Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, there is hypocrisy here, and there is also great faith in ignorance on the part of the public. We have in this defense budget, it's $8.3 billion above what was agreed to in the Budget Control Act last year, and now he says that's not enough.

Under the Ryan budget, the entire discretionary expenditures in the United States will go down eventually to 3.5 percent of GDP from 12.5 percent. Since Governor Romney says defense should not go below 4 percent, that means minus one-half percent for everything else government does--less than zero for the post office, for transportation, for education, for the Weather Bureau, for NASA. For everything government does other than Social Security, Medicare and veterans and debt service--zero dollars. That's where this budget that the other side of the aisle is espousing and has voted for to a person leads us, to zero dollars for all government functions other than defense and veterans.

In 15 seconds, I will simply say that this amendment is the least we can do. We should go with the Budget Control Act. The other side of the aisle says we haven't passed a budget. This is the effective budget. The fact of the matter is that we have doubled military spending, exclusive of Afghanistan and Iraq, in 10 years. We ought to start reducing it now.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment asserts that it intends to protect the right of habeas corpus, which is to say the right to get into court. But the problem is not habeas. It's not the right to get into court. That is granted by the Constitution. The problem is what you can assert once you get into court. It says nothing about that. It says nothing about the circumstances in which individuals might actually be subject to military detention when arrested within the territory of the United States.

It's actually dangerous. It narrows constitutional rights because it narrows the scope of the statutory habeas corpus protection to individuals lawfully in the United States when detained as opposed to those detained in the United States. Someone with questionable immigration status might not have any habeas rights under this amendment.

Secondly, as Mr. Amash pointed out, by saying that you can file it not later than 30 days, it could be read to say that, unlike current law where you can file habeas the moment you're detained, you have to wait 30 days, or you might not be able to file after 30 days.

So it's an affirmatively dangerous amendment. It narrows the right to habeas corpus, and it doesn't do anything to protect the real problem here, which is not habeas. That was never the problem.

The real problem is the right of detention, when you get into court through habeas and the court says, You have no rights, because indefinite detention is permitted. That's the problem we ought to be dealing with. This amendment doesn't deal with it, and it makes the habeas arguably more difficult and more narrow.

If we value due process and if we value liberty, this amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, last year I argued in opposition to sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, that they went far beyond the AUMF to suggest that the President has the authority to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge.

This amendment prohibits the detention without charge of any person arrested or detained in the United States and is the first step toward restoring due process. It's a good first step, but its scope is limited to U.S. soil and to the present AUMF. We should do more. That's why I've introduced the No Detention Without Charge Act, which would not only prohibit detention without charge of people arrested in the United States, but would also prohibit the detention of any person anywhere indefinitely, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution and the law of war, and it would restore meaningful right of action for detainees to challenge the legality of their detention.

The notion that the United States should conduct itself according to the Constitution and the law of war should not be controversial. Smith- Amash takes the first step--and I have proposed the next--towards affirming our values and securing our liberty. If we are going to address indefinite detention, we must do so directly.

I urge my colleagues to support the Smith-Amash amendment and to sign on as cosponsors of my bill.

Madam Speaker, this is a partisan Republican bill that not only rejects the bipartisan reforms to VAWA that were passed in the Senate but that would roll back protections for immigrant women that exist in current law.

For example, with respect to immigration, the House Republican bill, even as amended by the manager's amendment, favors abusers by eliminating the requirement that abuser-provided evidence be investigated and corroborated before it can be used to deny victims protection. It also delays protection to battered victims by staying adjudications during pending investigations or prosecutions.

The bill also fails to fully address the astronomically high rates of domestic violence against Native American women. A major cause is jurisdictional. Tribal governments cannot take action against non- Native Americans who commit acts of domestic violence even on tribal land. The Senate bill, which passed with bipartisan support, would fix this problem. The House Republican bill ignores this issue.

Finally, H.R. 4970 fails to make VAWA fully inclusive. The bipartisan Senate bill would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the eligibility for grant programs under VAWA

so that groups could focus on victims amongst this underserved population. The Senate bill would also include sexual orientation and gender identity as classes in the new VAWA antidiscrimination language. The House Republican bill fails to include these provisions.

