Floor Statements

It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of our committee.

Could the Chair apprise how much time I have remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of a long debate, but let's get something very clear. This is all about equal pay, and this is all about whether or not women are going to receive equal pay. What this legislation does is recognize the barriers that have been put up in front of women trying to enforce the existing law.

It is rather interesting that the Secretary of Labor sent us a letter, and in her random audits of businesses working with government contractors she found systematic discrimination and she collected $51 million, and this is a record year, and it is the third record year in a row because of systematic discrimination.

Now, everybody has come to the floor and said they are all against this discrimination. Yes, we all are against that. Nobody is suggesting that anybody isn't. But if you can't enforce your rights, then you suffer the discrimination. Random audits, $51 million was denied to these individuals. And these are just people working with government contractors. Think what it is nationwide, and the people don't get a random audit, they don't get the Secretary of Labor, they don't get the Department of Labor. What they get is discrimination in their pay. That is what they get.

Today, we are going to decide whether or not these women are going to be able to collect the pay that is owed them, whether they are going to be able to enforce the law that requires as a matter of national policy and law the equal pay for women. That is the issue here. It is not complicated. It is not complicated.

Study after study has determined that pay discrimination exists whether you are in the workforce 10 years, whether you are starting out in the workforce, no matter what your life experiences are. When they control for all of that, there still is discriminatory pay against women in the American workforce, and today this House is going to change that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I would just join in what my colleagues have already said, that I don't think this needs further study. And I think, certainly, the idea of basing whether or not this law will be enacted on a single study by this Secretary of Labor within 90 days, when we have a decade of studies, very few that have been challenged for their accuracy, that continues to tell us that, while the situation has improved, we still have this huge disparity between the pay of men and women for the same jobs, for the same responsibilities.

And this legislation is designed to rid us of that disparity. It is designed to rid us of that discrimination, and it is designed to give women the tools that they need to go in and to enforce their rights. And I would hope that we would support this legislation, that we would reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I won't take that long.

I just want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We've discussed it for some time, and your persistence has won out. And I think it's a good amendment, and I would hope that the committee would adopt it.

We have no problem with this amendment. We agree with the gentleman. We think that these grants to increase the negotiating skills of young women and girls, all women, are very important. We would hope and we expect that they would be given on merit by the Secretary under the provisions of the law. We don't expect that they would be earmarked.

Mr. Flake has offered this language so that hopefully it would not be earmarked, and that language hopefully will be respected by other committees of the Congress, and we would accept the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the motion.

You gotta love these guys. They've argued all day that pay disparity doesn't exist in this country, in spite of all the studies by governmental agencies, by their own governmental agencies, the Department of Labor, the EEOC, and all the rest, that a woman today can still make 77 cents on the dollar for every dollar that a man earns. They've argued all day.

Now they've introduced a motion to recommit that accepts the fact of the existence of these pay disparities. They want to argue that they're exacerbated by high energy costs. We grant you that argument.

But then what do they want to do in their last act as they leave for August break? They want to suggest that a woman who has been discriminated against intentionally, unintentionally, discriminated against in pay, paid 77 cents for every dollar, or 20 cents for every, we don't know, that woman is going to have a cap on her attorneys' fees.

They put it at $1,000 to get your blood rushing. But you know who doesn't have a cap? The employer who discriminated against that woman doesn't have a cap on their attorneys' fees. That employer doesn't have a cap of $1,000. Is it $1,000 if it's a complicated case and that woman needs two attorneys or three attorneys or four or five experts to prove this discrimination?

She has a cap on those. The employer needs five experts, no cap; five attorneys, no cap.

Your last act of discrimination in denying discrimination is to make sure that they can't recover the wages that are due them, and you ought not to be able to do this. You ought not to be able to do that on the floor of this House. You simply should not be able to do that.

This is about whether or not women will have the tools necessary to get rid of the wage discrimination that costs them money every hour, every week, every month and every year, and it follows them into their retirement. You've heard it here today. It can cost them as much as $2 million in lost Social Security, in lost retirement benefits, in lost wages. And now they want to suggest that those women who may lose $2 million have a cap on their ability to recover.

