Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce, along with Representatives Phil English and Mike Thompson, the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act of 2007. This legislation will allow immediate depreciation of the costs of new broadband infrastructure investments, speeding the deployment of broadband communications technology. The U.S. currently lags far behind many other industrialized nations in broadband deployment. At a time when America's global economic leadership is facing rising challenges from abroad, this bill will promote innovation and keep America competitive. By increasing the reach and capability of America's broadband network, the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act is a strategic investment that will benefit the education of our children, the delivery of health care and the overall economy. In the classroom, broadband will provide children and teachers with access to new information and learning tools, and allow for remote learning opportunities. At hospitals and doctors' offices, broadband will facilitate the application of information technology to health care, reducing costs and improving the quality of care that patients receive. Broadband will also increase productivity and efficiency in homes and at businesses, while giving our constituents access to information and communications capabilities as never before. The need for the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act is clear and now is the time for Congress to act. Similar legislation received broad bipartisan support in the past, with as many as 225 House cosponsors and 65 Senate cosponsors. This bill was an important priority for my late husband, who worked along with Mr. English, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, and the late Senator Moynihan to craft it in 2000. It passed the Senate three times, only to be stripped out in conference by the House. I wish that our constituents were already benefiting from the effects of this legislation, and we should not delay enactment any longer. The Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act will provide a temporary, two-tiered tax incentive to stimulate new investment in this crucial infrastructure: 50 percent expensing for investment in ``current- generation'' broadband infrastructure in rural and underserved areas, and full expensing for ``next generation'' broadband investments in those same areas, as well as residential areas generally. The purpose of this mechanism is to push broadband providers to roll out services in areas and at speeds that would not be economically feasible in the absence of this legislation. Therefore, this bill will not reward action that is already occurring. To facilitate that goal, the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act it is designed to be technology neutral, making delivery of service, not the delivery medium, the factor for eligibility. This will ensure that this tax incentive does not inhibit competition among broadband providers, thereby maximizing choice for consumers. Any broadband provider meeting the required speeds, measured in megabits of data delivered to and from the consumer per second, is eligible, whether such service is provided over telephone wire, cable modem, optical fiber, wireless, satellite, or other forms of technology. It is past time that Congress took action to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband communications technology. The Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act is a practical and effective mechanism that will help provide our constituents access to this important technology. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation to bolster the innovation and competitiveness of this Nation.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this rule and to enthusiastically support this solid and balanced budget resolution. It invests in strategic priorities for the future, while putting the Nation on the path to fiscal stability. In approaching this debate, I would ask that Members and our constituents keep in mind that we are not starting from scratch. The previous leadership left us with a fiscal disaster that can't be repaired overnight. But this budget gets us on the right track in a responsible and strategic way. That is governing. Governing is not easy. It requires making hard choices. But making hard choices today is better than Congress abdicating its responsibility to choose altogether. Because the alternative to making hard choices is passing debt on to tomorrow's decisionmakers, leaving our children and grandchildren, like my own Anna and Robby, with a diminished quality of life. With PAYGO rules, the budget draws a line in the sand. If you want new mandatory spending or tax cuts, find a way to pay for it. Shifting the burden on to the next generation is no longer an option under this budget. We are not going to eradicate the deficit as quickly as some would like, and we can't spend as much on domestic priorities as some would like. But this budget gives us the type of solid foundation that will allow us to tackle our fiscal challenges, while still investing in the most important priorities. This budget recognizes that we need to invest in healthcare and education for our children. It recognizes that we must move to a clean energy economy by driving research and development and by promoting scientific innovation and that we must provide for our veterans, who have served honorably and deserve the best care possible. Finally, this budget recognizes that the Tax Code should be fair for hardworking families. All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner, while ensuring the security of our Nation. That is a tremendous achievement, and I thank Chairman Spratt for his diligence in achieving this excellent legislative product. I urge my colleagues to provide the type of broad and enthusiastic support that it deserves.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act (H.R. 1401). Our country needs this bill. Our communities need this bill. This legislation is very timely for my district. On March 15th, a train trestle burned down just outside central Sacramento. The fire sent a dark plume of smoke into the sky. The residents of our region received quite a scare. Children were kept inside because authorities could not determine if the smoke from the trestle fire was toxic. Fortunately, no one was hurt. The incident is not being investigated as a terrorist attack. However, this fire showcased the impact that our rail vulnerabilities can have on communities. In Sacramento, our train tracks form a ring around our most populated areas. If the trestle had caught fire just a few miles down the track, houses would have burned. If the train had exploded, or if it had leaked hazardous material, my constituents could have died. I cannot let that happen. That is why this legislation is so important. It makes critical advancements in rail security policy. I am grateful that Representative Markey has addressed the transport of hazardous materials through heavily populated areas. As the situation in Sacramento demonstrated, we must begin to reroute hazardous shipments to avoid populated areas. When possible, we must integrate new technologies to secure these shipments. I look forward to working with Mr. Markey to implement this proposal. It is also important to note that more people than ever are using public transit. Over 10 billion trips were taken on public transportation last year. There has been a 30 percent increase in public transit use in the last decade. This increased ridership is great news. However, it is important that we invest in security funding to match growing demand. This legislation will do just that. Finally, I want to commend Chairman Bennie Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee for his leadership on this issue. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I have seen how smoothly Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson have collaborated. They have done a great job dealing with the jurisdictional issues raised by transit security. Their work demonstrates the level of commitment that is needed to secure our communities. Such collaboration is a refreshing change. It should serve as an example for us all as we tackle other pressing issues facing the 110th Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the Rule, so that we can enact this important legislation. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 270 Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the amendments printed in sections 4 and 5 shall be in order as though printed as the last two amendments in the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Dent of Pennsylvania or his designee. Such amendments shall each be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Sec. 4. The first amendment referred to in section 3 is as follows: At the end of title I of the bill, add the following new section (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time and her leadership on the committee. Mr. Speaker, this Congress is on the cusp of an historic step, a first step to changing Iraq policy, enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home. The bill made in order under this rule is not perfect, but it deserves our strong support because it offers us our best chance at forcing a change of direction in Iraq after 4 long years of mismanagement. Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the beginning, and I believe we must bring our troops home soon and in a responsible way. The President's reckless insistence on sticking to a failed policy in Iraq underlines the need for Congress to show leadership. This legislation gives us the chance for the first time to take a concrete step towards bringing the war to a close. This bill does not go as far as I would like. I support a more rapid redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I also strongly believe the President should not be allowed to waive the legislation's troop readiness requirements. But it has become clear in recent weeks that this is the most aggressive approach that can obtain the necessary votes to pass this House. That is the reality here. This is, after all, the legislative branch. That means we can't change the policy if we can't pass the bill. Enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home is a very significant leap forward in our Iraq policy. It provides a foundation for further action and increases pressure on the President. That is why the President opposes it so strongly. Defeating this bill would ultimately play into the President's hands, resulting in the eventual passage of a blank-check bill that places fewer restraints on the President. Ultimately Congress faces a choice: Do we set a timetable to bring the troops home while providing for the troops in harm's way, or do we give the administration a blank check for a war without end? I choose to begin steps to end the war. For that reason I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, the distinguished chairman of our committee, Ms. Slaughter for the time and for her leadership. Mr. Speaker, in the next twenty-four hours, this Congress will undertake a historic first step to changing our Iraq policy. The bill made in order under this rule is not a perfect bill. But it deserves our strong support because it will bring a critical change of direction in Iraq after four long years of mismanagement. Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the beginning. And I believe we must bring our troops home soon and in a responsible way. Our men and women in uniform have done everything we have asked of them. They have endured multiple deployments and extended separation from their loved ones. They have followed orders into combat often without the proper body armor or equipment. These are signs of an inexcusable lack of leadership from the President. Rather than change direction, the President has chosen to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq. This goes against the advice of his generals . . . against the advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group . . . and against the expressed wishes of the voters. The President's reckless insistence on sticking to a failed policy in Iraq underlines the need for Congress to show leadership. I support Congress taking firm steps to change our Nation's direction in Iraq. And I have cosponsored legislation to establish a timetable for redeployment of our troops. As I said at the beginning, Congress has a historic opportunity to demonstrate its responsible leadership with this bill. And that's the prism through which I evaluate my vote this week. The decision comes down to this--do we want to enact a bill that has flaws but does contain a fixed timetable to bring our troops home? Or do we want to vote down the fixed timetable and endorse President Bush's ability to continue to wage this war without any limits? This bill does not go as far as I would like. I support a more rapid redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I also strongly believe the President should not be allowed to waive the legislation's troop readiness requirements. Because of his gross mismanagement of the conflict, I believe the President has abdicated any right to deference on that front. Having said that, it has become clear in recent weeks that this is the most aggressive approach that can obtain the necessary votes to pass the House of Representatives. That is disappointing to me, but that is the reality here. This is, after all, the legislative branch. That means we can't change the policy if we can't pass the bill. Enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home is a very significant leap forward in our Iraq policy. It provides a foundation for further action and increases pressure on the President. That is why the President opposes it so strongly. To defeat this bill would result in the eventual passage of a blank check bill that places even fewer responsibilities on the President. I believe it is simply unacceptable to give the President permission to mismanage the war as he chooses. Ultimately, Congress faces a choice: Do we set a timetable to bring the troops home while providing for our troops in the field at every moment? Or do we give the Administration a blank check for a war without end? I believe Congress must choose the former. This legislation, whatever its flaws may be, enacts a timetable to bring our troops home while giving them the resources they need for protection while they are still in harm's way. For that reason, I am voting yes on the supplemental appropriations bill. I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce an important bill that anticipates and addresses our communities' immediate and future transportation needs. Today I am introducing the Flexibility Incentive Grant Pilot Program, or as I call it--the FIG program. This legislation creates a $250 million annual grant program that provides a two-prong approach to growing our national transit program while rewarding states and localities that are making an investment in their transit infrastructure. Specifically, this legislation will provide incentives to encourage States and counties to establish new sources of revenue for transit projects and services. Such sources may include the dedication of new State motor fuels taxes, sales taxes, interest on existing highway funds, motor vehicle excise taxes, tolls, or other sources of funding. Furthermore, this legislation rewards those States that currently invest in transit by making them eligible to receive ``bonus'' payments by the Secretary of Transportation so that they can continue to invest in their transportation infrastructure. I look at this as a federal transportation tax return for those states and localities that invest in their transportation infrastructure. Transportation is about partnerships--and funding our infrastructure requires a strong commitment between federal, State and local governments. We need to grow our transit system in order to meet our growing population and infrastructure demands that our states and localities are experiencing. Fortunately, some States are already making a substantial investment in their transportation infrastructure. For example, in my home state of California, voters last November approved $19.9 billion in transportation bonds to fund a variety of transportation projects and initiatives. At the local level, citizens are willing to tax themselves to pay for much need transportation improvements. For example, in my district of Sacramento, a recent survey revealed that 74 percent of Sacramento County residents would support a ballot tax measure for transit and roads. Our citizens understand the need for more transportation funds and are proving this as a priority at the ballot box. The federal government must play a key leadership role in encouraging this type of initiative. Why is this so important? Last week, the American Public Transportation Association announced that Americans took a record 10.1 billion trips on local public transportation in 2006. Over the last decade, public transportation's growth rate outpaced population growth and the growth rate of vehicle miles traveled on our Nation's highways. There is great demand on our national transit infrastructure. Since 1995 public transit use has increased by 30 percent, which is double the population growth in our country, 12 percent, during that same time period. Despite record levels of federal investment and the display of local jurisdictions to tax themselves for the purposes of increasing the level and quality of public transportation services, we have to make sure that State funding, across our country, keeps pace. State Legislatures are facing huge deficits and some States have little choice but to freeze or cut funding for many important programs, including transit services. My legislation is designed to encourage States and counties to think twice before they cut transit funding by providing ``bonus'' Federal transportation dollars to those States that increase public transportation funding or take steps to increase funding. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, my colleagues and I will be looking for new and innovative ways to fund our transportation programs in the coming years. The Flexibility Incentive Grant Pilot Program is a good place to start this conversation. I ask that my colleagues support my legislation.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained Monday, March 12, 2007, and missed three suspension votes. Please note in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record that had I been present, I would have voted as noted below: Rollcall vote 136: ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 137: ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 138: ``yea.''

