Betty Sutton

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the reality of this is there was an opportunity to offer amendments as explained. Somebody did offer an amendment. Unfortunately, that amendment was nongermane. At this point I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to reiterate, without beating this to death, that not a single Republican amendment was offered in committee. There was opportunity to provide amendments yesterday in the Rules Committee. This is an important bill that we need to stay focused on the substance of as well. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is an honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. SUTTON

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

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 678.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 678 provides for consideration of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the Committee on Education and Labor amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule makes in order the two amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee and are printed in the Rules report. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule and in favor of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act. The central Ohio town of Marion is located about two hours from my hometown of Barberton, Ohio. Marion has the unique distinction of being known as the ``Popcorn Capital of the World.'' Just this month, the town of Marion hosted its yearly popcorn festival, complete with a popcorn scholarship pageant, parade and 5K run. Unfortunately, these fun-filled festivities are not the only symbols of Marion's popcorn industry. It was recently discovered that a chemical used in the production of microwave popcorn is the cause of fatal lung disease in popcorn workers across the country, including the Popcorn Capital of the World, Marion Ohio. Diacetyl is a chemical ingredient used in microwave popcorn that gives the popcorn a distinct buttery smell. Diacetyl has been linked to illnesses in hundreds of workers in popcorn and other food production facilities across the United States. Diacetyl is specifically connected to a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans. This condition makes it difficult for air to flow out of the lungs. This difficulty is not reversible, and it is sometimes fatal. In November of 2000, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted voluntary tests of workers at a popcorn plant in Missouri. The workers in that plant suffered from chronic cough and shortness of breath almost three times as often as people in the general population. Those plant workers are over three times more likely to suffer from abnormally low airflow through their lungs. The percentage of workers in the popcorn plant with asthma or chronic bronchitis was double the national rate. Several workers from this plant in Missouri had conditions that were so severe that they had to be placed on the lung transplant list. Remarkably, Mr. Speaker, despite these reports from the Missouri popcorn plant and other plants across the country, there are currently no enforceable OSHA standards requiring exposure to diacetyl to be controlled. It has been 7 years since the first cases of popcorn lung were identified. It has been 5 years since the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health published its first report stating the inhalation of diacetyl was leading to deadly results. There is simply no excuse for the lack of action taken by OSHA in the face of this evidence. OSHA has failed to uphold its primary charge to protect the safety and health of American workers. Mr. Speaker, this legislation fills that fatal void by protecting workers from this damaging chemical. The Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act directs the Secretary of Labor to create standards for workers' exposure to diacetyl in popcorn plants and in any location where diacetyl is used or manufactured. Our legislation requires that final rules for exposure to diacetyl be in place under the Occupational Safety and Health Act no later than 2 years after the bill is enacted. For the popcorn workers of Marion, Ohio, things are starting to look up. The popcorn factories in their town have eliminated the use of diacetyl because of its linkage to the fatal lung conditions. They have done the right thing. But not every production facility that uses diacetyl has recognized the danger. In fact, on Monday of this week, one of America's largest food manufacturers introduced their new toasted butter flavoring. What is one of the ingredients in this new butter flavoring? Diacetyl. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that some food manufacturers have gotten the message, but some are going to continue to ignore the science and put their workers in harm's way. Over 500 workers in Ohio are already suffering because of uncontrolled exposure to diacetyl. Today, we act to protect our food industry workers from these harmful chemicals and dangerous conditions. We stand up for workers and their families. This legislation is not just about the conditions in food manufacturing plants across this country. It's about changing the way we treat working men and women. It's about respecting the risks that they undertake every day to feed their family. The hardworking people who make our world turn deserve safe working conditions, a living wage, and strong support from Congress. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, the chairwoman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a point of clarification; the earmark rule was not waived. And to the question about whether this bill today is premature, I would argue that it's not premature for the 500 workers in Ohio and those across this country who are now suffering from this irreversible disease. I have heard the workers' stories from the Ohio popcorn plants. I have heard the story of a worker who worked 12-hour shifts in the popcorn factory outside of Marion, Ohio. His job was to mix the flavors, measuring and dumping butter-flavored powders and pastes into the vats of soybean oil. Now, Mr. Speaker, he is so crippled from breathing the vapors in the plant that he hardly has the strength to hold his granddaughter. He is racked with spasms that leave him dizzy and incapacitated. In 2001, after an outbreak of diseases at the popcorn factory in Missouri, his employer guaranteed him that his plant was safe. Mr. Speaker, OSHA's failure to protect our workers by ignoring the reports, studies and warning signs has endangered the health of families. That is why we must act today. Our workers should never have to choose between their health and feeding their families. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 678 Offered By Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 678 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire. It is a sad state of affairs, but it goes back to the point that we have heard here tonight, and that is that unity in Iraq, really, at the end of the day, is going to be determined by the people of Iraq. We all know that our military has performed valiantly and selflessly and that they are true American heroes. But as you point out, it is not fair to keep them trapped in the middle of a civil war and refuse to acknowledge that all that has been discussed here tonight is going on. That is not a prudent plan. I think it is time. We have heard the call when we go home and talk to our constituents. It is time for a plan to responsibly redeploy. That is what the American people need from our President. I will share just a few statistics with you that sort of buttress this need. We know that there was a great rollout when we had this so- called surge introduced as a new way forward. But let me just shed some light on some of the results. In June, July and August of 2007, it marked the bloodiest summer so far U.S. troops in Iraq have had, with 264 soldiers killed. U.S. casualties in Iraq are 56 percent higher this year than they were at this time in 2006. Since January of this year, we have lost 761 brave servicemen and women to the war in Iraq. By the way, I should say that these statistics are as of September 10. I have fear they have grown since then. As of September 10, 3,759 U.S. troops have been killed and more than 27,770 have been wounded in Iraq since it began in March 2003. Think about that. Think about the cost in lives. Think about the cost in the casualties and the injuries that our soldiers are facing for the rest of their lives in many cases, the costs to them, which is unfathomable and enormous, and the cost to the American people as we do what we must do, and that is provide them with the health care and the resources they need and to fulfill the promise that we make to them when we send them into harm's way. We must take care of our veterans. We also learn that, and you pointed this out, Representative Shea- Porter, that in Iraq, opinions are also that they would like our troops to be responsibly deploying. Just to share some information from a new poll that was jointly conducted and released by ABC News, BBC News and Japan's NHK, 47 percent of Iraqis want American forces and their coalition allies to leave the country immediately. That is a 12 percent increase over March. Remember, our soldiers are there in that environment. The polls showed that every person interviewed in Baghdad and Anbar province, a Sunni-dominated area where Bush recently visited and cited progress, said the troop increase has worsened security. Seventy percent believe security has deteriorated in the areas where the U.S. surge troops were located. Between 67 and 70 percent say that the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development. Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis say that attacking coalition forces is ``acceptable,'' more than three times higher than when polled in February of 2004. That is the environment we are keeping our troops in. The President's plan is to do so for the very foreseeable future. It is time for a plan of responsible redeployment. Our military should not be asked to try to control a civil war, a sectarian civil war. We have heard all the components of all the factions and all the dynamics that are going on in Iraq. Just think about our troops sitting in the middle of that and doing everything they are asked to do. We know from the report that Representative Shea-Porter referenced, and we know from the GAO reports. They confirm that our strategy is not working and that this conflict begs for a political solution, not a military one; though the United States can play a constructive role, and we will, and we have done so by providing, through high cost and blood and money, an opportunity to embrace a different way to the Iraqi people. We also know the toll that that country has, along the way, encountered. Seventy-eight percent of Americans say they believe that the U.S. should withdraw some or all troops from Iraq. Sixty percent of Americans say the U.S. should set a timetable to withdraw our forces from Iraq and should ``stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq.'' That is not because we don't care. That is because we are looking at the evidence, and we are trying to make the responsible decision for our troops, for the safety of this country and for domestic policy. At this point, I would like to turn it over to Representative Shea- Porter, and we will be wrapping up here in a few moments.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this hour by talking about a subject that has become one of the most significant issues of our time. I am going to be joined by members of the freshman class or the Majority Makers throughout this hour to talk about Iraq. We have heard in recent days about what the President's idea of our way forward is. He has called for more money and more patience and a renewed commitment to U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, another stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path toward a $1 trillion, at least 10-year presence war in Iraq. On top of that, we have no convincing evidence that the political reconciliation necessary will be achieved even after so much sacrifice on the part of our brave troops will be realized. I believe that the President's plan for Iraq amounts to an open-ended and dangerous commitment of American troops in Iraq and an open wallet from the American people to pay for it. The question should not be whether we keep our troops in Iraq for 10 years. The question should be: How do we responsibly redeploy our troops? And how do we develop that plan that will do so while we continue to protect our homeland and fight against terrorists? On August 19, we saw in the New York Times an editorial that was written by seven brave U.S. soldiers. I bring this to the attention, Mr. Speaker, of you and all those who may be tuned in because I think it is important that we listen to their vantage point. And while I won't be reading the entire article, I will read excerpts from it. Again, it is August 19, the New York Times, and I would suggest that everybody who can take a look at the complete editorial. It is entitled, ``The War As We Saw It.'' And it begins: ``Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is farfetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.'' And then they say, in parentheses, ``Obviously these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.'' They continue: ``The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by some failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the `battle space' remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.'' And then they continue: ``Reports that a majority of Iraqi army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little or no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them in an incoherent chain of command who are really loyal only to their militias.'' They continue in this article, and they state, ``Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice that we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party to this conflict, as we do now, will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.'' These brave soldiers conclude this op-ed with the following: ``It would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.'' They say, ``We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.'' I share that because I think it's worth having out there for our consideration and our contemplation to add to the wealth of information that is being presented to the American people. I'm sad to report that since this op-ed began, they started writing this, during the course of writing it, one of these brave soldiers was shot in the head, and he is recovering. But on September 13, the headline in the same New York Times sadly stated, ``Skeptical But Loyal Soldiers Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq.'' And two of these soldiers who had the courage not only to go and fight for our Nation but to do everything they were asked to do were killed in Iraq. We are here today to talk about this pressing, pressing issue. The light that has been shed on this by these soldiers should be part of the discussion. I am joined here on the floor right now by a couple of my colleagues, leaders on this issue, I know, who feel it deeply. The gentleman from Florida, Ron Klein, a tremendous new Member, at this point I am going to just yield to him for his remarks.