I hope Ms. Lilly Ledbetter is watching you guys, because now she understands what your problem was.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, the subject of the amendment is discrimination against women.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more time. Time has run out. We have seen this discrimination documented time and again in all different kinds of businesses, all different kinds of occupations. It doesn't matter your education or your experience, this discrimination exists, and we have the opportunity with this vote tonight to put an end to it, to allow these women to enforce existing law.

We don't change the law. We give them the right to enforce the law. And if they don't have that right, they have no justice and the law means nothing. That is why we continue to see tens of thousands of cases of wage discrimination where women can't afford to go in and recover the wages.

I ask my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit and with great pride vote for final passage of this legislation to end wage discrimination, and with that vote to recognize the phenomenal work of Rosa DeLauro in seeking out justice for women all across this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Representatives Hodes for introducing H.R. 2851, also known as Michelle's Law, and for his hard work in bringing the legislation to the House floor today.

H.R. 2851 is named in honor of Michelle Morse who was diagnosed with cancer while she was attending college at Plymouth State University.

While Michelle was facing one of the most difficult times in her life and desperately needed time off to deal with her diagnosis and receive treatment, her health insurer informed her that it would not cover her for chemotherapy treatments unless she continued in school full-time.

As a result, Michelle had to keep up with her course work at the same time as she was receiving 48 hours of chemotherapy a week. She died in November 2005.

Michelle's law declares that no college student should have as difficult a road as Michelle. Students should have the ability to focus on treatment and recovery before returning to school.

H.R. 2851 amends ERISA, the Public Health Service Act and the Internal Revenue Code to require employers and health insurance companies to continue covering college students for up to 12 months if, as the result of an illness or injury, they need to take time off from school to receive treatment and to recover. The rights provided under the bill are in addition to those already provided under ERISA, COBRA and HIPAA. The bill also preserves stronger state laws.

In fact many States are ahead of Congress on this issue and have already enacted laws that mandate insurers to cover children over 18 under a family plan regardless of the child's school status. Nine States have laws similar to H.R. 2851 and require health plans to continue insuring students who withdraw from school or change their status due to an illness or injury.

However, the state laws do not cover employer sponsored health plans regulated by ERISA which is one of the critical reasons H.R. 2851 is needed.

Receiving a cancer diagnosis or suffering a serious injury can be devastating. We must ensure that students who are seriously ill or injured do not have to choose between their health and their health insurance.

H.R. 2851 is a common sense bill that will benefit many young people facing adversity. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2851.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully submit the following for inclusion in the Congressional Record. The first is a letter of support for H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and the second is a list of organizations that support this important legislation.

June 17, 2008.

Help Secure the Promise of the ADA: Support the ADA Amendments Act of

2008

Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon. As you are

aware, the Committee today is poised to consider legislation

to secure the promise of the original Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA has as its

fundamental goal the inclusion of people with disabilities in

all aspects of society, including employment for people who

are willing and able to work despite their disabilities.

Unfortunately, court decisions over the last decade have

excluded individuals who should have been covered under the

current ADA law. These narrow court interpretations have

restricted ADA coverage for people with diabetes, epilepsy,

serious heart conditions, mental disabilities and even

cancer. As representatives of a broad cross-section of both

the employer and disability communities, we believe the

proposal before the Committee strikes an appropriate balance

between the needs of individuals with disabilities and those

of employers. The proposal includes the following key

provisions:

Coverage under the ADA--The proposal clarifies that

Congress intended the ADA's coverage to be broad, to cover

anyone who faces unfair discrimination because of a

disability.

Definition of Disability--The proposal retains the

requirement that an individual's impairment substantially

limits a major life activity in order to be considered a

disability and an individual must demonstrate that he or she

is qualified for the job.

Protection for Mitigating Measures--The proposal would

overturn several court decisions to provide that people with

disabilities not lose their coverage under the ADA simply

because their condition is treatable with medication or can

be addressed with the help of assistive technology.

Regarded As--The proposal includes a ``regarded as'' prong

as part of the definition of disability which covers

situations where an employee is discriminated against because

of his or her actual or perceived impairment. Moreover, the

proposal makes it clear that

accommodations do not need to be made to someone who is

disabled solely because he or she is ``regarded as''

disabled.

Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon, we firmly

support this legislation and we stand ready to work with you

to enact this legislation this year. We thank you for

addressing the important issue and look forward to working

with the House of Representatives to secure its passage.