The bottom line is that House Republicans have taken the issue of protecting women from violence, which used to be bipartisan, and have made it partisan--just like everything else. Maybe women across America should not be surprised, as this majority has been waging a war on them since the beginning of this Congress. But, my friends, we do not have to let this stand.

I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill. Let us reject this partisan VAWA reauthorization and work, as the Senate did, on passing a bipartisan measure--or better yet, simply pass the very good, bipartisan Senate bill. We don't need a retrogressive House bill that goes back on existing protections. The Senate did a fine job on a bipartisan basis. We should pass its bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, if the final amendment I am offering were to be adopted, is it not the case that the bill will be amended and that the House will then proceed to final passage right away?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, whether it is an attempt to deny women reproductive or other health services, or a refusal to support efforts to achieve equal pay for equal work, many women in America today feel under siege. Indeed, many women across the country feel a war is being waged upon them by policymakers.

Today, with this final amendment to the CJS Appropriations bill, Members of the House will have a chance to say where they stand.

This is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill,

as amended, will proceed to final passage.

This amendment would increase, by $20 million, money spent on grants under the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA.

Passed in 1994, VAWA is a landmark piece of legislation that has helped an incalculable number of women and families avoid or recover from crimes of violence. Grant programs under VAWA target domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, and rape. These are crimes many women know all too well.

Indeed, violence against women remains a pervasive problem and a national tragedy. In 2008, about 1.8 million women over the age of 12 were subjected to a crime of violence. In that same year, almost 3,000 women were murdered, many by someone close to them. Every year, 1.3 million women over the age of 18 are assaulted by intimate partners. We need to do more to stop this epidemic; we need to do more for America's women.

I want to acknowledge what I expect the opponents of this motion may say--that funding for the VAWA grant programs in the underlying bill is a few million dollars above last year's level and above the President's request. I would point out, as a response, that the money in this bill is hundreds of millions of dollars below the last authorized amount and $15 million below the appropriation for fiscal year 2010. Additionally, this is not the last stop for this bill. When we conference with the Senate, which has a higher total funding level for CJS, we should have the highest possible funding level for VAWA from which to negotiate.

The amendment offsets the $20 million increase for VAWA by cuts to administrative accounts. We have heard from our colleagues of the need to cut government spending, to cut administrative expenses, to prevent the types of excesses we have seen recently in the GSA and other agencies with Las Vegas conference extravaganzas. Well, now is our chance to put our money where our mouth is and shift funding from these types of administrative expenses to preventing violence against women.

This is a question of values and priorities. What kind of message do we want to send to women across the country? Do we want GSA-style wild party, extravagant conferences or do we want to safeguard the lives of women? Do we value women's safety? Are we willing to make sure that we have the resources needed?

I ask all Members today: Stand up for your mothers; stand up for your wives; stand up for your daughters and for women everywhere. Stop the violence. Pass this motion to recommit.

I now yield to the sponsor of a truly meaningful bill to reauthorize VAWA based on bipartisan legislation which has already passed the Senate and a former victim of domestic violence herself, the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, to summarize, we can devote $20 million to Las Vegas-style conferences and administrative expenses or to services to prevent violence against women. That's the choice. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a great singer and humanitarian, John Mastrangelo, known to his fans, friends, and fellow musicians as Johnny Maestro. Johnny would have been 73 years old this week, and his influence on popular music and on the New York neighborhoods he loved so dearly is still being felt.

John Mastrangelo was born on Manhattan's Lower East Side on May 7, 1939, graduated from Charles Evans Hughes High School in 1956, and attended Borough of Manhattan Community College.

In 1956, John Mastrangelo joined four teenage singers from Manhattan's Lower East Side to form The Crests. Their vocal harmony was innovative, combining elements of jazz, R&B, and early rock 'n' roll to become true pioneers of rock and roll music. They were one of the first integrated popular vocal groups. While the rest of the country was still struggling with the legacy of Jim Crow, The Crests--Johnny Maestro, who was Italian-American; three African Americans: J. T. Carter, Talmoudge Gough, and Patricia Van Dross (older sister of R&B great Luther Vandross); and Harold Torres, who was Puerto Rican--were recording groundbreaking music. With Johnny Maestro as the lead singer, The Crests recorded hits like ``16 Candles,'' ``Trouble in Paradise,'' ``The Angels Listened In'' and ``Step by Step.''

