Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget would turn the American Dream into a nightmare for millions of senior citizens-- eliminating Medicare, threatening Social Security benefits, and turning Medicaid into a block grant. Those same proposals are now being discussed in the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

Seniors are terrified, and they are speaking out against cuts--people like Debby from Wilmette, Illinois, a public school teacher whose husband was diagnosed with MS and was forced to sell his business at a loss. She says, ``My husband only gets $1,800 a month now. There is no way we will be able to keep our house and pay our bills. We are worried.''

Or Nirlean from Chicago, who lives on her Social Security check. ``Medicare helps with my medication. I'm living month to month, and I always run out of food before the next month. I really miss getting the cost-of-living increase, because my rent takes half my income.''

Let's listen to Debby and Nirlean and to millions of seniors. Let's reject benefit cuts.

I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Michaud, for his tireless work to promote responsible trade policy.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement. Nearly 14 million Americans remain out of work; and instead of considering a job creation bill, we are voting today on a trade bill that the Economic Policy Institute estimates will cause the loss of an additional 159,000 U.S. jobs.

This trade deal will further devastate the American manufacturing sector which has already lost 6 million jobs since 1998; 55,000 factories have closed in the last decade. The three Bush-negotiated trade deals under consideration today are an expansion of the NAFTA trade model, which has decimated cities and towns across America. Agreements like the Korea FTA have accelerated the outsourcing and off- shoring, sending American jobs and plants overseas.

This trade agreement is a bad deal for American workers. Trade can be a valuable tool to bolster the U.S. economy, but only if we utilize a trade model that promotes U.S. jobs. If we want to create jobs, we need to create jobs, not pass another trade agreement that will ship even more U.S. jobs abroad.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Last week I offered an amendment that gave us the opportunity to demonstrate that we are aware of the impacts of our actions. We failed to take advantage of that opportunity, and today we have another chance, and I hope we will take it.

My amendment simply includes in the findings section of the bill, creates a findings section, if you will, the scientific fact that mercury released into the ambient air from industrial boilers and waste incinerators is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain. That's what the amendment says. It inserts the following section into the findings, and it says the Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air from industrial boilers and waste incinerators addressed by the rules listed in section 2(b) of this act is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain.

Mercury is one of the most harmful toxins in our environment. Forty- eight tons of mercury is pumped into our air each year, threatening one in six women nationwide with dangerous levels of mercury exposure. Pregnant women, infants, and young children are most vulnerable to mercury poisoning, which harms a developing child's ability to walk, talk, read, write, and comprehend.

Developing fetuses and children are especially at risk, as even low- level mercury exposure can cause adverse health effects. Up to 10 percent of U.S. women of childbearing age are estimated to have mercury levels high enough to put their developing children at increased risk for cognitive problems.

During the debate on my mercury findings amendment last week, my friend Mr. Whitfield stated, ``The scientific understanding of mercury is certainly far more complicated than is reflected in this finding that asks to be included in this bill.'' I really don't know what he finds so complicated. The science is very straightforward.

In 2000 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report on the toxic effects of mercury. Over and over, the report details the toxicity of mercury in very stark terms. ``Mercury is highly toxic. Exposure to mercury can result in adverse effects in several organ systems throughout the lifespan of humans and animals. There are extensive data on the effects of mercury on the development of the brain in humans and animals.'' High-dose exposures can cause ``mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness, and blindness'' in individuals exposed in utero, and sensory and motor impairment in exposed adults.

``Chronic, low-dose prenatal mercury exposure from maternal consumption of fish'' has been associated with impacts on attention, fine motor function, language, and verbal memory. Overall, data indicate that ``the developing nervous system is a sensitive target organ for low-dose mercury exposure.

``Prenatal exposures interfere with the growth and migration of neurons and have the potential to cause irreversible damage to the developing central nervous system.''

What is so complicated about that?

The EPA industrial boiler and waste incinerator standards would reduce this major threat without undue burden to industry. The legislation we consider today will block EPA's efforts. It will send EPA back to the drawing board with new, untested, and legally vulnerable guidance for setting air pollution standards. And most troubling, it will indefinitely delay any requirement to actually reduce pollution from industrial boilers and waste incinerators.

