Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5(a) of House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 11) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, the 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Supreme Court ruling was a painful step backwards in the civil rights in this country. Today, the House will vote once again to say that the ruling is unacceptable and must not stand.

Nondiscrimination in the workplace is a sacred American principle. Workers should be paid based upon their merits and their responsibilities, not on the employer's prejudices. Yet, more than 40 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court decided to dramatically turn back the clock.

Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for nearly two decades. Just as she was retiring as supervisor in 1998, she found out that her salary was 20 percent, 20 percent lower than that of the lowest paid male supervisor. Not only was Ms. Ledbetter earning nearly $400 a month less per month than her male colleagues, she also retired with substantially smaller pension and Social Security benefits. A jury found that Goodyear in fact had discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter because she was a woman. She was awarded $3.8 million in back pay and damages. This amount was reduced to $360,000 because of the damage gap of title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Despite the fact that the jury found Goodyear guilty of discrimination, a sharply divided Supreme Court in a 5-4 opinion decided that while Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, her claim was made too late. They had discriminated against her, but she was too late in making her claim.

Why was she too late? Because they said that she had filed outside the 180 day statute of limitations because she did not file after they had taken their secret executive action to pay Ms. Ledbetter less than her male counterparts. The fact of the matter is, she did not know that all of the time that she was working because of the secrecy of that act. The practical result, the practical result of the decision by this court, would be that as long as they could continue to hide the act, if they could get past 180 days, Ms. Ledbetter could be discriminated against and she would not be able to recover anything.

The law has said for a very long time that when a decision was made which was discriminatory in its nature, every paycheck issued since that time was a continuation of the original discriminatory act and Ms. Ledbetter had 180 days and other plaintiffs had 180 days to file from the last paycheck that was issued. Ms. Ledbetter did that, but the Supreme Court saw otherwise.

So, what the Supreme Court is saying is that employers would be allowed to continue to discriminate against employees without any consequences if they could hide it for 180 days. That is simply unacceptable in the American workplace, it is unacceptable to women in this country, and it is important that we pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would reset the law as businesses and most courts and employees and the EEOC had understood it to be before the court's dramatic ruling.

Under H.R. 11, every paycheck or other compensation resulting in whole or in part from an early discriminatory pay decision or other practice would continue as a violation of title VII. That is as it should be. That is as it was before the court spoke.

In other words, each discriminatory paycheck would restart the clock for filing a charge. As long as workers filed their charges, as Ms. Ledbetter herself

did, within 180 days of the discriminatory paycheck, their charges could be considered as timely.

No worker should have to put a full day's work in and get a paycheck at the end of the week that is based upon their gender, race or religion, without any recourse to justice. That is what this legislation will stop. It is fundamental and it is important.

This legislation also ensures that these simple reforms extend to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act to provide these same protections for victims of age and disability discrimination. Connecting pay discrimination poses significant challenges to workers, made all the harder by the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision.

The reality is that most workers don't know what their coworkers are making. Employers often prohibit employees from discussing their pay with each other. We fix these problems also with the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

The court's misguided decision is already having very harmful consequences far beyond Ms. Ledbetter's case. According to The New York Times, the Ledbetter decision has been cited in over 300 cases in the last 19 months that have denied people the opportunity to provide for recovery.

In this economy, especially in this economy, when every dollar counts to every worker in this country, to provide for themselves or their families, to provide for the wherewithal to go through the daily life in America, we cannot have people discriminated against because of their gender. We can pass the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act, and that will end that practice in the American workplace.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a subcommittee Chair of the Education and Labor Committee.

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

May I inquire of the Chair my time remaining?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 12) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House, in 1963, the Equal Pay Act was passed to end the discriminatory practices of paying men and women differently for performing the same job. The law's principle is that women and men should be paid based upon their merits and not on an employer's prejudice.

Before the Equal Pay Act, women in the workplace earned 59 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Things have gotten better since the passage of the act, but we still see that women earn only 78 cents for every dollar that is earned by a man doing the same job with the same responsibilities.

It is also very disturbing that African American women earn only 66 cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women earn an astonishing 55 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts in the workplace. This wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages, and it will follow them right into retirement in the form of smaller pensions and reduced Social Security benefits. It will make their health care even more expensive.

Today, this House will take a critical step forward to ensure that the Equal Pay Act lives up to its promise. Over 12 years ago, our colleague, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. In those 12 years, she was unable to get a hearing in this Congress. But she has now received a hearing, and later today she will receive passage of this legislation that will greatly strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close many of the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay.

Currently, an employer can refute a pay discrimination claim if he or she provides the difference of pay is based upon any factor other than gender, even factors unrelated to the job. That is just unacceptable. An excuse for equal pay that is not related to the job is no excuse at all. H.R. 12 will ensure that employers either provide equal pay for equal work, or provide a real business justification for not doing so. They will have to show that any gender-based wage differential is job- related, not based on or derived from gender-based differential and is consistent with business necessity.

H.R. 12 will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay. Many employers have policies forbidding employees from talking about their pay. This was the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the subject of the previous legislation that we just considered here this morning.

For years, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her male counterparts just because she was a woman, but she was unable to know that because she could not discuss her pay with any of the other supervisors, the people in the place of employment. That is wrong. They should be allowed to do that.

Such policies silence workers and allow employers to hide discriminatory pay practices. Employees should feel free to discuss their pay. It is often the only way that they can discover discriminatory pay practice and seek to rectify them.