Sincerely,

American Association of People with Disabilities; American

Diabetes Association; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law;

Epilepsy Foundation; HR Policy Association; International

Franchise Association; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights;

National Association of Manufacturers; National Disability

Rights Network; National Council on Independent Living;

National Restaurant Association; Society for Human Resource

Management; U.S Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Ways and Means Committee for sheparding this bill, the Pension Protection Technical Corrections Act, to the floor.

The Pension Protection Act contained major changes to the funding rules for defined benefit pension plans. The final bill was over 900 pages long.

As can be expected with any massive legislative vehicle, the final law contained dozens of mistakes, some technical and some not so technical.

The bill before us today primarily fixes only the technical errors that have been found in the bill. It does not seek to make any changes in pension policy.

The bill was put together by the staffs of all the committees of jurisdiction, both in the House and Senate and on both sides of the aisle. The bill has been vetted by the key regulatory agencies--the Department of Labor, Treasury Department, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

The bill mostly fixes incorrect punctuation and citations. It also contains a few substantive changes in places where the language of the PPA was unclear and clarification was needed for the agencies to be able to carry out the purposes of the law.

I would like to address some confusion created by the Treasury Department, in which it, as part of its PPA interpretation, provided guidance on the wear-away of workers' accrued pension benefits in cash balance plans.

An important part of the Pension Protection Act was to make clear that the wear-away of workers' benefits was illegal in cash balance plans, not only with respect to normal retirement benefits, but also with respect to early retirement benefits. As a political compromise, Congress made this rule prospective only, with the question of wear- away under the pre-PPA law to be decided by the Federal courts.

The Treasury Department issued a first ruling last year that undermined this carefully crafted compromise. Treasury recently issued new rules in which it indicated it will not rule on pre-PPA wear-away. There are many court cases pending on this matter and it must remain solely to the courts to decide whether pre-PPA pension law permitted employers to wear-away workers' otherwise legally protected accrued benefits.

Although I did not support the PPA, I hope that the House can pass these technical changes and then move on to the more pressing retirement issues of the day.

With the faltering economy and housing market crisis, more and more individuals are withdrawing their 401(k) pension monies in order to pay their mortgages and other bills.

These families are being forced to sacrifice their retirement security in order to survive day to day.

The Congress needs to address the real retirement security crisis facing working families.

The Pension Protection Act only made the problem worse. The law forced companies to speed up pension plan funding regardless of the financial status of the company or the pension plan. While faster funding had some superficial appeal, the real result is to encourage employers to terminate their pension plans or seek access to the accumulated assets.

Workers are increasingly dependent on 401(k) savings plans for their retirement security.

But as my Committee has found over the past year, 401(k) plans are being decimated by below average investment returns and excessive fees.

The Congress needs to start thinking about these more pressing issues.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House, as American families struggle with the rising cost of energy, as it makes their commute to work even more expensive, as they think about

buying home heating oil for this winter, think how it could have been.

Think how their lives would have been different if, for the last 7 years, instead of defending the subsidies for big oil companies, the tax breaks for big oil companies and the royalty holidays for big oil companies, the Bush administration and the Cheney administration had put their heads together and had thought about the future as opposed to the past. But when you have two oil men together in the Oval Office in the White House, they think about the past, and that is protecting the oil companies; it is not about the future.

Think if President Bush had come out for any increase in the mileage standards 7 years ago where we would have been, instead of defending for 32 years the right of the automobile companies to keep us away from more efficient automobiles.

But that would have been the future. The Bush-Cheney administration has never thought about the future; they have only thought about the past, and that has turned out to be terribly, terribly costly to the American consumer.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1299, I call up the bill (H.R. 3195) to restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for all Members to have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3195.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3195, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008.

Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act has made it possible for millions of productive, hardworking Americans to participate in our Nation's economy. Among other rights, the law guaranteed that workers with disabilities would be judged on their merits, not on their employer's prejudices.

But since the ADA's enactment, several Supreme Court rulings have dramatically reduced the number of workers with disabilities who are protected from discrimination under the law. Workers with diabetes, cancer, epilepsy, the very workers for whom the Americans with Disabilities Act was intended to protect, can be legally fired or passed over for promotion just because of their disability.

