Betty Sutton

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. I would like to turn to the gentleman from New York, because I know he has something important to add.

Ms. SUTTON. It really is. Today was the day we passed the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act. It is about achieving that victory. We ask that the President join us in trying to take this into a different direction, a better direction for the country, for our troops.

Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for his poignant remarks. Your point is well taken when you talk about the benchmarks and the target moving. How many more times will we hear this administration argue that we are just about to make progress? And yet here we are, 4\1/2\ years later. I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, as the hour grows late here this evening, I and some of my fellow freshmen colleagues have gathered here on the floor to talk about the issue that is overarching everything we do in this country today, the war in Iraq. When we were elected in November, many of us came here on a mandate for change, a mandate for a change of direction in the way the country was heading and a mandate for change in direction in Iraq. So, tonight we are here to talk about the important events of this day, the action that this House took to pass a very important bill, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act, and also to talk about the report that was recently released from the White House on Iraq and the benchmarks that, sadly, are not being met. With that, I would like to actually turn this discussion over to some of my fellow colleagues. We will begin with a statement and some commentary from the gentleman from New Hampshire, the distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Paul Hodes.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his eloquent words about this very, very tragic subject. At this point I yield to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for her comments.

Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), and the points raised are worth talking about. He's absolutely right when we talk about the loss of life, the irretrievable loss of life as being the real cost, the real measure of our loss. Not too long ago during this surge, the escalation of this war, within this past 6 months, I had the very sad experience of I'm sure that many of you have had of going back to my district to go to visitation, to calling hours, for a fallen soldier. And on this occasion, I walked in and I was taken aback because family members, they thank you. They thank you for coming to pay your respects to this one who was willing to give it all for his country. And as I walked in and I walked over to the casket where this brave soldier lay and there he was, this young man, and I kneeled down and I looked and I looked long and I looked hard because I wanted to remember and I wanted to feel all that I could so that when I came back here to cast the votes that we must cast and to make the decisions that we must make about the lives that are in our hands, to answer the questions about what we're willing to ask them to do and what we're willing to protect them from, I wanted that to be a part of who I am and the decisions I make. So I carried that with me, and I carried it with me for the vote today, but I can't help but also share a very disappointing moment that happened later that day when I returned home, to hear the news and our President talking about how much he enjoyed riding his bike and how we should all ride our bikes because it's a healthy thing to do. Well, maybe so, but it struck me that this President, to my knowledge, doesn't go to many of those calling hours, and perhaps it would be different and perhaps the decision-making would be different because you're right, my colleague from Minnesota, the lives lost are irretrievable. With that, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes), who has joined us again.

Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Your points are well taken. After 4\1/2\ years of this tragic war, more than 3,600 brave American troops killed, more than 26,000 injured, and nearly half a trillion dollars spent, we continue down the path that the President insists on taking us. In his defiance, he has indicated he will continue to ignore reality, as well as the facts contained in the administration's own analysis of the war that was released today. As you point out, in January, the President sent thousands of additional troops to Iraq and promised to hold the Iraqi government accountable for meeting those benchmarks for success. Today that report makes it clear that we need a change in course. Unity in Iraq, we know here on this floor, must be determined by the people of Iraq, and our brave troops are caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war without a military mission, and the President has no plan to bring them home. Instead of rejecting calls for change and demeaning those who seek it, the President should listen to the military experts, to Congress and the American people who in their will and wisdom want to responsibly redeploy the troops home. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Ms. SUTTON