Following his time with The Crests, Johnny Maestro had a short solo career, and then joined another popular New York group, the Del-Satins, as lead singer. In 1968, they merged with a Long Island group, The Rhythm Method, to form The Brooklyn Bridge. The Brooklyn Bridge recorded a series of hits, including ``Welcome Me Love,'' ``You'll Never Walk Alone,'' and ``Your Husband, My Wife.'' They had their biggest hit with Jimmy Webb's ``The Worst That Could Happen.'' Johnny Maestro and The Brooklyn Bridge continued to perform for forty-two years. Johnny Maestro's exceptional tenor voice won accolades from fans and fellow musicians alike. His distinctive voice remained vibrant and strong throughout his fifty-three year career.

Johnny Maestro was more than a great musician; he was also a great humanitarian. Johnny and the Brooklyn Bridge gave generously of their time, performing benefit concerts for numerous good causes.

He performed at many fundraising events on Staten Island such as the Borough President's ``Back to the Beach'' concert. He also performed for the New York City Fire Department and Police Department, the United States Military, Italian American Association, as well as church and school fundraisers. He performed on the Jerry Lewis Telethon and as part of ``We Are the World,'' which raised funds for worldwide hunger relief.

Johnny Maestro and The Brooklyn Bridge were inducted into the Vocal Group Hall of Fame in 2005, the Long Island Hall of Fame in 2006, and the South Carolina Rhythm and Blues Hall of Fame, just to name a few of their many honors.

On March 26, 2011, the City of New York honored him by renaming the intersection of Mason Avenue and Midland Avenue on Staten Island as ``Johnny Maestro Way.''

Johnny Maestro and The Brooklyn Bridge were unswerving supporters of our police, fire, military, and Italian-American benevolent associations. The communities I represent warmly remember the benefit concerts Johnny Maestro and The Brooklyn Bridge participated in to aid 9/11 responders and their families. In 2007, Johnny Maestro sang at a concert digitally filmed and sent to bases of our Armed Forces overseas. Johnny Maestro and The Brooklyn Bridge ended their concerts by singing ``You'll Never Walk Alone'' and dedicated the song to the men and women in uniform. Today, the surviving members of The Brooklyn Bridge continue to honor Johnny's legacy by performing the songs he sang with The Crests and The Brooklyn Bridge, and supporting the humanitarian causes he held so dear.

Sadly, that great voice was stilled when Johnny Maestro died at the age of 70, following a valiant struggle with cancer. He continued to perform up until two months before his death.

Mr. Speaker, Johnny Maestro was the consummate New Yorker. He was talented, and he gave of his gifts and his success for the betterment of his City and those most in need. His life and his art are an example of what is best in our City and in our Nation. I urge all members of the House to join me in remembering and honoring Johnny's Maestro's life and work, and to remember a man whose musical accomplishments and humanitarian deeds have touched the lives of so many people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to become cosponsors of my bill, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

While current law prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and directs employers to treat pregnancies the same as any other condition that might temporarily limit an employee's ability to perform some job functions, these protections have proven inadequate. Case law shows that courts are uncertain, even confused, about the scope of the law, requiring Congress to set the record straight.

While several States have clarified pregnant workers' rights, this is a national problem that warrants a national solution. My bill would require an employer to make reasonable accommodations for these workers unless this creates an undue hardship on the employer. An employer would be prevented from forcing a pregnant worker to take an accommodation that she does not want or need, and an employer would be prevented from forcing a pregnant worker to take leave when another reasonable accommodation could keep her on the job.

This is a simple solution to a problem our women and families should not be facing. I urge my colleagues to become a cosponsor of this bill to ensure that a pregnant woman need never decide between maintaining a healthy pregnancy and maintaining her paycheck.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I just walked in in the middle of this amendment, but it's very similar to an amendment we took up last night, and it's equally wrongheaded.