In January, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony from Carey McClure. Although he was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy at age 15, Carey had been working as an electrician for more than 20 years. Like so many other Americans with disabilities, Carey was able to find his way to successfully perform his job and all of life's daily tasks despite his disability.

Carey received an initial job offer from General Motors pending a physical. During the physical, the doctor asked Carey to hold his arms above his head. Carey could not. The doctor asked how he would perform his job if it required reaching over his head. Carey gave a commonsense answer: he would use a ladder. When General Motors learned that Carey had a disability, it rescinded the job offer. Carey challenged General Motors' decision because he thought the Americans with Disabilities Act would protect him. He was wrong. The court ruled that, since Carey had adapted to his condition by modifying the way he performed everyday tasks, like washing his hair, he was not disabled; and, therefore, was not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Because of Supreme Court rulings, Carey and many others are now caught in a legal Catch-22. The court has determined that, for individuals whose disabilities do not ``prevent or severely restrict'' major life activities and for those who mitigate their impairments through means such as hearings aids or with medications, they should not be considered disabled.

In other words, an employer could fire or refuse to hire a fully qualified worker simply on the basis of his or her disability, while maintaining in court that the worker was not ``disabled enough'' to qualify for protection under the law.

H.R. 3195, the legislation before us today, a bipartisan legislation, was introduced by Majority Leader Hoyer and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, and it remedies this problem. The bill reverses the flawed court decision and restores the original congressional intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

H.R. 3195 clarifies the definition of a ``disability,'' ensuring that anyone with a physical or with a mental impairment that materially restricts a major life activity is covered under ADA.

In 2004, workers with disabilities lost 97 percent of the employment cases that went to trial. There has been no balance in the courts, putting workers at a distinct disadvantage. Too often, these cases have turned solely on the question of whether someone is an individual with a disability; too rarely have courts considered the merits of the discrimination claim itself.

H.R. 3195 stops the erosion of civil rights protections for people with disabilities while maintaining a reasonable solution supported by the business community.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states that H.R. 3195 ``represents a balanced approach to ensure appropriate coverage under ADA.''

The Human Resource Policy Association, whose members employ 12 percent of the U.S. private-sector workforce, also supports the bill. The organization says that the ADA amendment ``would maintain the functionality of the workplace while providing important protections to individuals with disabilities.''

H.R. 3195 makes it clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act protects anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability and that Congress intended the law to be constructed broadly.

Many of our Nation's injured veterans returning from the battlefield will also need the protections guaranteed by the ADA. When injured soldiers return to civilian life, whether they go back to a job or to school, they should not be subject to discrimination. This legislation will ensure that they will not have to fight another battle, this time for their economic livelihood.

The Supreme Court rulings have also reduced protections for students with disabilities. The ADA Amendments Act ensures that students with physical and mental impairments will be free from discrimination and that they will have access to the accommodations and to the modifications they need to successfully pursue an education.

This legislation has broad support: Democrats and Republicans, businesses and advocates for individuals with disabilities. I am pleased we were able to work together to get to this point.

It is time to restore the original intent of the ADA and to ensure that the tens of millions of Americans with disabilities who want to work and to attend school and to participate in our communities will have the chance to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Again, I would like to give a special thanks to Majority Leader Hoyer of Maryland and to Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin for their outstanding efforts on behalf of the Members of this House during these negotiations, to bring those negotiations between the civil rights community, the disabilities community, and the employer community to a successful conclusion, which is embodied in this legislation today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 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.)

Madam Chairman, does the gentleman from California have any further speakers?

If we can reserve our time and let Judiciary go ahead and start using their time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and certainly thank him for all his leadership on this bill. But I want to thank him on behalf of the Chairs and the ranking members of the two committees, you and Mr. Sensenbrenner, for the leadership that you both provided throughout these difficult and visionary negotiations to restore this act to the place that it should be. I just want to publicly, on behalf, I think, of everybody in the Congress, thank you and Mr. Sensenbrenner for your leadership on this.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I want to certainly thank the staffs of our committees on both sides of the aisle for all of their work. They put in a tremendous amount of time and intellectual power behind the amendments to the ADA and to put it back in the place that it should have after the court decisions damaged the intent and the purposes of this act. I certainly want to thank Sharon Lewis of the Committee on Education and Labor and Brian Kennedy and Thomas Webb, who is with us as an intern, for all of their work.