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

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, for 4 long years our country has endured a tragic war, a treacherous journey down a dark and winding path, with no clear routes, no clear destination and fatal hazards lurking around every blind corner. Today I rise again with Chairman Skelton and my colleagues to act to clear the road ahead, to bring its end into the light. I rise again to push, to prod, to urge my colleagues to help us end the President's failed policy; to help us change the mission to a mission based in reality; to help us end the ravages that our brave soldiers who have performed so heroically, remove them from the crossfire in which they are caught, to remove them from the snipers' bullets and the life- ending IEDs. I rise with the hope that those who have stood with the President and have given his Iraq policy a chance to succeed and another chance to succeed and another chance to succeed, that they will today choose a responsible change in direction based in reality that will establish a comprehensive and clear strategy for our role in Iraq. Congress has allowed the President to lead our troops down this path for too long. It is time to demand accountability, to demand an exit strategy that is clear, and to demand an end to the injury and death that our brave soldiers face every day as they courageously proceed down this undefined road on which the President has placed them and they have dutifully traveled. The President's ambling course has led our troops through the deadliest 3 months of the war in April, May and June of this year. During those three deadly months, 329 American soldiers died in Iraq. The cost of continuing down this path is too great. We must act to bring direction and accountability to the United States' mission for the sake of our troops and the families that love and support them. It brings me great sadness to report that, since the war began in the spring of 2003, 163 brave men and women from Ohio have been killed. And 25 of those precious lives have been lost since the surge. The President's escalation of this war means six more grieving families in Ohio since when I last spoke in favor of the redeployment bill in May of this year. How many more times will we come to this floor to demand responsibility and accountability from our President? How many more families will be devastated by the loss of a loved one? How many more times will we hear the administration continue to argue that we are, quote, ``just about to make progress''? Last November, the people of the 13th District of Ohio made their voices heard when they went to the polls. Their voices joined with the voices of people across this Nation. They voted for a change in direction, and today we act to give it to them.

Ms. SUTTON

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

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

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman, a member of the Rules Committee from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 531 provides for consideration of H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for a single amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative McKeon of California or his designee. Mr. Speaker, educational opportunity is the backbone of what we are about and everything that makes this Nation great. For this reason, I am very pleased to support the rule and the underlying legislation that will give our students a real opportunity to go to college and give them the vital tools necessary to prepare them to enter the workforce and build a positive future. The College Cost Reduction Act addresses one of the most important and difficult issues facing our Nation. While access to higher education is more critical than ever for our younger generations, the cost is rapidly moving out of reach for many low- and middle-income families. This problem is nothing less than a crisis. How many students have had their dreams shattered because they could not afford their tuition? And how much potential has our Nation lost because of the failure to address this issue? If students cannot afford to get the education and training necessary for them to make a productive and positive impact in our communities, it hurts us all. Investment in our younger generations not only improves their future, but it helps our economy and our retired workers whom they will help to support. It ensures our national security, continued improvements in health outcomes as well as advances in manufacturing and technology. Improving access to higher education is not only about helping America's middle class and our students and families who are in need. It is about strengthening America. But instead of helping our students prepare themselves for a better future, recent Congresses and the administration chose to cut funding for student loan programs and have allowed this issue to become the crisis it is today. It is time for priorities to change, and this bill is part of making that happen. Tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities have risen 41 percent after inflation since 2001. The typical American student now graduates from college with $17,500 worth of debt. If we do not take action immediately, financial barriers will prevent at least 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade. This Congress has a responsibility to help our students and our working families. Mr. Speaker, I have witnessed the heartbreak of parents who work hard day in and day out who have to tell their child that they cannot afford to send them to college. I have listened to these struggling parents and heard the ache in their voices. It is a story that is far too common. It is unacceptable and we must take action. And today we do. H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, will provide the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill, and it will put college education back within reach of so many families. H.R. 2669 follows on the College Student Relief Act that passed overwhelmingly, 356-71, in this new Congress earlier this year. That bill cut interest rates in half on subsidized student loans over the next 5 years. For the average student in the State of Ohio at institutions like the University of Akron and Lorain Community College, this means a savings of roughly $4,320 once the cuts are phased in. It is estimated that our proposal will help roughly 175,000 students just in Ohio alone and 5.5 million nationwide. Our bill increases the maximum Pell grant scholarship by at least $500 over the next 5 years while also expanding eligibility to include and serve more students with financial need. In Ohio, roughly 224,000 students will benefit from these changes to the Pell grant program. And nationwide, over 5.7 million students will benefit and another 600,000 will become eligible for the grants, making the possibility of a college education for them a reality. Additionally, this legislation recognizes the value of our public servants, and it shows how much we respect what they do. Individuals working jobs that make our world turn, teachers and firefighters, nurses, law enforcement officers, librarians, we provide upfront tuition assistance to qualified undergraduate students who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities or high-need subject areas. And we provide loan forgiveness for first responders, law enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses, public defenders, prosecutors, early childhood educators, librarians and others. We are investing not only in the potential of individual students, Mr. Speaker. We are investing in the strength of our communities and our country. And the return on our investment as a Nation and our students and people will, without question, provide an enormous return. But our failure to invest likewise will have incredibly harmful consequences. Our bill makes clear we understand the importance of this investment. And, Mr. Speaker, to make a good bill even better, the College Cost Reduction Act will benefit all of these students and families at no new cost to taxpayers. We make these important investments in education through government spending cuts. With this bill, we take the billions of access taxpayer subsidies that have gone into the profit margins of private lenders and invest it in direct support for our students. Overall, H.R. 2669 will save almost $20 billion in taxpayer money and reinvest that money in the needs of our students. This is about where the priorities of our Nation and this Congress lie. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the lack of access to higher education is a crisis for our Nation, and it is a burden that no family in this great country should have to bear. The College Cost Reduction Act puts us in a position to help these families and assist our students who simply want to learn and be prepared to enter the workforce and contribute to society. This bill does more than just pay lip service to the virtue of a college education. Today we act to help families, students and our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SUTTON. 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.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 531 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We have heard here today why we must pass this rule and pass the College Cost Reduction Act, and I wanted to commend and thank Chairman Miller for his tremendous leadership in getting this done. As I said earlier, educational opportunity is the backbone of our Nation, and our students, our families and our country have waited long enough for this to happen. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side who seem intent on further delay, 12 years of Republican rule provided ample opportunity to act on this issue and pass a bill, to act on amendments. The American people cannot wait any longer. This is an issue that many of us here in Congress hear about when we return to our districts because a lot of families are worrying about how they will pay for their children's education, and today, we are going to work with them. Their government is going to work with them and not against them. I'd like to share today on the floor a letter that I bet mirrors letters that every one of our Members receives. This is a letter that came to me from a constituent, and I will share part of it. It says: ``Is anything ever going to be done about the exorbitant cost of a college education in this country? How are the middle class supposed to save for retirement and also pay the exorbitant cost of a college education for our children? ``This country seems to be obsessed with debt, because the colleges and the high schools as well, tell you that you should expect to be in a certain amount of debt upon graduation from college. I guess if you're wealthy, it's not an issue. So the middle class are the ones that are left struggling. ``With such an importance put on having a college education to get a decent paying job in this country, how are our children supposed to be able to afford a home and car upon graduation from college when they will be so far in debt with student loans? ``As for the parents, any raises we receive go toward the continually increasing cost of medical insurance, gasoline, utilities, property taxes, et cetera. I know, in my own case, we seem to be going backwards instead of forward, and we by no means live extravagantly or beyond our means. ``I am looking forward to hearing from you.'' Well, today, this constituent hears from me and hears from this Congress, and I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule. For my constituent and her daughter, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 531 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the following: That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2669) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor; (2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report on the Committee on Rules, if offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. McKeon, or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; (3) the further amendment printed in section 3 of this resolution, if offered by the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2669 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 1 is as follows: At the end of part A of title I of the bill add the following new section:

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a leader in education policy.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, today it's my honor to rise to recognize Richard L. Aynes. On June 30, Richard Aynes concluded his term as dean of the University of Akron School of Law after 12 complete years, the longest tenure of any current law dean in the great State of Ohio and longer than 184 of the 196 deans at ABA accredited schools. His dedicated service is especially gratifying to me, as I earned my juris doctorate from the University of Akron School of Law. Since 1921, I and more than 6,000 people have selected the University of Akron for law school. With Richard Aynes serving as dean, newspaper headlines acclaimed our law school as ``on the move'' and as having ``raised the bar.'' Today, as Richard ends his service as dean, he leaves the University of Akron School of Law as one of the top 50 law schools in the Nation. That is a great accomplishment. Under Dean Aynes' leadership, applicants to the School of Law increased from 1,621 in 1995 to 2,230 in 2006, while the student-to- faculty ratio decreased. Those of us fortunate enough to live near Akron have always known and recognized the greatness of our law school, but Dean Aynes successfully spread that appeal throughout the Nation. The 2006 student body is composed of students from 37 States. He also oversaw the expansion of innovative programs to deal with our changing world. The School of Law now boasts the world-renowned Center for Intellectual Property Law and Technology, and I'm proud that my alma mater is the first school in the State of Ohio to offer a master of law in intellectual property law and one of only 17 such programs across the country. In a true testament to his devotion to both law and education, I'm pleased to report that Dean Aynes will return to the law faculty in the spring semester of 2008 to teach and publish. In this role, he will continue his tireless efforts towards the progress of the school and will profoundly touch the lives of future lawyers and our community. It is in recognition and gratitude that I rise today to honor this great man. And finally, Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, I want to express my deep personal appreciation for the compassion he extended to me during a challenging time that I faced during my experience at the University of Akron School of Law. You see, Mr. Speaker, during the first year of my legal studies, we received the sad, sad news that my father was suffering from lung cancer, and I shall always appreciate the compassion and the help that Dean Aynes and other caring professional faculty at the law school extended to me. It was that compassion and encouragement that made it possible for me to spend precious time with my dad in those precious final days of his life while continuing on with my legal studies and on a path that would lead me here to the United States House of Representatives, where I have the extraordinary honor to put that education to work in service to the fine people of the 13th District of Ohio. Thank you, Dean Aynes, and may your commitment and achievements continue to inspire and motivate countless generations.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. I thank the chairman, and I look forward to working with you to take it in that direction. Amendment Offered by Mr. Wicker

