture. They refuse to come together. It is high time for us to allow Iraq to take over, to stand up for itself. They will stand up when we stand down.

The other thing that was very amazing, when you see it, and we talk about how much money we're spending there, we talk about the $16 million an hour, the $2 billion a week. And they sound like numbers until you actually go there and you see the amount of equipment and you see the amount of investment we are making there. And obviously that is something that we have been doing and we will continue to do. But when you think about the fights that we have here right on this floor, the debates that we have on this floor about things like SCHIP, about things like improving our infrastructure that's crumbling, about things that are good domestically for our economy, and we don't do them. And we discuss and continue to debate about the money, and yet we spend billions and billions of dollars in Iraq.

I think while we do that, countries like China continue to take money and they invest it in their economy. We need to make our investment in our domestic economy, in our bridges, in our infrastructure, in our economy, in our health care system, in education. Those are the things that the American people want. Those are the things that we ran on last year. Those are the things that we promised the American people. And those are the things that we need to continue to work on.

I thank you thank you very much, my colleagues from the freshman class, for being here today. And, Ms. Sutton, thank you very much for bringing us here.

Mr. Speaker, this week the Democratic Congress makes college more affordable for American students and families by sending the College Cost Reduction and Access Act to the President. After initially threatening a veto, President Bush now says he will sign the bill into law. That's good news for millions of students and their families who are trying to figure out how they're going to afford a college education.

Under President Bush, college tuition has increased 40 percent over inflation, putting college out of reach for many. While college costs have increased over the last 7 years, Pell Grants and other Federal aid have remained flat, which has created an imbalance in the grant-to-loan ratio that students face. For some who are fortunate enough to attend college, they are leaving with more than $20,000 in loan debt.

Our legislation begins to remedy that imbalance by providing the largest investment in college funding since passage of the GI Bill in 1944. Under our legislation, we increase Pell Grant scholarships by more than $1,000, and we cut student interest rates in half.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats promise to make college more affordable this week, and we are living up to that promise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Regional Economic and In Development Act of 2007.

I want to thank the distinguished Chairwoman of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee, Ms. Norton, the Full Committee Chairman, and the Ranking Members for delivering this legislation which authorizes three new economic development commissions--the Northern Border, Southeast Crescent, and Southwest Border Regional Commissions--and reauthorizes the successful Delta and Northern Great Plains Regional Commissions. These Commissions will help bring economic development to regions of our country that desperately need it.

Over the last several decades, Upstate New York has had a consistent pattern of economic distress as a result of substantial losses in the manufacturing sector, coupled with aging infrastructure and lack of opportunities for a skilled workforce. My district alone has seen a staggering loss of more than 14,000 manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2005. However, this isn't an anomaly, it is extremely characteristic of several States in the Northeast. A targeted regional approach can help bring back economic vitality to these regions.

This bipartisan legislation creates a Northern Border Regional Commission that will bring much needed job creation and economic development resources to the Northeast region. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Upstate New York will all benefit tremendously from the establishment of this Commission because it will assess and address the very specific needs, assets, and challenges of the region as a whole.

The Commission will create a Federal-State partnership where local development districts and other non-profits bring project ideas and priorities to the Commission from the local level to promote economic development

through regional planning, technical assistance, and funding of projects aimed at encouraging economic prosperity.

This Northern Border Regional Commission is modeled after the very successful Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) approach, an idea conceived by Chairman Oberstar, over 40 years ago.

Simply put, the numbers speak for themselves. Since its creation, the ARC has reduced the number of distressed counties in its region from 219 to 100, cut the poverty rate from 31 percent to 15 percent, and helped 1,400 businesses create 26,000 new jobs. I welcome the creation of similar Commissions with this kind of proven track record.

The Northern Border Regional Commission not only will extend benefits to economically distressed counties in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, but will also allow Upstate New York counties like Oneida, Herkimer, Cayuga, and Seneca to enjoy the same benefits their neighboring counties in the Southern Tier enjoy under the Appalachian Regional Commission.

We need to act now to ensure that every American has access to job training, employment-related education, and high-tech infrastructure, so that we can retain and grow our global competitive edge. And I am confident the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act will help us achieve that end.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which will help create parity for economically anemic regions across the country.

Madam Speaker, last week the Census Bureau came out with a new report that shows the number of children living without health insurance increased last year by 700,000. It is the second year in a row that the number of uninsured children has increased. Today, 8.7 million children in this country are going without the critical health care services they need to live a healthy and productive life.

Fortunately, this Democratic Congress has acted to reverse this disturbing trend. Last month, this House passed the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. The legislation provides an additional $50 billion in funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program which today provides 6 million children access to private health insurance.

Unfortunately, there are 6 million other children that are eligible for the program but are not currently enrolled. Our $50 billion investment would allow us to reach almost every

child who is currently eligible which would significantly reduce the number of uninsured children in America.

Madam Speaker, this Congress has acted. It is time for the President to join with us in prioritizing the health care needs of our children.

I thank my friend from Arkansas for yielding, and I would like to thank you for what you do for the Blue Dog Caucus.