I am very proud to be a Member of Congress today and certainly of the House of Representatives as we pass this legislation. I was brought to the issues around the disability community when I first came to Congress, or perhaps a little before that when I was working in the State legislature in California by a hardy crew from California who were deeply involved in pursuing the civil rights of those with disabilities and the constitutional rights of those with disabilities and their place in the legislative process, and I want to thank them. And that is Judy Heuman from California and known to many; and Ed Roberts, a great champion of disability rights, a magnificent person; and Hale Zukor, who still resides in Berkeley and continues the battle; and Jim Donald, who is a wonderful attorney on behalf of many in the disability community; and so many others.

In my time in Congress, I have watched the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the battle over the 504 regulations; IDEA, at that time Education for All Handicapped Children, now IDEA; and the ADA; and today the restoration of the ADA to its proper position and power within the law. And I think it's a tribute to this Congress. While in many instances we have had very controversial fights and there have been eruptions over the implementation of these laws, we have continued to march forward and ensure the rights of the disabled, for their participation in American society. I think so many Members now and so many people in

our society recognize all that the members of the disability community have accomplished, all that they are accomplishing, and all that they will accomplish.

So today when we look at a young child seeking to be enrolled in school and to have an opportunity at the content and the curriculum that others have and to have the chance to participate in that school in a meaningful way and not be put off and sidestepped or in segregated classes; when we look at individuals who want to pursue a career, an activity, in our society and not be discriminated against; and when we now see employers recognizing the talents and the abilities and the contributions to be made by individuals with disabilities, we as a Nation are far better off, far richer, and far more understanding than we were prior to the struggles over these laws. And I hope that all Members will share the pride that I do when later on we will be able to vote to restore the ADA after the damage done by the court decisions.

And with that I thank all of my colleagues for their participation in this debate.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3180) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3180, a bill to temporarily extend programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965.

At the beginning of February, the House took steps to reauthorize the Higher Education Act in passing H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. We now find ourselves in the near final phase of completing the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act as we work toward a compromise bill with the Senate to ensure that the doors of college are truly open to all qualified students.

It is our goal to ensure that a final bill encompasses the major issues addressed in H.R. 4137, including skyrocketing college prices, a needlessly complicated student aid application process, and predatory tactics by student lenders.

The bill under consideration today, S. 3180, will extend the programs under the Higher Education Act until July 31, 2008, to allow sufficient time for final deliberations on the two bills reported out of the respective Chambers.

It has been nearly 10 years since the Higher Education Act was last reauthorized, and I believe the Members on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers are anxious to complete the work on this bill in this Congress. We believe it can happen.

I look forward to joining my colleagues on the committees in both the House and the Senate in completing our work on behalf of this Nation's hardworking families and students.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6358) to require certain standards and enforcement provisions to prevent child abuse and neglect in residential programs, and for other purposes.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 6358, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008.

This legislation incorporates the bipartisan compromise amendment to H.R. 5876 that this House debated yesterday and supported by a vote of 422 in a recorded vote that was taken on the substitute amendments.

The ranking member, Mr. McKeon, and I worked together to develop this compromise legislation because we both agree that children's health and safety should never be a partisan issue.

The Government Accountability Office has found thousands of cases and allegations of child abuse and neglect, stretching back decades, to teen residential programs, including boot camps, wilderness camps, and therapeutic boarding schools.

The Education and Labor Committee has closely reviewed dozens of serious neglect and abuse cases, including cases that resulted in the death of a child. We have heard from parents of

children who died of preventable causes at the hands of untrained, uncaring staff members. We have heard from adults who attended these programs as teens. They too were the victims of physical and emotional abuse and witnessed other children being abused. These abuses have been allowed to go on because of the weak State and Federal rules governing teen residential programs.

An 18-month study by the Government Accountability Office showed that State licensing may exclude certain types of teen residential programs and thus place children at higher risk of abuse and neglect. In some States inconsistent licensing enables programs to define themselves out of the licensing altogether. According to GAO, in Texas a program that calls itself a residential treatment center would be required to obtain a license, but if that same program simply called itself a boarding school, it would not be required to have that license, and that's why this legislation is terribly important.