The gentleman said there has to be an end date. This legislation says there doesn't have to be an end date.

My colleagues across the aisle talk a lot about not wanting to burden the next generation with debt. Where is their concern with burdening the next generation with reduced brain capacity? But even considering the very serious policy differences we have today, my amendment should be noncontroversial. It would not alter the goals or the implementation of the pending legislation. It simply recognizes what scientists and the public health community tell us about mercury.

We will never be able to bridge our policy differences if we can't even agree on basic facts of science. H.R. 2250 patently ignores the scientifically proven fact that mercury exposure inhibits brain development, especially in infants. If we are prepared to pass legislation that would jeopardize the health of children, we should be willing minimally to acknowledge the scientific fact that EPA inaction poses a serious health risk.

Last week we failed to meet our obligation to recognize the consequences of our actions. Let's not repeat this mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that simply puts a scientific fact into the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to ask my friend, Mr. Whitfield, since we're now talking about mercury or methylmercury, if the amendment that I offered read, instead of the way it does, ``If Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air from industrial boilers and waste incinerators becomes a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain''--because that's what happens. The mercury, if you want to pick the semantics of it, becomes methylmercury--then we could make it that way.

Instead of saying that the mercury that's released is a potent neurotoxin, I say, ``becomes a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain,'' because that is the science. That's what happens.

I thank you, Congressman McGovern, for your tireless commitment to promoting human rights around the world.

I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the three pending free trade agreements. The Bush-negotiated Colombia, Panama and South Korea FTAs expand the NAFTA-style trade model that has proven destructive to the American economy and harmful to the workers in the United States and abroad.

Instead of considering a jobs bill, we are instead voting on trade deals that the Economic Policy Institute estimates will eliminate or displace an additional 200,000 American jobs. In particular, I believe we should not extend additional trade privileges to Colombia without seeing significant progress on human rights.

And it is not sufficient just to say, well, Colombia is a dangerous place to live. Colombia has a longstanding legacy of serious abuses; and despite some positive rhetoric by the Santos administration, we have yet to see a tangible improvement.

The recently agreed-to Labor Action Plan includes language to prevent and punish abuses against labor leaders and trade unionists, but it is not legally binding or included in the FTA before us today. We need to see results before granting preferential trade treatment.

Under this agreement, if violence and impunity continue, the U.S. will have no mechanism for holding the Colombian Government accountable to the promises in the Labor Action Plan.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that human rights abuses are not just a thing of the past in Colombia. Recently published statistics show that Colombia is still the deadliest place in the world to be a trade unionist, with 51 murders in 2010, 25 trade unionists have been murdered so far in 2011, and 16 since this Labor Action Plan went into effect. And this cycle of violence is going to continue because the Colombian Government has made little progress toward prosecuting perpetrators and ending impunity.

The bottom line is this: The Labor Action Plan and the Colombia FTA reward promises, not progress. Mr. Speaker, the consideration of any trade deal with Colombia is inappropriate until we see tangible and sustained results. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has said, and think about this, he said, ``We have no doubt that if 51 CEOs had been murdered in Colombia last year the deal would be on a very slow track indeed.''

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule and the three underlying trade agreements.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My amendment is simple. It would include in the findings the scientific fact that mercury released into the ambient air from cement kilns is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain.

Let me just read the finding from my amendment. It says, ``The Congress finds that mercury released into the ambient air from cement kilns addressed in this act is a potent neurotoxin that can damage the development of an infant's brain.''

That is just fact. This is not up for debate. That is just a fact and should be acknowledged in the legislation, that mercury is one of the most harmful toxins in our environment. Forty-eight tons of mercury is pumped into our air each year, threatening one in six women nationwide with dangerous levels of mercury exposure. Pregnant women, infants, and young children are most vulnerable to mercury poisoning, which harms a developing child's ability to walk, talk, read, write, and comprehend. Developing fetuses and children are especially at risk to even low- level mercury exposure that causes adverse health effects. Up to 10 percent of U.S. women of childbearing age are estimated to have mercury levels high

enough to put their developing children at increased risk for cognitive problems.