Aside from the fact that it's almost irrelevant, this amendment, as I read it, says that none of the funds may be used to defend challenges to the Affordable Care Act by the Justice Department. Aside from the fact that none of the funds are going to be used because the argument has already been heard by the Supreme Court--it's past tense; the Court is going to decide one way or another--this seems to me a little late. All the arguments in Court have already been heard, and therefore, they're not going to spend anymore money doing that. The Court will decide it's constitutional or it's not constitutional. The argument already occurred. The money has already been spent. So I don't see the point of this.

But putting that aside, what this says in effect is Congress passed a law.

Any law that Congress passes has a presumption of constitutionality. And this says that the Justice Department shall not defend the Constitution or a law duly passed by Congress because a subsequent Congress doesn't agree. Well, if a subsequent Congress doesn't agree with what the previous Congress does, we should repeal the law, and then there would be nothing to defend. But if you don't have the votes to repeal the laws, and on the merits I would oppose repealing the law, obviously, but if you don't have the votes to repeal the law, don't say that the Justice Department shouldn't defend the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress if that law is challenged in court.

Now, in Marbury v. Madison, the Court said it is distinctly the job of the judiciary to decide what the law is. It's our job in Congress to decide to pass the law. It's the executive's duty to faithfully execute the law. And it's the judiciary's duty to say what the law is and whether it's constitutional because they have to defend the Constitution, and if we pass a law, they have to decide whether it meets the Constitution or not.

It's the executive's duty to execute the law, and part of executing the law is defending the Constitution as the executive sees it. So it is up to the Justice Department to argue in court to defend the constitutionality of a law if it thinks it is constitutional, and to oppose the constitutionality of a law if it thinks it's unconstitutional.

Now here you're saying that the Justice Department shouldn't argue and we shouldn't give it funds to argue to defend the constitutionality of the law. We are going to have another amendment in a little while by Mr. Huelskamp that says the Justice Department may not use any funds to oppose the constitutionality of a different law, the Defense of Marriage Act passed, what, 15 years ago.

It is up to the Justice Department and the executive to decide in their opinion what is their duty in terms of their duty to faithfully execute the law. That's their constitutional mandate. And if it's their duty to argue for the constitutionality of a law, they must. To argue against it, they must do that, too.

We can, and in fact the House has in the DOMA case--I didn't support this, I don't agree with it, but we were within our rights to hire outside counsel to argue against the Justice Department on the constitutionality of that law, and we have the right to do that.

But to attempt to use the power of the purse to deny the executive branch its ability to do its job, which is to defend the Constitution as it sees it by arguing for or against the constitutionality of a bill in court, is simply wrong. It's a violation of the separation of powers, and it's an abrogation of their responsibility.

It also hurts the function of the court to decide unconstitutionality because the court is owed and needs the opinion of the executive, and for that matter the opinion of Congress, if it differs.

So this amendment, regardless of the merits of the bill, which I supported and voted for, which I think is a good bill, regardless of the merits of DOMA, which I opposed and which I think is unconstitutional, the argument in both cases is the same. We shouldn't be telling and certainly not using the power of the purse to say that the Justice Department may not argue for this position because we don't agree with it or for that position because we don't agree with it. If we don't agree with it, change the law. That's our job. And the Justice Department should argue its opinion of constitutionality, and the court must decide in the end. In the end, that's our system, and we shouldn't tamper with it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the sponsors of this amendment for introducing it. The amendment begins to break down the taboo in American politics about discussing drug policy intelligently. It also begins to, hopefully, result in the Federal Government having a more humane and human policy on medical marijuana.

I heard the gentleman from Virginia say that the DEA says there is no medical use for marijuana. That's true that they've said it. The DEA has no credibility with people who have looked at this--on this subject, on most subjects with respect to drugs these days. One reason there is no proof of the successful medical use of marijuana is that the DEA systematically tries to make sure there is no adequate research on that, and it denies the use of supplies of marijuana for medical research.