Parents send their children to these programs because they feel they have exhausted their alternatives. Their children may be abusing drugs or alcohol, attempting to run away or physically harm themselves, or otherwise acting out. They turn to these programs because the promise of staff members that will help their children straighten out their lives. And surely there are many cases in which programs do provide families the help they need. These parents are desperate and their children are in deep trouble.

But in far too many cases, when parents turn to those programs, they find they are getting conflicted information by people who have conflicts of interest in recommending the care for their children, financial conflicts of interest, ownership issues, and relationship issues that conflict that kind of advice.

We also know that we see programs that violate the trust that must be established between the parent and these programs and the programs and the children. It's very difficult for these parents to find good programs and to find accurate information, since the reporting requirements are so thin or nonexistent in so many States.

This legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish minimum standards for residential programs, and to enforce them. Ultimately, however, the States will have primary responsibility for carrying out the work of this bill.

The legislation calls upon the States within 3 years to take up the role of setting standards and enforcing them at all programs, public and private. The Health and Human Services and the State standards would include prohibitions on physical, sexual, and mental abuse of children. The standards would require the programs to provide children with adequate food, water, and medical care.

They would require that programs have plans in place to handle medical emergencies. They would also include new training requirements for program staff, including the training on how to identify and report child abuse.

The legislation requires Health and Human Services to set up a toll- free hotline for people to call to report abuse in these programs. It also requires Health and Human Services to create a Web site for information about each program so that parents can look and see if substantiated cases of child abuse or a child fatality has occurred at the program that they are considering for their children.

Finally, the legislation requires programs to disclose to parents the qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members, and requires programs to notify parents of substantiated child abuse or violations of health and safety laws.

Madam Speaker, we have the responsibility to keep children safe, no matter what setting they are in. Today, we are taking an important step to finally ending the horrific abuses that have gone on in these residential programs for teens.

I want to thank again Congresswoman McCarthy of New York for all of her help and work on this legislation, and Congressman McKeon for all of his work on this legislation. His suggestions as the bill left the committee made this a better piece of legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bipartisan legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to thank Congressman Platts for his support of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, because I was chairing a hearing today on whether OSHA is failing to adequately enforce construction safety rules, I was unable to vote on the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, H.R. 6331.

I strongly support the legislation, and I would have voted in favor of H.R. 6331 had I been present during the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5876 into the Record.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5876, the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs For Teens Act of 2008. Last year, a 17-year-old boy in a Maryland residential program for teens became unresponsive after he was physically restrained by staff members. According to the press reports, prosecutors alleged that the staff members waited 41 minutes to call 911 because they thought the boy was faking. The boy died. A 15-year-old boy in a wilderness camp in Colorado died in May 2007 from a staph infection. According to the press reports, State authorities said the boy showed observable signs of infection that were neglected by the camp staff members.

Tragically, these recent deaths are not isolated cases. The Government Accountability Office has thousands of cases and allegations of child abuse and neglect stretching back decades in teen residential programs, including boot camps, wilderness camps and therapeutic boarding schools.

The Education and Labor Committee has closely examined a number of these neglect and abuse cases, including cases that resulted in the death of a child. We have heard stories about program staff members forcing children to remain in so-called stress positions for hours at a time, to stand with bags over their heads and nooses around their necks in mock hangings, to eat foods to which they were allergic, even as they got sick, or to eat their own vomit. We have heard from parents of children who died preventible deaths at the hands of untrained, uncaring staff members.

Bob Bacon testified that program staff members mocked his son, Aaron, when the 16-year-old boy asked for medical help, calling him a faker. For weeks, the staff deprived Aaron of adequate food and water even though his weight loss became frighteningly apparent. When Bob and his wife Sally went to the mortuary to see their son, they found scars of abuse and dried skin stretched taut over Aaron's bones.

Cynthia Harvey told the Education and Labor Committee that program staff members waited 45 minutes before summoning appropriate medical care for her daughter, Erica, who had collapsed and was having difficulty breathing.

Paul Lewis testified that program staff members ignored his son Ryan's obvious signs of emotional distress, denying him psychiatric care that could have saved his life.

In addition to wrenching stories like these parents told, the Education and Labor Committee has also heard from adults who attended these programs as teens. They too were victims of physical and emotional abuse and witnessed other children being abused.