Cement kilns are among the largest sources of airborne mercury pollution in the United States, and there is existing technology right now that would prevent that. When mercury is pumped into our air, very often it ends up in bodies of water and is ingested by fish. Mercury- contaminated fish are found in almost every American body of water, and eating contaminated fish is the dominant cause of mercury exposure in people.

This is a serious problem in my home State of Illinois. In April, Environment Illinois issued a report showing that the amount of mercury in the average sport fish tested in 36 counties exceeds the EPA safe limit for regular consumption. Due to this contamination, the Illinois Department of Public Health warns women and children to limit their consumption of fish.

Illinois is not unlike other States. According to the EPA, nearly every fish nationwide contains mercury. The EPA actually advises women who are pregnant or who may become pregnant to eat no more than 12 ounces of any fish per week, and to eat limited or no amounts of fish that have high mercury content. That advisory has also been issued for infants and children. That's because we know beyond any scientific doubt that mercury inhibits brain development in the fetal and early childhood development stages. EPA analysis and peer-reviewed studies show that mercury leads to increased incidence of neurological disorders, increased incidence of learning disabilities, and increased incidence in developmental delay.

The EPA cement plant standards would reduce this major threat without undue burden to industry. The standards will lower the mercury exposure of more than 100,000 women of childbearing age in Illinois whose blood mercury levels exceed the recommended limit. When fully implemented, EPA estimates that mercury emissions from cement kilns will be reduced by 92 percent. The legislation we consider today will block EPA's efforts. It will send EPA back to the drawing board with new untested and legally vulnerable guidance for setting air pollution standards.

My colleagues across the aisle talk a lot about not wanting to burden the next generation with debt. Where is their concern with burdening the next generation with reduced brain capacity? H.R. 2681 patently ignores the scientifically proven fact that mercury exposure inhibits brain development, especially in infants. If we are prepared to pass legislation that would jeopardize the health of children by increasing mercury emissions, we should be willing to acknowledge the scientific fact that EPA inaction poses a serious health risk.

The previous speaker, my colleague from Illinois who spoke, said we have different philosophies. I hope not. I hope we agree that it is a rightful function of government to say that we don't want to overburden industry but we do want to say that our job is to protect the health and safety of the people of the United States, and mercury is a danger that is proven.

I urge my colleagues to support this simple amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Schakowsky

Amendment No. 1: After section 1, insert the following

section (and redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform

internal cross-references, accordingly):

Offered By: Ms. Schakowsky

Amendment No. 1: After section 1, insert the following

section (and redesignate the subsequent sections, and conform

internal cross-references, accordingly):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the end of the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and to celebrate that qualified men and women who have the desire to serve their country can no longer be denied simply because of sexual orientation.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell limited the ability of our armed forces to recruit and retain talented Americans. Hundreds of men and women with critical abilities, including language skills, have been discharged under this policy.

Meanwhile, many of our closest allies have demonstrated that allowing open service does not harm unit cohesion or military performance.

Most importantly, Don't Ask, Don't Tell institutionalized discrimination in our military. It was a policy that forced men and women to lie about their identity in order to serve their country.

As of this week, no one is prohibited from serving the country they love because of whom they love.

Madam Speaker, Republican leaders have made the laughable accusation that the President is engaging in class warfare. What President Obama is actually doing is ending class warfare, the relentless war on the middle class. Since 1983, over 80 percent of the growth in income has gone to the richest 5 percent of Americans, while the bottom 60 percent has lost 7.5 percent in income, of real income. That's the majority of Americans that are doing worse.

When I was growing up, a family could live a middle class life on one good job, often a good union job, public or private sector, with health benefits and a pension. That was the normal. Seems like the new normal in America, the one that I see the Republicans promoting is the rich get richer, the middle class is disappearing, and the poor get even poorer.

We need to enact bold laws like the President's American Jobs Act and common sense and fair budget proposals, both of which would help restore the middle class, protect the poor, and keep America strong.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The majority's assault on clean air continues and has culminated into what my friend and colleague, Mr. Waxman, has rightly referred to as Dirty Air Week.