But we have ample proof from the 16 States which have legalized the medical use of marijuana. We have ample anecdotal proof. We know that, for people suffering pain, for people suffering nausea from AIDS and cancer, marijuana is the only thing that produces relief and enables them to eat and to get sustenance and to regain weight and to, perhaps, regain health. We know this. We know this from thousands of cases. The DEA doesn't know it because it refuses to see it and refuses to allow systematic research. That's wrong. It's inhumane.

Now, I wish this amendment didn't specify the 16 States because maybe a 17th and an 18th will come along this year. I hope that they will. Certainly, the Federal Government has a better use for its resources than in trying to prevent the policy that 16 States have adopted, the humane policy of allowing the medical use of something that has been proven to be medically useful in many cases. Doctors and other medical professionals ought to determine treatment, not bureaucrats in Washington.

So I support this amendment, and I hope that maybe, if it passes, and maybe if we have a rational policy with regard to medical marijuana, that two other things will happen: that maybe the DEA will get its head out of the sand and will permit proper research so we'll get better research and better results; and maybe we'll begin a discussion of our general drug policy toward marijuana, which is certainly a much, much more benign drug than alcohol, which is legal, than tobacco, which is legal. We have a very irrational policy toward it, a policy which reminds one of the policy of the 1920s, which had such deleterious effects with regard to alcohol and alcohol use.

So I congratulate the sponsor of this amendment for having the courage to help break the taboos concerning this subject and for introducing an amendment that, if it passes, will result in many, many thousands of people being more healthful and more comfortable, and it will be a great thing for this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Speaker, I had anticipated and we had been told that the gentleman was going to offer an amendment that said none of the funds in this Act may be used by the Justice Department to argue for the Defense of Marriage Act in court. And I was going to object on the same grounds that I have in some other such amendments earlier day-- that we should not be politicizing the Justice Department. We should not be telling them: Do defend this in court; don't defend that in court.

But as the gentleman from Massachusetts says, this amendment seems to do nothing at all. None of the funds made available under this act may be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. Well, none of the funds are being use in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. The only circumstance I can envision under which funds might be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act would be after the Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. If the Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, then the Constitution frankly would demand under the equal protection clause that funds be spent against the will of what had been the Defense of Marriage Act.

If the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, then someone who is married under the laws of some State that permits same-sex marriage will demand to have joint filing of income taxes or demand the tax benefits that a spouse gets, and it would be unconstitutional not to grant that.

So this amendment is frankly silly and shouldn't clutter the statute books because until and unless the Defense of Marriage Act is declared unconstitutional, it means nothing. And once the Defense of Marriage Act is declared unconstitutional, if it is, then this itself would be unconstitutional as against the equal protection clause.

So I urge people to vote against it because, one, we shouldn't pass meaningless statutes, which this is or would be, unless DOMA is declared unconstitutional. And we shouldn't pass clearly unconstitutional statutes which this would be if DOMA is declared unconstitutional. So it is either meaningless and unnecessary in the one case or unconstitutional in the other and, frankly, ought to be withdrawn, but certainly should not be voted for; and so I urge my colleagues not to vote for this, whatever you think of DOMA, frankly. Because if DOMA is declared unconstitutional, this would be unconstitutional; and if it's not, it's unnecessary and has no effect in any event. So I don't know what the point of wasting our time with it is, but we should oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield on this point?

Is the gentleman aware that, if the equipment is not ready, then under the law it is not readily achievable and that it doesn't have to be done at that point and that the DOJ has already met with the industry and has told them this?

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to speak against an amendment added during committee markup of the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, the one that we've been talking about, that would prevent the Department of Justice from enforcing regulations regarding access to swimming pools under the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Since passage of the ADA in 1990, Congress has never acted to weaken the ADA's promise of increased opportunity and access for our neighbors, friends, family, and colleagues with disabilities. Today, however, this House is poised to strip the Justice Department of its ability to enforce certain accessibility rules. We are at this unfortunate and unwarranted juncture because of an aggressive advertising and lobbying campaign that misrepresents what the ADA is and what the Department of Justice rules require.