The bill will also put gender-based discrimination sanctions on an equal footing with other forms of discrimination by allowing women to sue for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, just as business and workers may do under section 1981 for race and national origin discrimination.

If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak sanctions under the current law.

The Paycheck Fairness Act will require the Department of Labor to continue collecting pay information based upon gender. It also creates a program designed to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

Any pay gap based on gender is unacceptable, especially during these tough economic times. Single women who are head of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single men.

For families, especially those working under or near the poverty line, equal pay for women will make a significant difference in their economic well-being.

Allowing wage discrimination to continue will hold down women and their families while further harming the American economy.

And, again, I'd like to thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her passionate advocacy of this legislation and her introduction of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds here just to say that I am about to recognize, to speak on this legislation, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. I think all of us in the House, whether we agree or disagree with this legislation, recognize the incredible advocacy that she has brought to this issue of equal pay for equal work, of paycheck fairness, of women's rights at work, and the protection of low-income American families throughout her entire career in the Congress.

As I had mentioned earlier in this debate, she introduced this legislation some 12 years ago and has been unable to get a hearing on the legislation. We provided that hearing, and I think it

was compelling to almost all of the members of the committee that this wage disparity and these actions could not continue and deny women their full opportunity to participate in the American economy on equal footing.

So it's with a lot of pride and a great sense of honor just to recognize her to speak on behalf of this legislation which she has introduced and she is the primary author of.

I recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this motion is a little bit unbelievable in the sense that it suggests that we should be setting the attorneys' fees, even though the amount that the gentleman is asking us to set far exceeds what would be ordinary hourly wages fees in these kinds of cases across the Nation. At the same time, it makes no differentiation for geography, complication of cases, number of attorneys necessary in a case or even the number of firms that may be. We don't know if this applies to all of the attorneys in the case with multiple plaintiffs; whether this applies across the firm if multiple attorneys in a firm are on a single case if it's a complicated case and, in many cases, these are very complicated cases because they go in to business practices that are disguised in terms of trying to justify unequal pay in the name of equal pay.

I find it rather interesting that the supporters of this amendment across the aisle all stood up and talked about how they support the idea of equal pay, how they want their daughters and their granddaughters to be treated equally, how they want to make sure that they're treated fairly in the workplace and they really support the concept; they just don't support this bill which would make that the law.

But then what did they decide to do? They decided when those granddaughters aren't treated fairly in the workplace, they will discriminate against them in an ability to have an attorney. They will discriminate against them because they will say that their attorneys' fees are going to be capped according to this law, as opposed to letting the judge and the Court work out what are reasonable fees in that court case.

Why do they discriminate against them? The gentleman is jumping to his feet. Because there's no cap on the attorneys' fees of the people who discriminated against them, on the employer who made the conscious decision to pay this person less in the workplace, to treat them in a discriminatory fashion, to not recognize their inherent value and the comparability of their skills and their talent. They've decided that those employers can pay $5,000 an hour, $25,000 an hour, or $250,000 and they can hire as many firms as they want, New York firms, Chicago firms, Los Angeles firms. They can do whatever they want. But your daughter, granddaughter, wife, they're limited. They're limited with the kind of legal talent they can get.

How about in a large case in this country today where regional vice presidents, there's 39 of them in the organization, 10 percent of them are women, the men were paid $41,900. The women were paid $27,900. The district managers, the men were paid $23,900. The women were paid $17,000. You think you ought to have the right to go to court and have a good attorney and have the Court determine what are reasonable fees? You ought to be able to prosecute your case in the face of an employer that may have multiple law firms on permanent retainers to deal with this, as many of these defendants do?

Yes, I think you should, and so do the people of this country and I hope so do the Members of this Congress.

I would like to yield to Mr. Andrews, the subcommittee Chair.

I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, to keep the purpose and the intent and the constitutionality of the underlying legislation, and that we should now pass, after many, many years of waiting, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

And I ask a ``no'' vote on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 11 and

Madam Speaker, I rise today regarding H. Res. 34, concerning the fighting now taking place in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Hamas.

Like every Member of the House, I support the right of Israel to defend itself and its people. I join my colleagues in strongly denouncing the ongoing, indiscriminate, and destabilizing rocket attacks being launched by Hamas against the civilian population of southern Israel, and in denouncing Hamas' clear intent to continue to terrorize the people of Israel.

I call on Hamas to end its rocket attacks against Israel immediately.

Like every one of my colleagues here, I am also deeply saddened and troubled by the latest round of fighting in the Middle East, the loss of life to children and their families, the vast destruction of homes, and the enormous suffering that is being caused by the escalation of this conflict.

Today the House was asked to insert its voice into this latest conflict between Israel and Hamas. H. Res. 34 states, in part, that the House ``recognizes Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.''

I support much of the language in this resolution but I regret that H. Res. 34 in its entirety is not the correct statement for the House to make at this time.

America's support for Israel and its right to exist is unquestionable.

What is in question and what is the most important issue for the House and the international community to consider is how the Israeli people will be able to live in peace and without the constant threat of attack from Hamas or others, and how the United States and all other nations can assist in achieving that outcome.

The resolution today does not adequately address that concern, nor does it adequately address the complex political facts on the ground in the Middle East. Therefore, I have chosen to vote ``present'' on this resolution. I do not oppose Israel's right to defend itself and therefore I will not vote against the resolution. But I do not believe this resolution helps to resolve the current conflict and therefore I cannot vote for it.