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Congressman Klein. I couldn't agree more that we need to have that kind of a plan. And unfortunately, a plan for responsibly redeploying and a plan for dealing with the broad scope of protecting America and what's in America's best interest is not being offered up. In fact, it's not even being discussed, because we're having the same discussion that we've been having for years now about staying the course in Iraq. I would like to shift it over to my colleague from New Hampshire, Representative Carol Shea-Porter, who I know can shed a great deal of light on this as well as a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent remarks. I guess the question that comes to mind when you ask where are we on these domestic items, where are we going to be in 10 years on these domestic items? At this point I would just like to shift it over to my great colleague, a new freshman Member, a majority maker who has brought a lot of valuable insight and knowledge to this body and on this subject, the Honorable Joe Courtney.

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Congressman Welch. And we have been joined by another great new Member of the class and a great help on issues related to Iraq and so many more things, my colleague from the Rules Committee, the esteemed Mike Arcuri. I yield to Mr. Arcuri.

Ms. SUTTON. Thank you, Representative Arcuri. That firsthand account and your observations are very enlightening. We appreciate you bringing them forward and, again, highlighting the fact that as we make this choice and as the President opts to try and keep us in Iraq for 10 years, or beyond, it means there are other consequences. Beyond all of those other consequences we talked about militarily and the effects on our military, there are those domestic issues, Representative Shea- Porter, that you point out and Mr. Arcuri points out that we will continue to fall behind on. I think that the picture is becoming a little bit more clear down here tonight that we need some comprehensive thinking that is smart and effective. And the question of a responsible redeployment and what that plan should look like is really the one that we need to be working on. With that, I want to pass it over to another great Member of the new Congress, a freshman from Minnesota who I think is going to shed some light on the Blackwater situation.