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will better prepare our scientists to be professionally competitive and ensure that the American people benefit more directly from the large annual investment that we make in our research enterprise. I am proud to introduce the Scientific Communications Act of 2007. This program will train young scientists to more effectively communicate scientific and other technical topics to policymakers. The improvement in communications skills will also enhance the interaction of the scientific community with business leaders, the media, and the general public. This initiative will foster greater cross-disciplinary education and improve public access to scientific expertise. Innovation and competitiveness are at the forefront of public policy discussions. A key element to ensuring continued American excellence in science and technology innovation is providing our scientists with the skills necessary to offer their valuable expertise and insight to the public policy dialogue. By doing so, we will accelerate the speed with which the government, the media, and the general public are able to access information on new discoveries in science, technology, health and medicine, and other technical topics. Better access to expertise from our scientific community will ensure that we, the policymakers, can make the most informed and beneficial decisions possible when shaping new policy directions for our country. This legislation will provide resources to the National Science Foundation to expand its ability to offer communications training to scientists. Some training programs funded by the NSF and other agencies have already made the commitment to implement such training. For example, some awardees of NSF's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program provide communications training for their students. I applaud the forward thinking of those program administrators. Unfortunately these are exceptions, whereas training our scientists to be effective communicators should be a standard practice. This legislation is designed to encourage the integration of communications training into more scientific programs. This type of training will ensure that our scientists are better equipped to incorporate their expertise into the public dialogue on science and technology-related issues. Members of Congress should take particular interest in this initiative, since we regularly invite scientists to provide us with first-hand knowledge on such topics as climate change, nanotechnology, and new research into health and disease. To ensure that those important conversations continue to be fruitful, curricula for the science communications program proposed in this bill might include case studies of actual Congressional testimony by scientific experts to demonstrate the importance of clear and concise expertise in public policy. While the training provided within this legislation focuses on the interaction between scientists and the public policy community, the benefits will spread more broadly. The ability to clearly explain technical topics to nonscientific audiences will translate to other industries, all of which will benefit the United States research enterprise and, consequently, our economy. Training our early-career scientists to discuss technical topics with nonscientific audiences will have the effect of augmenting the engagement of the scientific community with other professional fields. This might, for example, lead to more frequent interaction with business leaders and venture capitalists to inform the private sector and investors about cutting- edge technologies and improve the transfer of research discoveries to the marketplace. The Scientific Communications Act of 2007 will add an important new dimension to the education of American scientists. The ability of the United States to remain an economic leader depends, in large part, on our continued successes in science and technology research and development. We must, therefore, ensure that our scientists are equipped with the skills to provide their expertise to policymakers, business and community leaders, and the general public. This initiative will enhance the dialogue on science- and technology-related topics and facilitate the development of fully informed public policy. I ask the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting this legislation.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, wastewater infrastructure may not be the most glamorous of issues. Nonetheless, it is an important one for the health of our environment and our constituents. No American should have to walk outside after a storm to see sewage in the streets. None of our constituents should have to fear that swimming or boating in rivers will expose them to industrial waste. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that our country's combined sewers are not up to the task of cleaning our waters. The good news is that the underlying bill made in order under this open rule will help our local municipalities fix this problem. It is an opportunity to invest in our national infrastructure, protect our environment, and secure our public health. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 214 provides for consideration of H.R. 569, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2007, under an open rule with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be considered as read. The rule provides that any amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute must be printed in the Congressional Record prior to consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, House Resolution 214 is an open rule. This is the third open rule recommended by the Rules Committee during the 110th Congress. The committee's fourth open rule will be considered on the floor tomorrow. The Democratic majority is backing up its commitment to greater openness with real action. The Rules Committee's two prior open rules permitted Members to offer 19 amendments on the floor. The House adopted the overwhelming majority of them. It goes to show the Members often can improve legislation when given the opportunity; and I am sure that we will have a good debate today, also. The underlying legislation made in order under this rule represents a long-overdue, necessary investment in our Nation's clean water infrastructure. The Water Quality Investment Act provides sorely needed funding for cities and States to upgrade combined sewer systems. Mr. Speaker, we all take our sewer systems for granted. Most of our country's wastewater infrastructure is out of sight and, for the majority of our constituents, it is out of mind as well. But once these sewers back up and overflow into our streets and rivers, sewers become an urgent issue. Combined sewers are an older technology. They were built back when it made sense to collect wastewater and storm runoff in the same pipes. They do not have the same capacity of more modern infrastructure. During heavy storms, they often back up and overflow. When this happens, untreated wastewater stagnates in our streets and pollutes our rivers. Raw sewage seeps into basements, public parks and other areas where young children play. Public health is severely impacted. The long-term investment fallout can be even worse. My hometown of Sacramento struggles with the problems posed by combined sewers. During the heavy winter storms which periodically sweep through California, these sewers in our central city can overflow. When this happens, over 500,000 gallons of wastewater flow into our public waterways and neighborhoods. My constituents already face dangers of flooding from the two large rivers which ring our city. They should not have to worry about additional flooding from our underground sewers. This problem is not unique to Sacramento. Over 700 cities across the country have combined sewer systems. These cities need help from the Federal Government to undertake the costly task of upgrading their infrastructure. A vote for this bill before us today is an investment in the health of these cities and towns all throughout our