What the House of Representatives should do at this moment in time is to throw its considerable weight behind the call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. A cease fire is in the best interests of Israel and the United States and I call on Israel and Hamas to agree to an immediate cease fire.

The fact is that there has been a failure of political leadership that has led to this renewed and devastating fighting in Gaza. The Bush Administration has failed to adequately or successfully address the Middle East conflict, and the international community has failed to adequately address the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

Experts on the Middle East had warned that a conflict of this nature would eventually come if conditions on the ground did not change. Their warnings went unheeded and now a new and costly war has broken out.

Hamas' rocket attacks against Israel are indefensible. But neither can the disproportionate military response by Israel be defended. The latest fighting was preceded by a lengthy and crushing blockade by Israel of Gaza that caused a humanitarian crisis. Hamas chose to break the cease fire and continue shelling Israel. And Israel chose to use the breaking of that cease fire to launch an all out attack on Gaza.

Lost in all of this is the answer to the question of how the Israeli people can be assured the protection they deserve. The rocket attacks against Israel continue despite the enormous firepower brought against Hamas by Israel. There is no clear answer as to how Israel will bring this conflict to an end in Gaza nor is it clear what are Israel's ultimate goals in this conflict.

Only a cease fire and a new international commitment to negotiate a cessation of hostilities between Hamas and Israel can protect the people of Israel. This is also in the best interest of the United States, which is so closely identified with Israel throughout the world.

I urge my colleagues in the House, who clearly are concerned about the protection of the Israeli people, to use their voices to call for an immediate cease fire and to urge all interested parties to make the cessation of hostilities between Hamas and Israel a priority.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor RichmondBUILD from Richmond, CA, in my congressional district, a program that is leading the national trend toward green-collar jobs while simultaneously enriching the lives of students by giving them an alternative to drugs and violence. The Pre-Apprenticeship Construction Skills & Solar Installation Training program, run by RichmondBUILD, today received the 2008 FBI Director's Community Leadership Award, which recognizes achievements in the area of violence, drug prevention, and education.

With programs like RichmondBUILD, we can help train the next generation of Americans so that they can succeed in green-collar jobs-- jobs that provide a secure future in the renewable energy and energy efficiency fields.

My recent visit with the RichmondBUILD students showed me the students' pure excitement in learning the new skills that will move them forward in their careers. Not only does RichmondBUILD help to stem the use of violence and drugs in our community, the program gives students the opportunity and tools to succeed in a new economy.

I invite my colleagues to learn more about RichmondBUILD, which has brought together community organizations, municipalities, and local industry and labor groups to provide such a successful green-collar job training program.

What Richmond has built with this public/private partnership is a model for cities around the country, and I commend the program's staff and its students for all of their hard work. I am proud to represent a community that includes programs like RichmondBUILD.

Madam Speaker, among the key areas of jurisdiction for the Education and Labor Committee are employee benefits--specifically, retirement and health benefits--that are so important to the economic security of American workers. Over the years, Congress has passed various laws designed to protect and strengthen the health and pension benefit programs that millions of American workers and retirees depend on.

Congress needs timely and objective data in order to determine and ensure that these critical programs are delivering needed benefits. When Government data is not available, one of the most valuable resources we have to help us understand what is happening in these areas is the nonpartisan and nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute, EBRI, which marks its 30th anniversary this year.

EBRI is a rare organization in Washington: It does not take policy positions and it does not lobby--its mission is to provide objective, accurate, reliable research. One of the reasons its work gets attention and is respected is because EBRI does not have an ideological agenda and it does not try to ``spin'' the numbers. Because EBRI is a non- advocacy organization, legislators on both sides of the aisle can use its work with confidence.

EBRI also has important educational initiatives, in particular its ``Chose to Save'' program, which has produced and distributed award- winning public service announcements designed to help Americans wake up to the need for saving. This campaign also provides valuable tools so workers can quickly and easily determine a ``Ballpark Estimate'' of how much they need to save, and gives them pointers on how to start saving and where to go for help.

EBRI was created partly as a result of the enactment in 1974 of ERISA, the major Federal law governing health and retirement benefits, because employers needed objective, reliable information about benefit trends. Much has changed since then, both in the benefits that American workers receive, and in the Federal laws that govern those benefits. EBRI's work has helped lawmakers, plan sponsors, workers, and the news media understand current trends and how proposed legislative changes are likely to affect the benefits system.

EBRI has been guided by Dallas Salisbury, its president and chief executive officer. Mr. Salisbury has been an important analyst and contributor to national public policy decision making on employee benefits. His thoughtful and often prescient analyses have aided lawmakers throughout the years.

EBRI's research provides information that is critical to the decisions made by public policymakers. As EBRI celebrates its 30th anniversary, I want to thank them for decades of quality work. We look forward to their continued research and analysis in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the mental health parity provisions contained in H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

These important provisions of the bipartisan legislation would not have been possible without the vigorous advocacy of the late Senator Paul Wellstone and the continued dedication and commitment of Senator Wellstone's family.

In addition, I want to thank Congressmen Kennedy and Ramstad as well as Senators Kennedy and Domenici. Without their tireless efforts, these provisions would not be before us today.

Mental illness and substance abuse affect millions of families across this country.

Without treatment, those suffering from mental illness and substance abuse often struggle to hold a job or make ends meet.

Today, approximately 44 million Americans suffer from mental illness, but only one-third receive treatment.