Congress should not roll back reasonable, balanced, and negotiated civil rights standards that have long enjoyed bipartisan support based on an alarming misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the ADA and Department of Justice regulations, nor should we override a nearly decade-long regulatory process that began under the administration of President George W. Bush and concluded after extensive public notice and comment by adopting the guidelines that the United States Access Board developed in 2004 during the George W. Bush administration.

Certain members of the hotel industry and their lawyers have claimed that Department of Justice rules require all pool owners to install fixed lifts in every pool, that this is costly and burdensome, and that owners who cannot afford to install lifts will have to shut down their pools or face civil penalties. These claims are simply false.

As required by Congress when it passed the ADA in 1990, the Justice Department has now issued rules to increase access to newly constructed and existing swimming pools, rules that have been under development for almost 15 years. New pools must be built with either a sloped entry into the pool or a pool lift, under these new rules. For existing pools, owners will have to do what is ``readily achievable'' based on the size and resources of the owner's business and the prospective cost of the improvement.

If it is readily achievable, which is defined in the ADA as ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense,'' a business should take the same steps to improve an existing pool that it would take if it were building a new pool. This means that if a fixed lift can be installed easily and inexpensively, it should be. If installing a fixed lift is too expensive and difficult, it is not legally required. The law did not impose a one-size-fits-all requirement. The law is quite flexible.

Fixed lifts are superior to portable lifts because a fixed lift provides a safer and more independent means of getting in and out of a pool for a person with a disability. A fixed lift is available whenever a pool is open without the need for staff to locate the lift, ensure it is in proper operating condition, and provide timely and safe installation while the disabled person waits. This allows a person with a disability to swim whenever a pool is open, just like everybody else.

While those pushing this amendment have raised concerns about lift safety, the United States Access Board has found no evidence of increased safety risks from pool lifts. The same measures already in place at a hotel's pool, such as prohibiting unsupervised children from using a pool, should prevent misuse of a pool lift as for other pool equipment like diving boards, slides, deck chairs, or tables.

This unnecessary amendment will harm countless Americans and veterans who rely upon the ADA. And we have heard from a number of organizations and individuals who oppose legislation prohibiting DOJ from enforcing its regulations. I would like to include some of the letters and testimony sent to the House Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee, where I serve as ranking member, in the Record.

Opposition to the amendment comes from organizations that work with a broad spectrum of persons with disabilities, including the National Center for Independent Living, the Association of University Centers on Disabilities, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and the National Disability Rights Network, to name a few.

A father and swim coach in Georgia wrote that swimming has helped his son--a medalist at the Athens and Beijing Paralympics--make friends, earn respect, achieve goals, and make the best of his disability.

A dozen veteran organizations wrote similarly of the benefit of rehabilitation and recreational opportunities for wounded and disabled veterans and servicemembers. These Americans have paid a high price in service to their country. They should be able to count on the ADA to ensure equality and opportunity here at home.

Before today, our commitment to the ADA was a shared one. It would be unfortunate if that were to change under Republican leadership in the House. I call upon my colleagues to ensure that this ill-advised amendment is not included in any bill sent to the President for his signature. These regulations which have not yet been imposed, which the Justice Department has said may be postponed another few months if necessary, are in the spirit of the ADA--they are proper; they are well considered; and they oughtn't to be set aside by lobbyist-driven amendments.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

May 4, 2012.

Dear Senator/Representative: We the undersigned veterans

organizations are writing in support of the Department of

Justice's (DOJ) final rule detailing requirements for

accessible entry and exit for pools and spas under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Our organizations strongly support the principles of the

ADA, because they ensure independence and reintegration for

wounded servicemembers and disabled veterans. After a decade

of war, we must ensure that the ADA continues to stand for

equal treatment and non-discrimination in access to

rehabilitation, employment, educational, and recreational

opportunities.

Specifically, Congress must not weaken the principles of

the ADA by delaying or otherwise inhibiting DOJ's enforcement

of the pool and spa accessibility regulatory requirements.