Madam Chairman, these abuses have been allowed to continue unchecked because of the weak patchwork of State and Federal regulations governing teen residential programs.

An exhaustive 18-month study by the Government Accountability Office showed that State licensing programs may exclude certain types of teen residential programs, and thus place children at higher risk of abuse and neglect. In some States, inconsistent licensing enables programs to define themselves out of the licensing altogether. According to the GAO, in Texas a program that calls itself a residential treatment center would be required to obtain a license; but if that same program were simply called a boarding school, it would not require a license. Even when licensing exists, GAO found that there may not be minimum standards to effectively prevent child abuse and neglect.

Parents often send their children to these programs when they feel they have exhausted all their alternatives. Their children may be abusing drugs or alcohol, attempting to run away--or physically harm themselves--or otherwise acting out. Parents turn to these programs because of the promise that staff members will help their children straighten their lives out. And surely there are many cases in which programs do provide families with the help they need. In far too many cases, however, the very people entrusted with the safety, health, and welfare of these children are the ones who violate the trust in some of the most awful ways imaginable.

We have learned a great deal from the Government Accountability Office about programs' irresponsible operating practices that put kids at risk and about the deceitful marketing practices that programs use to lure parents desperate for help for their children. The Government Accountability Office also found examples of the shady network that programs sometimes relied on, such as referral service providers that claim to offer independent services to parents but that actually have close financial or personal ties to the very programs that they are ``independently recommending.''

We know that there are many programs and people around the country who are committed to helping improve the lives of young people and who do good work every day. But, unfortunately, it has become extremely difficult for parents to tell the good programs from the bad. And I would remind you again that very often these parents seek nothing but the best for their children, children who are extremely difficult to handle, who have failed in other efforts and other programs to deal with their problems. So these parents have exhausted most of their options, and then they run into some of these programs which then endanger their child even though the parent is seeking the best for their child.

The legislation before us today, H.R. 5876, would help keep children safe in residential programs and help ensure that parents have information they need to make safer choices for their kids. The legislation requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to establish minimum standards for private programs to enforce those standards.

With children's health and safety at risk, this Federal rule is a necessary recognition that we are dealing with an emergency and we cannot wait for the States to act. These abuses have been going on for years. States have had time to act and in many instances they have failed to do so.

Ultimately, however, States will be primarily responsible for carrying out the work of this bill. The legislation calls for States within 3 years to take up the role of setting standards and enforcing them on all programs, both public and private.

The Health and Human Services Administration and the State standards would include prohibitions on physical, sexual, and mental abuse of children. The standards would require that programs provide children with adequate food, water, and medical care. They would require that programs have plans in place to handle medical emergencies. They would also include new training requirements for program staff members, including training on how to identify and report child abuse.

The legislation requires Health and Human Services to set up a toll- free hotline for people to call to report abuse in these programs.

As you can see, Madam Chair, these are minimum requirements for the health and the safety of the children that have been placed in this care.

It also requires Health and Human Services to create a Web site with information about each program so that parents can look and see if substantiated cases of abuse have occurred at a program that they are considering for their children.

Finally, the legislation helps prevent programs from using deceptive marketing tactics to target parents. Among other things, it requires programs to disclose to parents the qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members, and requires programs to notify parents of substantiated reports of child abuse or violations of health and safety laws.

The legislation has the strong support of the American Association of Residential Centers. One of the association board members, Dr. Christopher Bellonci, testified in support of the legislation earlier this year. He said, and I quote, ``The goal of this legislation is to ensure that children are not abused in these treatment settings, not to limit access to appropriate, regulated, and licensed residential care for children who are in need of these services. All of us working in licensed residential centers should support this goal.''

Madam Chairman, we have a responsibility to keep children safe no matter what setting they are in, and today we

are taking an important step towards finally ending the horrific abuses that have gone on far too long in residential programs for teens.

I want to thank Congresswoman McCarthy of our committee for her hard work on this legislation, and I want to thank Congressman McKeon for his effort. And we will be offering a manager's amendment later that I think will help make this bill bipartisan and helps deal with some of the concerns that people had with the legislation. So I want to thank Congressman McKeon and his staff.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

I yield 1 additional minute.