A key component of this problem is that private health insurers generally provide less coverage for mental illnesses and substance abuse than for other medical conditions.

A 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that, while 98 percent of workers with employer-sponsored health insurance had coverage for mental health care, 74 percent of those workers were subject to annual outpatient visit limits, and 64 percent were subject to annual inpatient daily limits.

The bill amends the Employer Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, to prohibit employer group health plans from imposing mental health or substance abuse treatment limitations, financial requirements, or out- of-network coverage limitations unless comparable limitations requirements are imposed upon medical-surgical benefits.

The out-of-network coverage provisions are particularly important.

Under this provision, if a health plan permits individuals to go to an emergency room for a medical condition without prior authorization; or an out-of-network hospital or treatment center at in-network rates for a medical condition, then the plan must apply the same rules to an individual suffering from a mental illness or substance disorder.

In addition, the bill does not require group health plans to provide any mental health or substance abuse coverage.

However, if the group health plan does offer mental health and/or substance abuse benefits, there must be equity between mental health and/or substance abuse coverage and all comparable medical and surgical benefits that the plan covers.

As a result, more Americans will be able to access affordable mental health and substance abuse benefits.

Nothing in the bill is intended to preempt stronger state mental health and substance abuse parity laws.

The Committee on Education and Labor has analyzed each state's mental health and substance abuse law; it is our understanding and intent that this legislation will not pre-empt any of these laws.

In other words, a state law that may contain broader or more favorable mental health and/or substance abuse benefit requirements will not be pre-empted.

Finally, this bill directs the Department of Labor to provide information and assistance to individuals, employers, and states in order to help them comply with the requirements of this law.

It is time to end the stigma and provide fair coverage to those in need.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, a bill to respond to what could be one of the worst financial crises to face our country.

Just over 10 days ago, in response to this crisis, President Bush asked Congress to immediately approve a 2\1/2\-page plan to grant never-before-seen powers to the Secretary of the Treasury to spend a staggering $700 billion in taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street firms, with no strings attached, no accountability, and no guarantee of success.

This President, who has overseen one of the worst economic records in American history, asked us for a blank check.

The Speaker of the House, my colleagues, and I said, ``No.'' We rejected his blank check plan.

But we did not dismiss the need to take action on behalf of American workers and families already hurt by our economic problems and who would be severely hurt further if this financial crisis becomes a full scale economic meltdown.

Instead, we said that if we are to rescue failing institutions because it is in the public's interest then we must ensure that the plan protects the taxpayer and holds officials accountable.

The plan that we are voting on today is a far cry from what we were first asked to approve. It is the result of hundreds of hours of negotiations between the House, the Senate, and the White House and between Democrats and Republicans.

The result is a plan that:

Provides money to rescue firms in stages, not all at once;

Limits the compensation of CEOs whose firms the government rescues. No more golden parachutes for Wall Street tycoons who get government assistance.

Provides immediate and ongoing tough oversight by independent boards including the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office;

Gives taxpayers ownership of the companies that they would rescue, giving them a share of the profits in those companies;

Helps families going through foreclosure, and;

Provides a mechanism for paying for any losses the taxpayer might face from this plan.

You would think that these protective measures would have been obvious to the President when he asked us to approve his plan.

The fact is, Democrats in the House and Senate had to fight for them. We had to fight to limit CEO pay for rescued firms. We had to

fight for tough oversight. We had to fight to give taxpayers ownership of the companies we help. And we had to fight to get some mechanism of paying for this plan.

So, with great deliberation and a lot of hard work, we made this a much better bill.

This bill does not have everything in it that I or others here wanted. It is a compromise. But it is a compromise that I believe is far preferable to the alternative of not acting at all.

The American economy is in its weakest condition in many, many years. Rising unemployment, stagnant and declining wages, record high energy costs, and soaring food prices.

Mortgage foreclosures continue to rise and home values continue to decline.

Fundamental investments in our economy remain unmet--for health care, aging roads, bridges and schools, new energy sources and energy conservation, and for education.

Amidst this economic crisis we face the potential for a sudden meltdown of our nation's financial markets of a magnitude that few of us have ever seen in our lifetime and that would reach into every corner of our nation and further weaken the living standards of every American.

No one can say with certainty, but if you believe the experts' predictions the collapse of the financial markets will not just result in the bankruptcy of banks and other firms on Wall Street.

The financial collapse would cripple the credit markets and would prevent the economy from growing, hurting Americans' ability to borrow at reasonable rates to make payroll at small businesses, invest in new equipment, borrow for college, take out a mortgage, start new businesses, or buy new cars. It would hurt our ability to create new jobs.

As we are seeing in California, school districts, counties, and cities are losing millions of dollars because of the collapse of Wall Street firms in which they held investments.

The question of whether to help rescue Wall Street firms and stabilize the credit markets is daunting and one that I know each of my colleagues is considering with greatest sense of caution, obligation and responsibility.

Americans are furious with the CEOs of Wall Street, and they have every right to be. Just as they should be furious with 8 years of the Bush Administration and 12 years of the Republican-led Congress that did nothing but cut taxes for the rich and help Wall Street with deregulation of the banks and provide no oversight from Washington.

With the Republicans' help, the barons of Wall Street have taken the upside of the economy with relish. They invented and mastered the golden parachutes and eye popping executive compensation schemes that have created their own economic class in our country.

They created new, complex financing mechanisms that were beyond even their own understanding and they violated every common sense rule of corporate transparency and financial soundness.