The effort to further delay EPA from protecting our air would damage our environment and the health of our citizens. Today, 60 percent of Americans live in areas where air pollution has reached unhealthy levels. The health care costs associated with air pollution are estimated at over $100 billion annually. But these statistics would be even worse without the protections of the Clean Air Act. According to the American Lung Association, Clean Air Act regulations prevented over 160,000 premature deaths in 2010.

Over the past 20 years, the EPA estimates that the Clean Air Act prevented 21,000 cases of heart disease, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 843,000 asthma attacks, and 18 million child respiratory illnesses.

Yet today we consider a bill the Natural Resource's Defense Council has deemed the deadliest bill on the Republican agenda. The goal of the TRAIN Act is to undermine EPA's ability to protect our citizens from dangerous toxins through the dismantling of the Mercury and Air Toxics and Cross-State air pollution standards.

As a mother and a grandmother, I have been a long-time advocate of clean air practices, especially with regard to mercury.

Mercury threatens public health, but is particularly dangerous to pregnant women and children. Overexposure to mercury inhibits a developing child's ability to walk, talk, read, write, and comprehend and is one of the most dangerous unregulated toxins, which is why I led legislation in the last Congress to curb mercury emissions from various facilities.

In my home State of Illinois, coal-fired power plants emitted almost 5,000 pounds of mercury into the atmosphere in 2009, making Illinois the seventh most mercury-polluted State in the Nation. But while Illinois has taken steps to reduce mercury contamination, air pollution doesn't stop at State borders. Federal standards are needed to ensure that every State makes a good-faith effort to protect its residents.

The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will prevent 4,500 cases of acute bronchitis and 6,800 premature deaths. And the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will prevent 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 34,000 deaths per year.

My colleagues across the aisle claim to be in the business of eliminating

burdens. But by my math, every year these regulations are delayed, over 40,000 preventable deaths will occur. And as much as Republican opponents to the EPA would like to disagree, these rules, like the previous Clean Air Act regulations, will grow our economy.

Earlier this year, the Political Economy Research Institute concluded that the Cross-State and Mercury and Air Toxics rules will drive investments that could create 300,000 new jobs annually. The Mercury and Toxics Air Standard alone is expected to generate $7 billion in annual GDP growth. The numbers are clearly in favor of the Clean Air Act and I reject the Republican idea that Americans need to choose between jobs and health. The proven good news is that we can do both.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1852, the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) Support Reauthorization Act.

The future of pediatric health care cannot be compromised. As a supporter of the original legislation that established the CHGME program, and a cosponsor of H.R. 1852, I believe we must provide all the resources needed to guarantee that children's hospitals can continue to provide quality and timely care to their patients. As a mother and grandmother, I know how important it is for families in the Chicagoland area to know that Children's Memorial Hospital is there for them.

Support for physician education and training is essential to ensure patient access to care. Multiple expert bodies have identified a need for more pediatric subspecialists and have recommended expansion of medical education for pediatrics. In a letter to members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the National Association of Children's Hospitals wrote that ``thanks to CHGME, children's hospitals have enriched their training experience by providing greater community-based opportunities in underserved urban and rural areas. This has increased access to care and the likelihood that residents will practice in medically underserved areas.''

The funding from the CHGME program helps to ensure that children have access to the trained professionals they need. CHGME currently provides funding to 56 hospitals in 30 states to support pediatric residency training. Today, freestanding children's hospitals train over 40 percent of pediatricians, 43 percent of pediatric specialists, and most pediatric researchers.

Taking care of the health needs of children must be a top priority-- we cannot afford to jeopardize their well-being and future. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1852, doing so will help to ensure that children have access to the trained pediatricians they need.

I want to thank you so much, Mr. Deutch, for organizing tonight's Special Order.

Today, President Barack Obama clearly restated the U.S. commitment to negotiated peace and protection of human rights. In his remarks to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the President emphasized the importance not just of peace but of human dignity and economic opportunity.