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for your work and leadership on this bill and especially for recognizing the important work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and for providing the Commission with funds above the President's request. Past fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Republicans means that we've all been working with a tough budget situation this year. But even though we've had to make difficult decisions to get our economy back on the right path, we need also to make room for our most important priorities. I commend you on doing that. Recent articles in The New York Times and USA Today called our attention to some disturbing trends. The number of recalls made by the CPSC reached a record of 467 last year, and 60 percent of those products were produced in China. This year, every single one of the 24 toys that were recalled for safety reasons by the Consumer Product Safety Commission was manufactured in China. Our children have been playing with toys whose hazards range from laceration, to choking, to severe burns. Several toys we've seen were made with lead paint whose hazards are particularly harmful to children. We also have seen them have the direst of consequences with deaths. Imports from foreign countries have been growing at a staggering rate, Mr. Chairman, and many manufacturers from these countries fail to adhere to even basic safety standards. It is in this environment, and I know you know this, Mr. Chairman, that the work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is absolutely critical. Consumer product safety is not an area we can afford to ignore, and the CPSC is not an agency we can afford to underfund. We can't make up for the shortfalls, unfortunately, in funding that the agency has had overnight, but the funding in this year's Financial Services appropriations bill is a positive step in the right direction. I just want to thank you for your leadership on these issues and I look forward to working with you in the future to ensure that oversight agencies like the CPSC have the funds to do the important work that they are called to do.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, trade is a complex issue. But some things are very clear--We need a fair playing field for our workers and businesses and we need a new trade model, with enforceable standards and rules to eliminate unfair trade practices. So why are we continuing to seek to expand a trade policy that has proven time and time again to be harmful for American workers, businesses, farmers and communities? And why are we seeking to expand the Andean Trade Preference Act or ATPA when there appears no substantive reason to extend the preferences. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), we have a $10 billion and growing trade deficit with the four ATPA nations, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. American farmers and workers have been directly harmed by the ATPA as can be seen with our asparagus and fresh-cut flower industries. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, these domestic producers have been affected by lower prices and many growers have gone out of business as a result. Under the ATPA, flower imports from Colombia and Ecuador receive duty-free treatment, seven though the workers who grow, harvest, and package these flowers routinely experience a number of labor rights and human rights violations. By law, the ATPA is supposed to condition these trade benefits on improvements in worker rights in these countries. However, labor rights violations in the flower industry and other sectors, including violations of the right to freedom of association, continue unchecked. Where is the enforcement from the Bush Administration? Where is the outrage from this Congress. Also promised to us when the ATPA was enacted in 1991 was a reduction in coca production in the four ATPA countries. However, in Colombia, according to the CRS, coca crop size estimates remain mostly unchanged since the enactment of the ATPA and in Peru coca crop cultivation has actually grown. Colombia remains the source of roughly 90 percent of the cocaine entering the U.S. In a 2001 report to Congress, the U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service said that they ``do not believe that Peruvian asparagus production provides an alternative economic opportunity for coca producers and workers--the stated purpose of the Act.'' And all this is on top of the fact that Colombia has an appalling horrific record on labor and human rights--Leading the world in the number of unionists murdered year after year. So why are we seeking to give Colombia further trade preferences?