Armed with their powerful lobbyists, Wall Street cunningly held off fair regulations by Congress, arguing that left to their own devices Americans would be better off.

The American people are the victims of this go-go, Wild West approach to governing.

Well, the damage is done, and the damage is devastating. And now, the party is over.

Congress and the American people are going to have to step up to the plate and right the pieces. It will not be easy.

But the taxpayers should not be asked to do so without the protections that we have fought to include.

That is our primary concern--the American people who have had to withstand a devastating economic downturn during the last eight years, who had to shoulder the mounting costs of bailing out one large bank or financial firm after another, and who have not had anyone come to their own rescue when times got hard.

This bill is intended to stabilize the credit markets, slow the decline of foreclosures, slow the decline in home values, and begin to free up credit so that the economy can have a chance to grow.

Based on what I have learned from a wide range of experts across the country, I believe the financial crisis is real and that the consequences of not acting now will be far, far worse for average Americans than if we do nothing at all.

This bill is not just about trying to prop up the stock market. Markets will rise and fall for a variety of reasons. But the dramatic decline in the stock market clearly hurts tens of millions of Americans with pension funds, retirement accounts, college funds, and other savings that are invested in the stock markets.

What we are attempting to do is stabilize the credit markets because that is what fuels our economy and creates jobs and good incomes. The crisis that started on Wall Street does not end on Wall Street, it ends on Main Street, in every small town and big city in our country.

If this bill were just about Wall Street, given their behavior, I wouldn't walk across the street to save them. But this is really about our communities and families and people's access to credit, and jobs and economic growth. This is an important step but clearly much more needs to be done to create jobs and try to stop the slide in home values.

For example, the House passed a bill to spend $60 billion quickly on a stimulus plan, for infrastructure and unemployment insurance. The Administration has opposed it and has threatened to veto our plan.

Our plan would have created good paying jobs in California and in America, providing an infusion of money for mass transit, highways, water projects, bridges, water recycling, and broadband technology, all of which are an investment in the economic future of America.

The President is wrong to oppose this. At a time of rising unemployment, it is unfortunate that the President has opposed us and refuses to support our investment plan. But I will continue to fight for our economic plan that is essential to our long-term economic recovery.

I have fought to protect homeowners, taxpayers and consumers. I urge my colleagues to support this plan and to continue to work together to make further investments in the economy that are crying out for our approval to get America moving forward and get Americans working again.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues Ellen Tauscher, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, and Jerry McNerney in honoring Pat O'Brien for his many accomplishments and contributions to the East Bay Regional Park District, a world-class system of parks and trails throughout Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Pat O'Brien has provided remarkable leadership as the general manager of the East Bay Regional Park District, and our congressional districts have been greatly enhanced by his two decades of service. On the 20th anniversary of his leadership there, it is our great privilege to pay tribute to his work in the Congressional Record.

His service to public parks and recreation in California began at the Southgate Recreation and Park District in the Sacramento area. Due to his innovative ideas and pioneering work at Southgate, he was hired as the East Bay Regional Park District's general manager. Over the next 20 years, Pat has accomplished more than many could in a lifetime of service.

Under his leadership, the park district has acquired over 32,000 acres of new parklands, and has added 17 parks and more than 100 miles of regional trails. The East Bay Regional Park District today includes 98,000 acres and 65 parks, a remarkable achievement in protecting and providing open space access to the citizens of one of the densely developed regions of the country. And while expanding to ensure that all of our communities are served, Pat O'Brien and the East Bay Regional Park District have built strong relationships throughout the region so that their important projects and initiatives have widespread support.

The East Bay Regional Park District during Pat O'Brien's tenure has been a wise steward not only over the parks, trails, and natural and cultural resources of the East Bay Area, but of the taxpayers' money as well. The Park District has brought in more than $75 million in matching funds, and they have worked through ballot measures and assessment districts to provide stable funding for their good work.

Pat O'Brien's public service is an example to us all, and we are lucky to have his vision and his commitment in the East Bay. We have all benefitted by his leadership, and on behalf of all of our constituents, it is an honor to recognize Pat O'Brien on the occasion of his 20th anniversary as general manager of the East Bay Regional Park District.

Madam Speaker, the House and the Senate recently approved an important bill to make significant reforms to our child welfare system, including provisions to address the serious and urgent need to provide vital support to foster youth during their transition to independent adulthood. One provision of the bill in particular allows states to voluntarily extend foster care to age 21 from its current limit of 18 years of age. The President is expected to sign H.R.

6893, The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, into law shortly. I am proud to have voted for this bill, sponsored by my good friend Rep. Jim McDermott, and I look forward to its implementation and the benefits it will bring to young people struggling to overcome their difficult circumstances.

Recent research indicates that across the Nation more than 24,000 youth ``age-out'' of foster care each year. This figure represents an increase of 41 percent since 1998 in the number of young people who leave foster care without having found a permanent connection to a family or stable adult.

Thus, youth who turn 18 and are discharged from the system find themselves on their own, without the support that most adolescents rely upon as they transition from childhood to independent adulthood. Without that support, former foster youth are known to struggle. One in four will be incarcerated within a year of leaving the child welfare system. One in five will experience homelessness in that same year. Rates of mental health diagnoses are higher than in the general population, yet access to treatment and counseling is sporadic. Additionally, these youth have extremely low rates of educational attainment and thus are frequently unable to secure and sustain employment sufficient to meet their basic needs.