You know, the thing that first attracted me to the Blue Dog Caucus was the fact that they believe so strongly in fiscal responsibility in the pay-as-you-go idea, and the fact that we have to tighten our belt, we have to make some very difficult decisions. It's not easy when there are things that we need for our district and things that we know we need here domestically, and yet we can't spend more than we have. And it's no different than we would in our own home. You don't buy things that we can't afford. We can't enact legislation, we can't create bureaucracies that we can't pay for. And that's why I'm so proud to be a member of the Blue Dog Caucus.

I did just return from Iraq just a few days ago. And I couldn't help, while I was there, noticing immediately the amount of money that we have spent in Iraq. You know, when you look at the fact that you ride along and you see that we have literally created, built whole cities in the middle of the desert, in the middle of this expansive environment we have actually created cities and the amount of money, the amount of cement, the amount of wood that we've used to build these bases and the amount of material that we have there. I can remember that in one of the bases we pulled up to one area, it was huge, and there was nothing but electric transformers in a huge field; and those were transformers that they were using to put new electric and bring new power to different places in Iraq. And then we drove a little further and there was another area with nothing but Humvees and another area with nothing but bulldozers. And you can't help but realize just how much money and how much time and expense we're expending to rebuild Iraq.

And during the course of our conversation while we were there, we were talking about some of the things to one of the members of the military, one of the things that they needed there. And I couldn't help but think back in my district in upstate New York, back in Utica, there are things that we need that we don't have. We need improvements to our airport that we don't have. We need improvements to our roads. And much like your district in Arkansas, we have been waiting for a connection between Utica and the city of Binghamton, a Route 12 extension. We've been waiting for years and years, since before I was born, for that; and still we talk about it. And yet we spend billions of dollars. You quoted the figure $16 million an hour we are spending in Iraq. We continue to spend it, and we've been doing it for years and years.

And while we continue to spend that money, we continue to spend resources that are critical to us while countries like China are continuing to invest

their money in their own economy, in creating jobs within their country. We need to be spending our money to create jobs in our country.

And, you know, while I was in Iraq, the one thing that I was struck by probably more than anything else is the incredible job that our troops are doing. Anybody that you talk to that's been to Iraq, the first thing they talk about is the incredible job that our troops are doing. And I couldn't help but think that any just cause anywhere in the world that we ask our troops to perform and complete, I have utter confidence that they can do it. Our military is just an incredible organization. They do what is asked of them and much, much more. And they have done the same in Iraq. And I think that it's time that we give them more direction in terms of a mission and that we start to give the Iraqi people a little more ability to stand on their own. I think when we start to bring our troops home, when we start to allow them to stand up and handle their own affairs, they will do it, and they will do it in a good way and in a fine way and we will be there to help them.

But, you know, there was a book written about 2,500 years ago by the Chinese general Sun Tzu, and it was called ``The Art of War.'' And in that he writes an interesting paragraph and he says that in any extended confrontation, regardless of how wise a nation's counselors are, no country can win in a prolonged war.

This war has been prolonged far too long. It is time, I believe, for us to focus upon what is important here domestically, that we stop focusing on spending so much money in Iraq and we begin to focus again on the things that are happening here in this country. So I believe that it's time that we allow the country of Iraq to stand up for itself, and that we begin to bring our troops home.

I thank you, and I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment would remove the right of a private company with a project that has already been approved by FERC to use the Federal Government's supreme power of eminent domain to take private property from landowners. Contrary to what the utility companies claim, my amendment would not leave an approved company without any recourse.

No, instead it would merely require the approved company to follow the existing State law procedure for obtaining a right-of-way. States have laws that help companies with approved power projects obtain the necessary right-of-ways, and these laws work. They have worked for many years. I know of no power line project anywhere in the country that has ever failed to be completed once it had been approved and the company held the necessary permits to begin construction.

We understand that there are serious energy needs facing this country that must be addressed swiftly and judiciously. All this amendment does is permit an already approved company from using Federal eminent domain to drag a property owner into Federal court and take his land. That is a supreme power of the Federal Government.

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue or liberal or conservative issue. This is about protecting the rights of the citizens of this country.

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

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my colleague from Texas. This amendment would not gut the bill. In fact, it would just give the States the right to have some input into where the power lines are going to be run in the State the same way that they have input in the State of Texas.

With that, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and fellow New Yorker (Mr. Hall).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is nothing about scare tactics. In fact, this morning I received notice from our Governor, who is a resident of New York City, supporting this amendment because this will help us get power to New York City in a responsible way. That's what this amendment is about. It's not about preventing it. It's about helping it to be done in a responsible way.

And with that, I yield 1 minute to my fellow New Yorker (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, there is an old saying that we should think globally but act locally. That is exactly what this amendment attempts to do. That is the idea behind this amendment.

We crafted it very narrowly, and despite some of the comments by the speakers about the problems that this would create, it does no such thing. In fact, it does just the opposite. This achieves all of the things that we need in this country. That is, getting energy and power to our large communities, to our large cities, to New York, to Los Angeles, to the places that need it.

It does it in a responsible way. It does it in such a way that the localities, the areas that we call the faucet, have some say in getting the power to the sink, and that's the area that FERC refers to as the place that needs the power, and, equally as important, that the people along the way have some say as well.

That's what this amendment does; and, as I say, it is supported by, as my friend, Mr. Hinchey, said, most of the Governors in this country.

The amendment deals with the concerns of localities. It deals with the constitutional rights, the States' rights that our States are most concerned with and, most importantly, it deals with the needs of all Americans.

I strongly support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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