In particular, President Obama again demonstrated that he is a true and steadfast friend of Israel and reiterated that ``America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring.''

Like the President, I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution. I look forward to a future in which a Palestinian state exists in peace alongside the Jewish State of Israel. But as the President emphasized at the U.N. today, a genuine, true, and lasting peace can only be reached through negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves.

I strongly support the President's diplomatic leadership and efforts to convince the Palestinians and their international allies to abandon efforts to use the U.N. to bypass negotiations with Israel, and I join him in urging them to return to the talks with the Israelis. While we acknowledge that the conflict will not be resolved easily and that it will require difficult sacrifices from both parties, it is only through direct peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves that a lasting solution can be found. There can be no substitute for such negotiations. As the President stated today in New York, ``Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations.''

In his speech today, the President recognized the legitimate desires of the Palestinian people for a state with recognized borders and opportunities for economic growth. I share his commitment to working toward that goal. But, as he also emphasized, any peace agreement must acknowledge and address the ongoing security threats faced daily by Israel and the Israeli people and be based on a recognition that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

Instead of appealing to the U.N., the parties simply need to return to the table. A lasting peace cannot and will not be imposed by any external party. It must be reached by the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves, with regional and international support, including that of the United States of America. The Palestinians should abandon this effort at the United Nations. Our allies should stand with the State of Israel and a real peace negotiation. That means the Palestinians have to return to the bargaining table.

I thank you, Mr. Deutch.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2587, which is a misguided attempt to intervene in an ongoing labor case and which has much broader and serious consequences for American workers and American jobs.

Last April, the National Labor Relations Board general counsel issued a complaint in response to a petition alleging that Boeing Corporation had located an aircraft production line in South Carolina. The charge is that Boeing made the move to retaliate against Washington state union workers who had exercised their legally-protected rights.

The April complaint didn't result in a final outcome--it just sent the case to an independent administrative law judge who is now considering arguments and evidence from both sides in the dispute. Even if the judge finds that Boeing did discriminate against workers for exercising their legal rights, Boeing could still argue that it would have made this business decision anyway or that moving production back to Washington state would impose an undue burden.

The bill before us is a response to a case that has not even been decided and where the burden of proof is high. Congress--which passed the laws under which the case is being adjudicated--should not intervene to determine the outcome of this ongoing judicial proceeding. More than that, Congress should not pass a bill with impacts that would go far beyond the Boeing case and allow companies to ignore labor laws by shipping jobs not just to another state but to another country.

In the past, the National Labor Relations Board has acted to prevent companies from shipping jobs to countries like Mexico in order to avoid legal organizing efforts by American workers. Such actions would be impossible if this legislation were to become law. Union workers who want to use legally-protected rights to improve workplace safety or to maintain middle-class wages and decent benefits could see their jobs shipped overseas--away from an American economy that is in desperate need of more jobs, not fewer.

By creating these disincentives, H.R. 2587 would encourage a ``race to the bottom.'' Even the threat of a plant shutdown would be a significant disincentive to workers, who would have no remedy to ensure enforcement of their legal rights. Workers could face a Hobson's choice--either exercise legally-protected rights and risk their jobs being shipped overseas, or forgo those rights and accept jobs that may come with low wages, inadequate benefits, and dangerous working conditions.

Rights are not rights unless they are enforceable. Workers will not have a voice at work if any time they seek to speak out, they can see their jobs disappear to another country.

Let me add a personal twist to all of this about jobs.

When I grew up in Chicago--I was the daughter of a furniture salesman and a Chicago public schoolteacher--the American Dream was alive and well. On my dad's modest income, we could afford a little house in a quiet, middle class neighborhood.

Back then, a man could work in the steel mills on Chicago's South Side--one good union job with family health care benefits and a decent pension--and really live a middle class life. The family could own a home and buy a car and even send the kids to college. That was the 1950s, and anything seemed possible if you were willing to work hard. Incomes were going up for everyone. Income inequality was shrinking, and Americans were experiencing the greatest growth in living standards in history. For most working families, that American Dream was in reach, and that was the normal.