The same research that documents these overwhelming challenges, however, also shows the benefits of extending foster care to age 21. A large, ongoing, multi-State study conducted by Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, indicates that when youth are allowed to remain in care beyond their 18th birthday, they fare significantly better than youth who cannot. Some States voluntarily extend the option to young adults who have been unable to secure a permanent connection, and when Chapin Hall compares their later life circumstances to those of youth who were turned out at 18, found that they achieved significantly higher levels of education, earned higher wages, waited longer to become pregnant and bear children, and they took increased advantage of available services.

The study's authors state clearly that their findings indicate that extending foster care services can support youth in developing into healthy, educated, productive, and independent citizens. By giving all States the option of continuing foster care services to age 21, the legislation Congress recently approved would allow States to continue vital support for their disconnected adolescent foster youth during a crucial life transition, increasing the likelihood that these youth will experience better ultimate outcomes.

As a long-time member and now chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, I have dedicated many years to the effort of improving the lives of children in foster care and have had the opportunity to work with many different individuals and organizations along the way. Today I wanted to highlight one group in particular for its efforts as it relates directly to the bill we just approved.

The John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes has played an invaluable role in identifying potential policy solutions to the documented difficulties of former foster youth. Under the leadership of California State Senator John Burton (retired), the foundation plays a critical role at the State and national levels by bringing legislative attention to the needs of some of the Nation's most vulnerable young people. The foundation sponsors and advocates for legislation aimed at providing necessary ongoing support to youth who, by definition, the government has taken on the responsibility of parenting.

Through their advocacy to members of Congress and effective efforts to organize stakeholders in California, the John Burton Foundation has played an important role in ensuring that the extension of Federal funding to age 21 is included in this legislation. The evidence is solid and the conclusion is clear: Extending foster care services to age 21 to young adults raised in the child welfare system will support them in their effort to become healthy, independently functioning adults, and thereby honor the commitment made to them by the State and Federal governments.

Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate the foundation's efforts and I deeply appreciate the work that my colleague, Rep. McDermott, carried out in passing this legislation. Congress owes a great deal to children in foster care, and this legislation will be a very important step in that direction.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues Ellen Tauscher, Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, and Jerry McNerney in honoring Pat O'Brien for his many accomplishments and contributions to the East Bay Regional Park District, a world-class system of parks and trails throughout Alameda and Contra Costa counties in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Pat O'Brien has provided remarkable leadership as the General Manager of the East Bay Regional Park District, and our congressional districts have been greatly enhanced by his two decades of service. On the 20th anniversary of his leadership there, it is our great privilege to pay tribute to his work in the Congressional Record.

His service to public parks and recreation in California began at the Southgate Recreation and Park District in the Sacramento area. Due to his innovative ideas and pioneering work at Southgate, he was hired as the East Bay Regional Park District's General Manager. Over the next 20 years, Pat has accomplished more than many could in a lifetime of service.

Under his leadership, the Park District has acquired over 32,000 acres of new parklands, and has added 17 parks and more than 100 miles of regional trails. The East Bay Regional Park District today includes 98,000 acres and 65 parks, a remarkable achievement in protecting and providing open space access to the citizens of one of the densely developed regions of the country. And while expanding to ensure that all of our communities are served, Pat O'Brien and the East Bay Regional Park District have built strong relationships throughout the region so that their important projects and initiatives have widespread support.

The East Bay Regional Park District during Pat O'Brien's tenure has been a wise steward not only over the parks, trails, and natural and cultural resources of the East Bay Area, but of the taxpayers' money as well. The Park District has brought in more than $75 million in matching funds, and they have worked through ballot measures and assessment districts to provide stable funding for their good work.

Pat O'Brien's public service is an example to us all, and we are lucky to have his vision and his commitment in the East Bay. We have all benefitted by his leadership, and on behalf of all of our constituents, it is an honor to recognize Pat O'Brien on the occasion of his 20th anniversary as General Manager of the East Bay Regional Park District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

Over the years, there have been numerous hearings in DC and around the country at which individuals and their family members testified about the need for parity in the treatment of mental health and addiction conditions.

The final bill being considered today will eliminate most if not all of the abuses that families across the country have testified about. The following are examples of many of the major inequities that the bill is designed to eliminate:

Emergency Care:

Dr. Gerry Clancy described seeking prior authorization for a suicidal patient. Wanting to confirm that this was a serious suicide attempt, the health plan reviewer asked whether the patient had a plan to take his own life. Dr. Clancy answered that the patient planned to shoot himself. He said the reviewer then went farther and said, ``Does that person have a gun?'' and Dr. Clancy answered ``yes.'' Dr. Clancy said he could not believe the next question: ``does the person have bullets?''

No family in America should have to face having to justify why a suicide attempt is a real medical emergency. The final bill would require plans to have the same requirements for prior authorization, terms and financial limitations, co-pays, deductibles and day and visit limits on emergency benefits for mental health and addiction treatment services as the plan has on medical and surgical emergency services covered under the plan.