country. I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for the focus he has shown in shepherding this bill through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This bill became trapped in committee under the previous majority. I think we are all happy to see it finally make it to the floor under the new majority. We all have a stake in keeping our infrastructure up to date and protecting our constituents' health. Upgrading combined sewers today will do both of these things. I urge all Members to pass this fair and open rule and to support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, I am truly proud to see the Employee Free Choice Act on the floor of the House. This represents a tremendous step forward for working families in this country. I want to thank Chairman Miller for crafting this excellent legislation and for his tireless efforts on behalf of workers. A little less than a year ago, Chairman Miller and I held a forum on this legislation in my hometown of Sacramento. We heard emotional testimony from workers about their experiences in the workplace. They had been subjected to coercion and intimidation--and some had even been fired--simply because of their desire to join a union. After sharing encounter after encounter, they asked Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. They know that this legislation would protect them from these abuses. It would repair the cracks in the current system. And it would allow them to make a real choice in deciding to join a union. It is one thing to talk in the abstract about the policy. It is quite another to see first hand the human face, the real life consequences of that policy. What we are talking about is helping working Americans-- the middle class--meet the needs of their families. Congress must take advantage of this chance to act. A strong middle class has been the bedrock of expanded prosperity and opportunity in this country. And our middle class families are at a critical juncture. They face some daunting challenges. Wages are not keeping up with inflation. Yet, the costs the typical middle class family faces--such as housing, health care, transportation and college--continue to rise dramatically. We risk losing the strong middle class that has been the backbone of this Nation. Throughout our history, protecting the right to organize has played a critical role in improving the wages and quality of life for working people, and in growing the middle class. To preserve the middle class, it is critical that we continue to keep the central promise of our Nation's labor laws--that workers be empowered to make their own decisions about a collective bargaining representative. NLRB elections, as they exist today, often do not allow such a choice. And that's where the Employee Free Choice Act comes in. As Chairman Miller has explained so well, it will take important steps to level the playing field for workers who are trying to organize. It will allow employees to make a real choice to join a union without intimidation. And it will provide for stronger penalties when companies engage in illegal practices. Because the right to organize and form a union is fundamental to ensuring a fair balance of power in the workplace. And you know, this is not an anti-business bill, as its being portrayed by its opponents. This is a pro-workplace bill. What I mean is that when you have a card check system, it makes for a successful workplace--for the company and for workers. At the forum I held with Chairman Miller in Sacramento, we heard from a second panel of workers whose employer had voluntarily agreed to a card check system. This employer, and the many others that have agreed to a card check system, understand there is a benefit to treating employees with dignity and respect. They understand that when a company lets workers weigh the pros and cons of joining a union--without harassment or intimidation--those workers will be more productive and more committed to the success of the company. Frankly, if you care about working families, these reforms are simply common sense. They will make the organizing process simpler, more fair, and most importantly, ensure that the fundamental right of choosing whether or not to join a union rests squarely where it belongs: with this Nation's workers. I promised my constituents that I would do everything I could do get this bill passed in the House. So I am proud that it is on the floor today. Members have an opportunity--by voting in favor of this legislation--to stand with the working families of this country. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of that opportunity.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I am hopeful today. Finally, 4 years into a very controversial war, Congress will begin to fulfill its constitutional responsibility as Representatives of the people. This week, every Member of the House of Representatives has had an opportunity to express their views on the war in Iraq. And today, every Member will cast their vote for or against the President's escalation of the war. This is only right. For my part, I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. Our need for a change of direction could not be more clear. But rather than change direction, the President proposes that we continue down our current disastrous path, only at a faster pace and with more human life placed in harm's way. We should be bringing troops home, not sending more there. We should be ending this war, not escalating it. Considering this resolution is only the first step of many Congress will need to take to force a change in direction, but as Thomas Jefferson once said, honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom. Congress writes that chapter with this resolution, but it is only the first chapter. Sadly, the burden created by the lack of honesty and wisdom this administration has brought to this conflict is shouldered by our brave men and women in uniform. Two years ago, I spoke with a group of women in Sacramento whose husbands were serving in the National Guard in Iraq. One woman told me she had to buy her husband a Kevlar vest and a canteen before he deployed to Iraq, something all too many families were doing for their loved ones because the military was not providing it. A short time later, the administration assured the public that the issue had been addressed. And yet just this week we heard reports that the Army lacks armored Humvees and other equipment necessary for the troop increase the President is implementing; once again, a failure in vision and planning, and once again, our troops pay the price. Escalation of this conflict will further increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point. Every Member of this Chamber knows this. Earlier this month, I spoke with a friend and reservist in Sacramento named Richard Beach. Richard shipped out to Iraq 4 years ago as a chaplain in the Army Reserves. He is home now. But he still keeps in touch with his old unit. Richard shared with me a note he sent to some of his fellow members of the 114th. He wrote, ``I remember 4 years ago we were getting ready for our trip to Fort Lewis and then on to Iraq. I hope as the fourth anniversary of the war comes up, you are all in good health and living life to the fullest. I, too, pray that soon this war will end and we will stop sending our soldiers off to war.'' Four years later, he reports that many of the same soldiers and their families are making the same sacrifice. But that is a heartbreaking reality here. Implementing the President's policy will mean that members of his regiment along with so many others will have to endure more and more of the back-to-back deployments to Iraq. The notion of shared sacrifice is something that helped make this country great. Americans are strong believers in shared sacrifice. But all too often in this war, only our troops and their families share the sacrifice. That is too much to ask on behalf of policies that have not worked. The administration offers us scant reason to believe this troop increase will work when it has tried and failed with several previous troop increases. This proposal offers us nothing but more of the same. Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. It is our political leadership that has failed. There is a saying, It takes two people to speak the truth: one to speak it and one to hear it. I hope the administration will choose to hear the truth and I hope that we pass this resolution today.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the time and for her outstanding leadership on our committee. Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. There is no issue more serious or more urgent. The American people said loud and clear in the last election that they consider bringing this war to a close to be the singular imperative of their leaders. Yet rather than beginning to bring the troops home, the President has proposed escalating this conflict. The American people deserve to know where their elected representatives stand on this, the most critical issue at this moment in history. This week the people will get their answer. Mr. Speaker, here is where I stand: I opposed this war from the beginning, and I support several responsible proposals to bring this war to a close. I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. It will most likely result in an increase in violence while only postponing the hard political choices the Iraqi people must make. It will also increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point. Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to make clear that Iraq has spiraled into civil war because of the failure of this country's political leadership, not our troops. Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. The real tragedy is how ill served they have been by their political leadership. I have heard firsthand from many families in Sacramento the impact this has had on their lives. Linda, a concerned mother, told me about her son, Nicholas, who serves as an Army sergeant in the 82nd Airborne in Germany. Shortly, he will be returning to Iraq for his third tour. And there are some 30 soldiers in the Sacramento area who have died in this war. I have met several times with members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Every Member knows what I am talking about. We have all done it. We all know the pain. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this administration has failed to meet the most basic requirements of responsible leadership. As a result, it has abdicated any claim to deference from this Chamber on this war and has certainly relinquished the moral authority to send men and women into this catastrophe. Undoubtedly, this Chamber will need to take more forceful action if we are to bring this war to a conclusion. But today is an important first step. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to oppose this gravely mistaken proposal to escalate the war. Mr. Speaker, this debate is long overdue. There is no issue more serious . . . or more urgent. The American People sent a message in the last election. That message was that they consider bringing this war to a close to be the singular imperative of their leaders. Yet rather than beginning to bring troops home, the President has proposed escalating this conflict . . . sending tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq. Rather than change direction . . . they would instead continue down our current, disastrous path . . . only at a faster pace and with more human life placed in harm's way. This week, every Member of the House of Representatives will have an opportunity to let their constituents know where they stand on the President's proposed escalation. That is only right. The American people deserve to know where their elective representatives stand on this, the most critical issue at this moment of our history. Mr. Speaker, here's where I stand. I opposed this war from the beginning, and I support several responsible proposals to bring this war to a close. I believe the President's proposed escalation would be a tragic mistake. His stubborn insistence on pursuing the present course has been rejected by our military leaders . . . the independent Iraq study group . . . and a strong majority of the public. And with good reason. This escalation will most likely result in an increase in violence while only postponing the hard political choices the Iraqi people must make. Escalation of this conflict will also increase the strain on a military that is already stretched to the breaking point. Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to make clear that Iraq has spiraled into civil war because of the failure of this country's political leadership . . . not our troops. Our brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them. They courageously put their lives on the line every day for us. The real tragedy is how ill-served our men and women in uniform have been by their political leadership. I have heard firsthand from many families in Sacramento about the impact this has had on their lives. In 2005, I spoke with a group of women whose husbands were serving in the National Guard in Iraq. One woman told me she bought her husband a Kevlar vest before he deployed . . . something all too many families were doing for their loved ones because the military wasn't providing it. Imagine the stress . . . sending a loved one into danger without the confidence that he would be given the needed equipment for protection. And I have heard countless stories about the hardships being created by the multiple tours this conflict has demanded. Linda, a concerned mother from Sacramento, told me about her son, Nicholas, who serves as an Army sergeant in the 82nd Airborne in Germany. He lives on-base with his wife and two children, ages four and five. Another child is on the way. Nicholas recently learned that he was going to have to return to Iraq for his third tour. Linda wrote me and said that his family . . . and I'm quoting . . . ``. . . will be all alone in Germany when he leaves and each time he has gone, the children have terrible nightmares and anger issues because they do not understand the long separations.'' Another Sacramento couple that wrote me are the proud parents of three Army soldiers . . . one is currently serving his second tour in Iraq . . . the other two have already completed two tours in Iraq. They ask . . . will their sons be asked to go back a third time? My friend Richard Beach served as a chaplain in the U.S. Army Reserves in Iraq. Richard served in Iraq early in the conflict, and realized that four years since he went there, many of his fellow reservists are still serving there. Richard shared with me a note he sent to some of his fellow members of the 114th. He wrote . . . and I quote . . . ``I remember four years ago we were getting ready for our trip to Fort Lewis and then on to Iraq. I hope as the fourth anniversary of the war comes up you are all in good health and living life to the fullest. I too pray that soon this war will end, and we will stop sending our soldiers off to war.'' Four years later . . . and still many of the same soldiers and their families are making the same sacrifice. But that is the heartbreaking reality here. There are some 30 soldiers in the Sacramento area who have died in this war. I've met several times with members of the National Guard and Reserve and their families. Every member knows what I am talking about. We've all done it. We all know the pain. The notion of ``shared sacrifice'' is something that helped make this country great. But with this administration . . . only our soldiers and their families share in the sacrifice. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this country has tried troop increases before . . . to no avail. Sadly, this administration simply lacks credibility when arguing that this proposal will work. As a result of this administration's failure to meet the most basic requirements of responsible leadership, it has abdicated any claim to deference from this chamber on this war . . . and it has certainly relinquished the moral authority to send additional men and women into this catastrophe. Today's step is only a first step. Undoubtedly, this chamber will need to take more forceful action if we are to bring this war to a conclusion. But it is an important first step. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution . . . and to oppose this gravely mistaken proposal to escalate the war.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California (Mr. Berman) for yielding me time; and I would like to thank my good friend from California (Mr. Honda) for his leadership on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today is a reminder that from great injustice can come great awakening. We take up this resolution to mark the 65th anniversary of Executive Order 9066. The resolution is a reminder that each of us has a responsibility to ensure that something like Executive Order 9066 never happens again. In a time of war, thousands of innocent American citizens were rounded up, forcibly removed from their homes, and shipped to internment camps. Sadly, this was an avoidable consequence of racial prejudice and wartime hysteria. The government at all levels was blinded by war. It is imperative that we learn the lesson this moment in history has taught us. That is why I applauded the creation of a grant program to preserve the internment camps and related historical sites where Japanese Americans were detained during World War II. We must preserve these camps as a physical, tangible representation of our government's failure to protect the constitutional right of every American, and also as a symbol of our Nation's ability to acknowledge our mistakes. Further, these designations will ensure that future generations will be able to visit the internment camps to gain a better understanding of the previous generation's experience. Mr. Speaker, we may have won World War II; however, we were not victorious because of our treatment of Japanese, Italian, and German Americans, but in spite of it. Now, 65 years later, we are once again engaged in armed conflict overseas, and once again the undertones of suspicion and mistrust toward particular groups of people lurk beneath the surface of our society, which is why it is more important than ever to recall our past, so we do not repeat our mistakes. I hope every American will take this day to reaffirm their commitment to our Constitution and the rights and protections it guarantees to all of us. The resolution before us today recognizes the past injustices and points the way toward a future where such wrongs are no longer perpetuated in this country. Each Member of this Congress as a servant of the people is duty bound to apply these lessons of the past to the challenges we now face. In doing so, we show our continued efforts toward ensuring that our country avoids similarly misguided policies now and in the future.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, almost a year and a half after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it is clear that more needs to be done to protect and prepare homeowners from future catastrophic flooding. This is why I have reintroduced the ``Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2007'' The intent of this legislation is to increase the overall participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) while moving the program toward long-term stability and solvency. My legislation will forge a stronger partnership between the Federal Government and local floodplain managers. It will: Create a grant program within FEMA to educate property owners about their flood risk and about the importance of flood insurance; and Funds this grant program at $50 million dollars annually over 5 years. People at risk of flooding need to know their options and our local floodplain managers are our best partners in this effort. To put it quite simply, with 20,000 participating communities in NFIP-one size does not fit all. Our local partners know the risks, they know the landscape and in many cases they know the people. They know how to reach out to the people in their flood plain. They can focus on the estimated 20 to 25 percent of property owners who have fallen through the cracks of our flood insurance system. People who are supposed to carry flood insurance, but do not carry it. Or use the money for an educational campaign directed towards people living in areas protected by levees, but not subject to the Federal flood insurance requirement. Spreading the message: Levees can fail or overtop in severe weather. So it is common sense to carry flood insurance, even if the federal government no longer requires it. This program can work. A little over a year ago, with the support of a $162,000 FEMA grant, my local flood protection body, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), conducted just such a flood insurance outreach initiative. SAFCA reached out to more than 45,000 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholders in the American River floodplain. In February of 2005, this densely populated region was released from the Federal flood insurance requirement. SAFCA's efforts yielded impressive results. More than one year after SAFCA conducted outreach, seventy-four percent of the 45,000 NFIP policyholders who were removed from the Federal requirement had maintained their flood insurance protection. Of this group, forty-three percent now carry Preferred Risk flood insurance. Preferred Risk Policies provide property owners, who have been released from the Federal requirement, but remain at risk of flooding, with full flood insurance protection for about half the price of a Standard flood policy. Because of their lower cost, it is likely that these Preferred Risk Policies will result in a higher level of policy retention over time. Through this partnership with SAFCA, FEMA was able to retain a high number of flood insurance policies in the Sacramento region--a region that accounts for nearly 1 in 4 of all flood insurance policies in California. Increasing the number of people who carry and hold on to their flood insurance will only strengthen the National Flood Insurance Program. And as Katrina made painfully clear: We need a strong and functional program to be there for our constituents in times of crisis. While this grant program would be funded at $50 million dollars annually and authorized for 5 years, I want to emphasize that this grant program has an excellent return on its investment. For FEMA to recoup its initial grant to SAFCA, five hundred and fifty Preferred Risk Policies had to be sold to property owners who otherwise would have canceled their flood insurance. SAFCA accomplished this . . . more than 20 times over. Because of the FEMA and SAFCA partnership, more than 35,000 property owners who did not have to carry flood insurance stayed in the Federal flood insurance pool. What is more, nearly 13,000 policyholders in the American River floodplain switched to Preferred Risk Policies. In short, FEMA got its money's worth. And this says nothing of the Sacramento premiums that will continue to come into the Federal flood insurance pool each year these policyholders maintain their flood insurance. Again, most of these policyholders no longer have to buy flood insurance. They do so because it is the safe thing to do. Because SAFCA has alerted them to the on-going flood risk in their community. And because they saw what happened on the gulf coast. If we can have this type of success in Sacramento, I am confident it can be replicated across the country. These local outreach efforts will augment and benefit FEMA's existing marketing program by targeting property owners who are most likely to leave the NFIP--those who have been or will be released from the Federal flood insurance requirement. The lesson learned here is that people whose houses, apartments and businesses are vulnerable to flooding are willing to enter and stay in the National Flood Insurance Program when they are informed of the risk they face and the options available to them. Let me be clear, I speak from experience. When it comes to flood risk, my district of Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in the Nation. My highest priority is to provide the city of Sacramento, my neighbors and my constituents with the best flood protection possible. We are making strides in strengthening and reinforcing the levees in Sacramento and making improvements to Folsom Dam--but whenever I talk about these efforts I remind my constituents, ``If you live behind a levee, you should purchase flood insurance.'' Finally, I am encouraged by the efforts we are making as a nation to develop a comprehensive flood protection agenda. FEMA is in the process of implementing their Map Modernization Program that will update our Nation's flood maps. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a national levee inventory. When completed, this inventory will provide communities a greater understanding of their flooding vulnerabilities. It will also provide us with a good indication as a country as to what long term investments need to be made toward our flood protection infrastructure. Both the FEMA Remapping initiative and the levee inventory are important to the long term safety and economic security of our country. The ``Flood Insurance Community Outreach Grant Program Act of 2007'' would be an excellent resource for communities to augment these initiatives. This bill is a step in the right direction in providing for comprehensive flood protection for property owners and communities. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for yielding me time. He has quickly become an excellent contributor to the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, Federal energy policy has been lagging behind forward- looking States like California. It is now time for the Federal Government to lead America's transformation to a clean energy economy. Here in Congress, we must enact smart policies that demonstrate a serious commitment to changing the way this Nation produces and consumes energy. In the House, we took an important first step as part of the 100- hours agenda when we repealed $14 billion in subsidies and incentives for oil companies, and redirected that money to a clean energy fund. That legislation sent a clear and strong signal to our constituents and to industry. I can tell you that businesses, universities and research institutions in my hometown of Sacramento are enthusiastic about helping America move forward on clean energy technologies. One of those technologies, biofuels, has tremendous potential to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and if we are serious about incorporating alternative fuels into the economy, we need to ensure that our infrastructure is compatible with them. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 547 because it is a commonsense next step on biofuels. Chairman Gordon's legislation will allow for research and development to ensure that alternative fuels, such as E-85, biodiesel and advanced biofuels can be handled by our gas stations and pipelines. This is a smart investment because it makes a lot more sense to modify the existing infrastructure than to rebuild it. I hope all my colleagues will be able to support this important legislation. But this is just a first step. We know that. Congress must continue to send signals that we are serious about transitioning to a clean energy economy. That means supporting the range of technologies, including clean alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, as well as energy-efficient technologies for buildings and transportation. Congress and the administration should not pick winners and losers. There will be no magic bullet. When it comes to research and development, we must hedge our bets. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 110th Congress to move toward a clean energy economy effectively and expeditiously. This is the most important domestic priority for Congress and a generational challenge for the Nation. There is absolutely no time to waste.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the McClatchy Company's 150 years of journalism in Sacramento. On this date in 1857, the first issue of the Daily Bee was published in Sacramento marking the historic establishment of what is now the second largest newspaper company in the United States. Headquartered in Sacramento, the McClatchy Company and the Sacramento Bee have earned a legacy of providing reliable news for Sacramentans and the nation. The rise of the McClatchy Company began with founding editor James McClatchy who moved west from New York during the height of the Gold Rush. The company's newspapers would be owned and operated by McClatchy family members for the next 130 years. James McClatchy helped craft the company's values of quality journalism, free expression and community service. The Sacramento Bee was one of the first newspapers on the West Coast. In the newspaper's first editorial, McClatchy explained the name of the newspaper: ``The name of The Bee has been adopted as being different from that of any other paper in the state and as also being emblematic of the industry which is to prevail in its every department.'' Over the years, the McClatchy Company expanded on that name and characterization by establishing the Fresno Bee in 1922 and acquiring the Modesto Bee in 1927. In recent times, the McClatchy Company has continued to expand its portfolio. In 2006, it acquired 32 daily newspapers when it purchased Knight Ridder. Today, the McClatchy Company is the second largest newspaper company in the United States and publishes 32 newspapers in 16 different states with unparalleled market success. These achievements were evident in 1999, when the McClatchy Company revenues exceeded $1 billion. By 2004, the McClatchy Company entered its 20th consecutive year of daily circulation growth, an achievement unmatched by any other newspaper company in the United States. Throughout the decades, the McClatchy Company newspapers have been honored for their journalistic integrity through numerous awards. McClatchy's flagship newspaper, the Sacramento Bee, has earned numerous distinctions, including Pulitzer prizes for Editorial writing, Beat Reporting and twice for the Public Service Gold Medal. Madam Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to the McClatchy Company for its distinguished commitment to journalistic integrity and success throughout the years. As the McClatchy Company's colleagues and friends gather to honor their 150th anniversary, I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing them continued prosperity.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Petri, and I are reintroducing the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act. I am proud to bring this bipartisan effort before the House in the newly-elected 110th Congress. I first learned about the Troops to Teachers program at a California Purple Heart Veterans Day event in my district. Two different veterans who are participating in Troops to Teachers spoke with me about how the program offered them the chance to continue to contribute to our country. After serving their country in the Armed Forces, they were now able to teach in high-need school districts. With a slogan like, ``Proud to Serve Again,'' Troops to Teachers is a unique program that provides stipends to military retirees to obtain the necessary certification for a second career in teaching. Equally important, the program places much-needed math, science and special education teachers in the classroom. In fact, over 55 percent of Troops to Teachers participants teach in these critical areas. Right now, our country is seeing 7 percent of its teaching force leave every year, and we have a need for highly-qualified science and math teachers. Additionally, veterans who participate in the Troops to Teachers program fill another void for male and ethnic minority teachers. Qualities learned in the military including: discipline, problem solving and leadership skills make veterans ideal role models for our students. Simply put, the Troops to Teachers program has never been more important. Since first learning about the Troops to Teachers program, I have had the pleasure of hearing many stories of how participants' lives have changed after transitioning