But today, after decades of attacks on organized labor, the passage of tax policies that favor wealthy individuals and corporations, the growing disparity of income, the squandering of a

budget surplus, and the turning of a blind eye to Wall Street greed and recklessness, that dream is drowning in a sea of joblessness. I feel like the Republicans are pushing this as the new normal: that the rich get richer and the rest of the country gets poorer. Fortunately, our President, President Barack Obama, has made it perfectly clear that we are not helpless in the face of our daunting but man-made economic challenges, and he has proposed a jobs bill that will immediately improve people's lives and jump-start the economy.

The answer to this jobs crisis is surprisingly simple. If you want to create jobs, then create jobs, good jobs--jobs that can provide people with a middle class life, that can rebuild our middle class, jobs like the 35,000 schools that under the President's bill will be repaired.

There are children all over this country right now who are sitting in classrooms where the ceilings are crumbling, that have dangerous asbestos in them, that are leaking energy, that don't have the wiring for the new technologies that our children need to succeed in this world and to get those 21st century jobs. We don't have the kind of schools and classrooms in which our children are going to be able to compete in this 21st century world. At the same time, we have hundreds and thousands of construction workers and electricians and boilermakers and maintenance workers who are jobless right now, who are sitting home, unemployed, who are more than willing to roll up their sleeves and give our schoolchildren the kind of classrooms that they deserve.

So here we have a tremendous need, and we have the people who can answer that need. Not only will they be back to work, but it will jump- start our economy and be good for everyone. It is not rocket science. We can do this, and we need to do it now. As the President said, the election isn't until 14 months from now. The Republicans seem to want to adjudicate this issue at that time, but this isn't about politics. This is about all those families who simply want a job. They don't want to be receiving unemployment benefits. As a matter of fact, they want to pay taxes.

If we want to reduce the deficit, jobs are the answer once again. Jobs equal deficit reduction. That's why we can't wait to pass this American Jobs Act. We need to enlist the help of all Americans to call their Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats--I'm talking about the people out there regardless of party--to say, ``We need to pass this right now.'' This is the way that we can get back to what the normal was when I was growing up, when there was opportunity. People lived a middle class life. Instead, we're watching that middle class disappear and that American Dream slip through our fingers. The economy needs to be revived. The President has the answer. We need to do it now.

May I say one more thing about it?

These are jobs that can be created right away. I'm from the Midwest, so we actually have a construction season; but for fixing schools, you can do that around the year, around the calendar. We can put these people to work within a few months. They can be on the job, earning money. This is such a sensible program.

The sign you have there says that poor conditions of their schools interfere with students' learning. So we are also depriving our children of that sense of pride that will motivate them to be good students, to learn, to be ready to take over in this 21st century job market.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to S&C Electric Company, an exemplary business and essential community partner, which will be celebrating 100 years of service on September 25.

In 1909, after a dangerous fire at Commonwealth Edison's Chicago Fisk Generating Station, the utility asked Edmond Schweitzer and Nicholas Conrad to create a safer electric switch. In 1911, the men invented the Liquid Power Fuse and founded Schweitzer & Conrad, kicking off a century of job creation and technological innovation.

Today S&C, under the direction of C.E.O. John Estey, is a leader in smart energy solutions for our increasingly complex electric grid.

The company has pioneered electric power switching technologies that manage consumer demand aberrations as a result of plug-in vehicles, address peak energy crunches, and integrate clean and renewable energy into utility companies' existing electrical framework. Its commitment to quality has established the company as the industry leader in long- term value. And its commitment to its employees, including a benefits package that provides tuition reimbursement, has kept 350 employees at the company for over 25 years each. These traits will ensure that S&C remains a leader in electric power solutions for the next century.

The next century will compel our country to conserve precious energy resources, create new technologies to enhance efficiency, and incorporate clean energy alternatives. Companies like S&C will be instrumental in that process and will enable the United States to lead the world in energy innovation.

I am proud to count S&C among the companies in my district and its employees among my constituents. I congratulate them on this major milestone, and I look forward to their continued success in the 100 years ahead.