Medical Necessity:

Michael Noonan, the father of a college-enrolled daughter who suffered from chemical dependence, testified about the struggle his family faced to access inpatient addiction treatment for his daughter. After his daughter encountered a series of escalating problems and relapses, her clinician recommended inpatient rehabilitation for her alcohol dependence. He contacted his insurance company and was told that his contract included a benefit for inpatient rehabilitation for substance use disorders with a $200 deductible and 30 day coverage. In spite of confirming these benefits with his managed behavioral health care company, the authorization of his daughters' inpatient care was suspended after only five days of care. Mr. Noonan endured repeated denials, took out a home equity loan of $23,000 to pay for treatments while processing appeals, and requested the assistance of his congressional representative in order to secure payment for the treatment of his daughter. His experience was echoed in the testimony of many others, like Xavier Ascanio, whose daughter Samantha was hospitalized for an eating disorder. ``During the inpatient stay, the insurance company doled out pre-approval two or three days at a time. Imagine that hanging over you, both as a parent and as a patient.''

Under the final bill, health plans are required to disclose upon request the criteria for medical necessity determinations and the reason for any denial made under the plan with respect to mental health and substance use disorder benefits to the participant or beneficiary.

Out of Network:

Xavier Ascanio testified how difficult it was to find a qualified provider in-network to treat his daughter for an eating disorder. He said that after dealing with a parade of providers who were not helpful, they finally found some who were knowledgeable and could really help. Unfortunately, the providers were not on any insurance company's PPO list.

Ms. Melinda Lemos-Jackson whose young son was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder when he was 3 years of age testified, ``Would you go to an internist for a heart condition or would you go to a cardiologist? I have placed the calls to the clinicians, who upon interview, don't meet my son's needs, I have tried some of the in- network clinicians who clearly are not suitable. I've sometimes spoken to highly regarded folks who are actually on the list, only to find out that their practices are closed or they can't take a child like my son at this time, so we get the services our son needs and we learn to bring our checkbook and our Visa. Our health insurance is not accepted.''

What Mr. Ascanio and Ms. Lemos-Jackson described are ``phantom networks.'' ``Phantom networks'' are networks offered by plans that lack an acceptable number and array of providers that offer real options for help or hope for people with mental illness or addiction.

Ensuring equitable access to out-of-network benefits for mental health and addiction benefits is critical for making sure patients receive the care they need. A February 2007 RAND Corporation study looked at one health plan and found only 11.8% of patients accessing mental health benefits under the plan received care out-of-network. Moreover, a December 2007 study in Health Affairs on parity in the FEHBP found that parity legislation that does not extend parity to out- of-network benefits may have the unintended consequence of decreasing access to mental health and addiction treatment services altogether.

The final bill requires health plans to have the same terms and financial limitations on out-of-network benefits for mental health and addiction treatment services as the plan has on medical and surgical services covered under the plan. Plans must provide out-of-network benefits for mental health and substance use disorders in exactly the same manner as out-of-network medical and surgical benefits provided under the plan in order to be in compliance with this Act.

Wellness Plans:

Wellness plans can include information about diet, exercise, stress management and other forms of chronic disease management tools, but they are no substitute for mental health and addiction benefits. Increasingly, we have seen employee assistance programs that provide drug and alcohol treatment move to providing family counseling, stress management and other extremely helpful resources--but they are not a substitute for addiction treatment.

The final bill would prohibit a plan from changing its benefit design to a ``wellness plan'' to avoid compliance with the parity requirements of this Act.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual DSM:

Kitty Westin, the President of the Eating Disorder Coalition, spoke movingly about the need for full diagnostic coverage of mental illnesses. Anna Westin, Kitty's daughter, died at the age of 21 due to lack of access to care for her severe eating disorder. Despite having the ``Cadillac'' of insurance policies, Anna was repeatedly denied the treatment she needed. Eating disorders, like other diagnoses affecting children and youth, are often singled out for denial, a form of discrimination that led to the strong push in this legislation to require insurers to use the widely-accepted Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), rather than allowing plans to pick and choose diagnostic coverage based on cost or bias.

The DSM is a diagnostic manual developed by the American Psychiatric Association, through an open process involving more than 1,000 national and international mental health researchers and clinicians. It is used by virtually all private insurance companies, along

with Medicaid, OPM for the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, Tricare, and Medicare, which all require DSM criteria for the submission of claims. All NIH grant submissions, FDA drug indications for treatment, and legal indications for mental competency require the use of DSM codes and guidelines.

Despite this status as a recognized authority, the DSM itself became the focal point for many heated debates during the parity negotiations, launched by opponents of parity. However, in the end, language to require the DSM as the basis for coverage was not included in this bill. The final bill requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor and report to Congress on the extent to which health plans comply with the requirements of this Act to provide meaningful parity to the millions of families who experience mental health or substance abuse conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Paul Wellstone-Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

This important bipartisan piece of legislation would not have been possible without the vigorous advocacy of the late Senator Paul Wellstone and the continued dedication and commitment of Senator Wellstone's family.

In addition, I want to thank Congressmen Kennedy and Ramstad as well as Senators Kennedy and Domenici. Without their tireless efforts, this bill would not be before us today.

Mental illness and substance abuse affects millions of families across this country.

Without treatment, those suffering from mental illness and substance abuse often struggle to hold a job or make ends meet.

Today, approximately 44 million Americans suffer from mental illness, but only one-third receive treatment.

A key component of this problem is that private health insurers generally provide less coverage for mental illnesses and substance abuse than for other medical conditions.

A 2002 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that, while 98 percent of workers with employer-sponsored health insurance had coverage for mental health care, 74 percent of those workers were subject to annual outpatient visit limits, and 64 percent were subject to annual inpatient daily limits.