Ms. SUTTON. I thank Representative Ellison for that addition to this debate this evening. It's important that all of this be exposed to the light of day so that we can make the inquiries that are appropriate as well as the policies that make sense from this Chamber. At this point, I would like to throw it back over to Representative Carol Shea-Porter from New Hampshire. I think, Representative Shea- Porter, you were going to share with us some statistics and information from a report.

Ms. SUTTON. Well said, Representative Shea-Porter. Mr. Speaker, we are going to close and yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this issue and on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule and in strong support of the underlying legislation, the Expanding American Homeownership Act. Owning a home in this country is called the American Dream for many reasons: the pride of ownership, a sense of responsibility, the feeling of settling down and belonging to a community and a neighborhood. But the American Dream is in peril for many families in this country as foreclosures rise and dreams shatter. I am sorry to report, Mr. Speaker, that in my home State of Ohio, we have the Nation's highest rate of mortgages that are seriously delinquent or in the foreclosure process. In April of this year, Ohio had nearly 12,000 default notices, auction sale notifications, and bank repositions. Sadly, one in ten Ohio homeowners with a mortgage is at least a month behind in payments and one in four with a subprime loan is delinquent or in foreclosure. These staggering statistics are not just numbers. They are families and individuals whose American Dream is quickly becoming a nightmare. I have talked with many hardworking, proud families who are struggling to pay their mortgages and afford health insurance, struggling to put food on the table and pay for their children's college education. They are working hard and they are playing by the rules, but nonetheless the American Dream has moved out of their reach. The homeownership crisis is part of a larger problem for our Nation where policies and laws have not worked for our low- and middle-class families the way that they should. This is unacceptable for my constituents, and it should be unacceptable for a Nation built by working men and women that prides itself on ownership, responsibility and fairness. Mr. Speaker, the problems in the housing market are not new, but they have become what they are because of a lack of action and leadership from prior Congresses and this administration. The lack of oversight has led to the abuse of a mortgage system by unscrupulous lenders and others looking for easy profit by preying upon those who are most vulnerable. And it is wholly unacceptable that a system that should be an avenue to homeownership has instead become a path to heartache for far too many families. Today by passing the Expanding America Homeownership Act, we take a bold step forward on what is going to be a long road to fix this broken system. H.R. 1852 raises loan limits, helps reduce the burden for high-risk borrowers, expands counseling for home buyers, and provides new ownership incentives for low-income families. And these are very important and positive measures. This is a demonstration of our commitment to restore the American Dream, but we also understand that there is no easy fix for this issue. In coming days, I plan to introduce legislation that will bring together many interests and groups involved in foreclosure and mortgage lending crisis so that we can continue to act to improve this situation. I hope that, working together, we will be able to quickly offer comprehensive and meaningful solutions to move forward. A similar effort has been made in Ohio spurred by our new Governor, Ted Strickland. And just recently, they came back with some very important recommendations that will hopefully make a meaningful impact in the State. But we here in Congress at the Federal level need to do our part. Mr. Speaker, never again do I want to have to hear that a family has lost their home simply because our laws and regulations have worked against them. I urge passage of this rule and the underlying legislation.