from the military to the classroom. One of my constituents has such a story. After 21 years in the Air Force, Kelly Sullivan retired from the military, with two young children to care for. Using a $3,000 award from Troops to Teachers, she was able to pay for graduate school classes, as well as nine required teaching certification exams. Needless to say, the award was a financial relief for her, especially as she set out to begin her second career. Kelly is now teaching English at Hiram Johnson High School in Sacramento. She has found that her two decades in the Air Force gave her the maturity, wisdom and life experiences that enable her to motivate and encourage her students to succeed in school. These skills are especially important as gangs and increased violence are all too prevalent in her school's neighborhood. One thing is for sure, when her students need help Kelly is there--thanks to Troops to Teachers. Kelly is a prime example of the goal of the Troops to Teachers program, which was authorized in 1993 to help members of the military obtain teaching credentials to teach in large districts with low-income schools. A variety of retired, separated, active duty and transitioning military members and veterans--including disabled veterans--are eligible to participate. Those who are interested are required to have a bachelor's or advanced degree. If applying for a vocational or technical teaching position, candidates are required to have at least 6 years of experience in the field. The program has successfully recruited and placed almost 10,000 veterans in school districts since it was created. In my home state of California, 571 veterans are currently participating in the program. Unfortunately, a small change under the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, of 2001 greatly affected where veterans could fulfill their teaching obligation. In some areas of the country, retiring military and veterans interested in the program now have to drive 50 to 100 miles to find an eligible school. This has resulted in a 20-30 percent drop-off in veteran participation, which has seriously hindered this productive and necessary program. The bill that my esteemed colleague Mr. Petri and I are reintroducing today would fix this error. It would allow participants to fulfill their teaching obligation at any school considered high-need under NCLB, meaning that the school receives Title I funding. Prior to the NCLB change, participants were able to fulfill their teaching obligation in any school within my district in Sacramento, as they all receive Title I funding. However, under the more restrictive rule, only 211 of the 350 schools in my district are eligible. Currently, 61 percent of the high schools in my district are not eligible. I continue to believe in this program and want to see disabled and retiring military offered a second chance at serving our country. Just last week, the Troops to Teachers program had a conference in Washington, DC. Once again, we heard stories of participants' dedication to serving our country and the sense of fulfillment they receive from educating future generations. Additionally, the program brings important math, science, and foreign language expertise to our classroom and fills a critical need among our educators. These characteristics make Troops to Teachers an excellent source of highly- qualified educators. Mr. Petri and I are committed to fulfilling the intent of this program, and we introduce this bill so that more veterans, like my constituent Kelly, will continue to be able to serve our country-- whether in the military or in the classroom. I look forward to swiftly passing this bipartisan bill in the 110th Congress and urge my colleagues to continue to work to support the Troops to Teachers program.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise in tribute to Sacramento County Supervisor Illa Collin and her esteemed career. Supervisor Collin built a lasting legacy in Sacramento County and her presence on the board of supervisors will be deeply missed. As her friends, family and coworkers all gather to celebrate her career, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the dedicated service of one of Sacramento's finest leaders. Illa Collin was first elected to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in 1978. She immediately made her presence known by tirelessly working to strengthen neighborhoods and revitalize urban corridors. Through her 28 years on the board of supervisors, she has preserved much of Sacramento County's natural beauty and open space. Supervisor Collin has consistently been praised for her environmental record and leadership. She helped create the Sacramento Tree Foundation and the American River Parkway Foundation. She has received the Outstanding Service Award from the California Parks and Recreation Society as well as the Outstanding Public Official Award from the National Association of County Parks and Recreation Officials. In 2005, Supervisor Collin received the Environmentalist of the Year Award from the Sacramento Chapter of the Sierra Club. Supervisor Collin performed an instrumental role in the women's movement From 1973 to 1975, Illa helped lead the League of Women voters in Sacramento and in 1977 she became the first woman to serve as the President of the State Reclamation Board. She has also received the Hannah G. Solomon Award from the National Council of Jewish Women for improving the lives of women, children, and families. Prior to her service on the board of supervisors, Illa worked to improve Sacramento on a number of fronts, including social services and community planning. Now, after seven terms, Illa will be departing from the board of supervisors. The people of Sacramento will miss her leadership, experience and dedication. Our community has been fortunate to be graced by the presence of such an extraordinary woman. Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor one of Sacramento's most distinguished citizens, Illa Collin. Her success and steady voice has been an inspiration to Sacramento residents throughout the years. I ask all my colleagues to join me in thanking Illa Collin and wishing her continued success and happiness in her future endeavors.

Ms. MATSUI

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

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker.

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

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out to you that we are doing this because the American people have spoken. They spoke in November. They want us to make progress; and that every single reform in the Democrats' 100-hours agenda has passed with broad bipartisan support thus far. And today, we are cutting student loan rates in half in the same manner they garnered broad bipartisan support last week. I think that all Members realize that the American people want results. House Democrats plan on delivering for them, and we continue to work with those on the other side of the aisle to do that. You have not heard the last of us from this side at all. This is only the beginning. This is a step forward. Now, at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

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

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to point out that during last year's debate on budget reconciliation, the contrast in approaches could not be sharper. In that bill, in a time of war, the Republican leadership passed an enormous tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. Most of it was paid for by running up a deficit for our grandchildren to pay, but a small slice of it was paid for by cutting $12 billion in Federal student loan support. I think it is clear that the American people rejected that kind of short-sightedness this past November. Today, Democrats are cutting student loan rates in half, without adding one cent to the deficit. That is common sense for students, and a responsible policy for this country's working class. Now I would like to yield 3 minutes to the new Member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).