H.R. 6983 amends the Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to prohibit employer group health plans from imposing mental health or substance abuse treatment limitations, financial requirements, or out- of-network coverage limitations unless comparable limitations requirements are imposed upon medical-surgical benefits.

The out of network coverage provisions are particularly important.

Under this provision, if a health plan permits individuals to go to an emergency room for a medical condition without prior authorization; or an out-of-network hospital or treatment center at network rates for a medical condition, then the plan must apply the same rules to an individual suffering from a mental illness or substance disorder.

In addition, the bill does not require group health plans to provide any mental health or substance abuse coverage.

However, if the group health plan does offer mental health and/or substance abuse benefits, there must be equity between mental health and/or substance abuse coverage and all comparable medical and surgical benefits that the plan covers.

As a result, more Americans will be able to access affordable mental health and substance abuse benefits.

Nothing in H.R. 6983 is intended to preempt stronger state mental health and substance abuse parity laws.

The Committee on Education and Labor has analyzed each state's mental health and substance abuse law; it is our understanding and intent that this legislation will not preempt any of these laws.

In other words, a state law that may contain broader or more favorable mental health and/or substance abuse benefit requirements will not be preempted.

Finally, this bill directs the Department of Labor to provide information and assistance to individuals, employers, and states in order to help them comply with the requirements of this law.

H.R. 6983 enjoys broad, bipartisan support.

And, I would particularly like to recognize the dedication and commitment of Paul Wellstone's family to getting this bill passed. We know how important this issue was to Paul and it is in his memory that we take this vote today.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for the Paul Wellstone/Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

It is time to end the stigma and provide fair coverage to those in need.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, because our country urgently needs to create new jobs and provide vital relief for struggling families to get our economy moving forward again, I rise in strong support of our economic stimulus package, H.R. 7110.

Our economy needs two things right now to help workers and families. First, we must restore the confidence in the credit markets, confidence that was destroyed by the reckless lending and risk-taking by banks and Wall Street institutions and the failure of the Bush administration to properly police and regulate those financial markets on behalf of the taxpayers.

We must revive the credit markets to help the economy grow again and create jobs so that Americans can borrow at a reasonable rate to make payroll at small businesses, invest in new equipment and inventory, borrow for college education, start a new business, buy an automobile or protect their pensions.

Wall Street and Main Street are joined at the hip. We all share an interest in helping to restore the confidence in these markets that have been so battered by the lack of regulation over the last several years.

Secondly, we must invest directly in new infrastructure, roads, bridges, mass transit, clean water and new schools to get America working together, to create good, well-paying, good-paying, middle- class jobs for Americans all across this country.

Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs so far this year. The unemployment rate continues to go up month after month after month as people are looking for jobs to support their families.

Our economic recovery package will yield immediate results, helping to get more Americans back to work. It provides for long overdue investment of $3 billion to repair crumbling schools and help children, while also creating construction jobs; much-needed support for millions of unemployed Americans through extending the unemployment insurance benefits to help cover the basic living expenses of them and their families; a $500 million investment in job training programs to prepare workers for new jobs; to create new recycling projects that are so desperately needed in the parts of our country that are now in persistent drought conditions, and we need to use water more efficiently so that we can continue to have economic growth and the growth of jobs.

That is what this legislation is about. It is about putting Americans to work here at home by making the basic investments, so that our transportation systems become more efficient, our water systems become cleaner, our recycling of water makes more efficient use of that water, and so that people and goods and services can move across this country as they should.

We are not only falling behind the competition in terms of intellectual property, in terms of intellectual capital and science and engineering, we are falling behind in the basic infrastructure that is needed for this country to compete with the rest of the world in the movement of goods, in the education of our children and the improvement in our water systems and the infrastructure of our cities.

This is an urgent piece of legislation, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this legislation. It is an important piece of legislation. It does some very important things for families and individuals with mental health problems.

H.R. 6983 amends the Employer Retirement Income Security Act to prohibit employers and group health plans from imposing mental health or substance abuse treatment limitations, financial requirements or out-of-network coverage limitations, unless comparable limitation requirements are imposed upon medical surgical benefits.

Under this provision, if a mental health plan permits individuals to go to an emergency room for a medical condition without prior authorization or an out-of-network hospital or treatment center at in- network rates for a medical condition, then the plan must apply the same rules to an individual suffering from mental illness or substance abuse.

However, if a group plan does offer mental health or substance abuse benefits, there must be equity between the mental health or substance abuse coverage and all comparable medical and surgical benefits in the plan. Nothing

in H.R. 6983 is intended to preempt the stronger State mental health and substance abuse parity laws.

Having said that, I want to pay tribute to two of our colleagues. Jim Ramstad, who has been tireless in his effort to see this measure become law, and hopefully with our actions today it will be on its way to the President's desk and become law. I just want to thank you on behalf of so many families, not just my constituents who have mental health illness problems in their families, but so many families in America and individuals, for your work on this legislation.

And to Patrick Kennedy, our colleague who again has just done a remarkable job of rounding up support and votes for this legislation and getting to people to explain it to them, to get them to understand it and appreciate the problems that these families have when they try to get services from the insurance plans, from their health networks, and the barriers that are erected in front of them.

Hopefully this legislation will do what it is supposed to do to make sure that they can get treatment, they can get care, and they don't have to run all of the gauntlet that they today encounter with those barriers.

So to Congressman Ramstad, thank you so very much for all of your work, and to Patrick Kennedy, thank you so very, very much for all of your advocacy on this legislation.