Ms. SUTTON

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 637 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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, H. Res. 637 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration and considers the conference report as read. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today in support of this rule and this much-needed underlying conference report, the College Cost Reduction Act, which will help give our students a real opportunity to go to college and give them the vital tools necessary to enter our workforce and build a positive future for themselves and our communities. And, Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to thank Representative George Miller, the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose commitment to our students, our families and our future in this country has brought us to this day when we are able to take this great step to put college education back within reach of so many hardworking families and students. The College Cost Reduction Act addresses one of the most pressing issues facing millions of families across this Nation: the question of how they will afford to send their children to college. Educational opportunity is the backbone of our Nation and everything that makes it great. And while access to higher education is more critical than ever for younger generations, the cost is rapidly moving out of reach for many low- and middle-income families. Tuition at 4- year public colleges and universities has risen 41 percent after inflation since 2001. And the typical American student now graduates from college with a $17,500 debt. This problem has developed into nothing less than a crisis. Sadly, due to the failure of past Congresses, many students have had their dreams shattered because they could not afford college tuition. Many hardworking parents have had their hearts broken because, despite their valiant efforts, they simply could not afford to pay tuition and meet other vital family needs. This problem has festered for too long, and I have long believed, Mr. Speaker, that those in government must work with the people they are called to serve and not against them. And that is what this bill does. It is the single largest investment in higher education since the GI Bill. It's good for our families. It's good for our students. It's good for our country. Financial barriers to higher education not only hurt students themselves by robbing them of the education and training necessary to make a productive and positive impact in our communities; it hurts us all. Investing in our students will not only improve their future; it will help our economy and our retired workers whom they will support. It ensures our national security, continued improvements in health outcomes, and will help the United States maintain its role as a leader in developing new cutting-edge technologies. By providing students with access to higher education, we are bolstering every sector of our economy from medical research to manufacturing because we are creating the next generation of innovators and leaders. Investing in our younger generations will not only help our students and families who are need; it strengthens America. The promise of the American Dream is the glue that holds our communities together. It was educational opportunity that provided me, the proud daughter of a working family, to obtain a first-rate education and ultimately find my way to the floor of the House of Representatives to fight for what is right. By denying the opportunities afforded by access to higher education, we deny our families their share of the American Dream. The College Cost Reduction Act addresses this crisis in a fiscally sound and responsible manner. It is funded by cutting unnecessary subsidies to private lenders and putting our taxpayer dollars to work for the American people. So, Mr. Speaker, this act will not only put college back in reach for our families; it does so by cutting almost $21 billion in taxpayer subsidies to private lenders and reinvesting over $20 billion of the savings in our Nation's students and putting an additional $750 million towards reducing our Nation's deficit. Specifically, the College Cost Reduction Act will cut the interest rates on subsidized student loans in half. The bill invests heavily in the much-needed, need-based Pell Grant scholarship program, increasing the maximum award by at least $1,090 over the next 5 years and expanding eligibility for the grants. By passing this bill, we will make a college education possible for hundreds of thousands of additional students over the next 5 years. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation also recognizes the value of our public servants by providing them with loan forgiveness for those who choose to serve in the jobs that make our world turn: teachers, firefighters, nurses, law enforcement officers, and librarians. Further, the College Cost Reduction Act provides upfront tuition assistance to qualified undergraduates who commit to teaching in public schools in high-poverty communities. This bill invests in the strength of our communities and of our country. And the return on our investment as a Nation in our students and people will, without question, provide an enormous return. Mr. Speaker, the crisis of college cost is pervasive, and it is getting worse. It is long past the time that Congress take action to ensure that a college education is not a privilege reserved only for the wealthy. I urge all of my colleagues to support our children and our families by voting for the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, a distinguished member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Bishop.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has an obligation to address the needs of the American people, and to work with them to address the pressing problems that they face. Today, we take a great step towards regaining the faith of the American people as we pass the College Cost Reduction Act to provide hundreds of thousands of American families with the opportunity to create a better life for their children. I am proud to be a part of that effort. The College Cost Reduction Act is a fiscally responsible bill which makes the single largest investment in college aid since the GI Bill, which, as we all know, provided our Greatest Generation with the opportunity to create the Nation we know today. This legislation invests over $20 billion in student aid, and does so with no additional cost to the taxpayers. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to again applaud the extraordinary leadership of Chairman George Miller in making college affordability a top priority. Under his guidance, all of the members of the Education and Labor Committee have crafted a good bill that works for our families and our country. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this investment in our children, in our economy and in our future, to keep faith with the American people, and to send a clear message that the American Dream is not a relic of the past, but a cornerstone of our future. 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.