DOJ published the final rule on accessibility in September

2010 after engaging in six years of public outreach, which

included multiple opportunities for all stakeholders to

provide comments. Although the final rule was to go into

effect on March 15, 2012, DOJ delayed compliance until May

21.

We believe that our nation's disabled veterans and wounded

warriors have waited long enough for access to pools and

spas. The January 2012 guidance issued by DOJ clarifying the

intent of the final rule for existing pools and spas did not

change the requirements DOJ published in September 2010. The

gold standard for new construction is a fixed pool lift. It

is logical that fixed pool lifts would be required for

existing pools and spas if ``readily achievable.'' Readily

achievable means that an existing pool or spa would only need

to have a fixed pool lift if it was not costly or burdensome.

Readily achievable is the flexibility that was built into

the ADA to ensure that a one-size-fits-all approach would not

be required. Thus, if it is not readily achievable for a

small, family-owned business to install a fixed lift for a

pool or spa, then they are not required to under the ADA. The

ADA's inclusion of the readily achievable standard represents

the compromise between the needs of people with disabilities

and the costs of accommodations.

If Congress intercedes by delaying implementation or

hindering enforcement of DOJ's final rule, we fear that a

dangerous precedent will have been set for the future of the

ADA. The final rule was the result of an extensive regulatory

process that provided ample opportunity for participation. It

is now time for Congress to step back and let the regulatory

process function as was envisioned when the ADA was passed by

a bipartisan Congress 22 years ago.

If you have any questions, please contact Heather Ansley,

Vice President of Veterans Policy for VetsFirst, a program of

United

Spinal Association, at (202) 556 2076, ext. 7702 or by e-mail

at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans,

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War

Veterans, National Association for Black Veterans,

Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans for Common

Sense, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Veterans of Modern

Warfare, VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal

Association, Vietnam Veterans of America.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment.

We have had amendments and even bills on the floor in the past that were just as misguided, and they all take the same form or a similar form: either an amendment to say that no fund shall be expended for the Justice Department to argue for this in court or against that in court. That's one form of the amendment, and this is one of those. Or, we've had court-stripping bills: No court shall have jurisdiction to consider an appeal in the case of X versus Y, or no court shall have jurisdiction to consider a case on a subject matter of--whatever.

All of these are wrong and misguided, whatever the merits of the specific claim may be, because they are violations of the separation of powers and of the proper functioning of the different branches of government.

The Justice Department must argue for the executive branch's interpretation of the law and for its opinion as to constitutionality. That's its job. Our job is to enact laws. The judiciary's job is to state what the law is. The executive branch is to enforce the law, and for the Justice Department, on a nonpolitical basis--not dictated, certainly, by Congress; we don't want to politicize the Justice Department--to argue in defense of the Constitution as it sees it. Therefore, this amendment is wrongheaded. An amendment or a bill to strip the court of the ability to make a decision as to constitutionality on a given subject would be just as wrongheaded.

So, regardless of one's feelings on immigration, regardless of whether you think that the Federal Government has the sole power of enforcement and that State enforcement of immigration laws is preempted by Federal law, which is one point of view, which the Justice Department is arguing, or that it is not, which is the other point of view, which is what some States are arguing in court, that's for the Court to decide.

Now, Congress might decide to be very clear and say that this immigration law, whatever it is, does not--we do not wish to preempt State law. We could say that. But interpreting what we have said, if we haven't been clear on it, that's the job of the courts, and, in arguing that, the administration's point of view of the Justice Department.

We should not be politicizing the Justice Department. We should not be using the power of the purse to say that the Justice Department cannot argue in a certain case or argue a certain point of view. And certainly, that's even worse; to say they can intervene in a case but on side A but not side B is a perversion of the separation of powers, and we should not be considering--we should not pass this amendment. It would pervert the separation of powers and the safeguards of our liberty.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3523, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

The main topic this week, as announced by the House Republican Leadership, is cyber security, a serious issue for our Nation. As we become more dependent on computers and technology for even common or routine actions that happen every day, we become at increased risk of great damage from a cyber attack. Nations or individuals who wish us harm know that, and so we must be vigilant.

What we are considering today is premised on the idea that greater information sharing of cyber threats between the government and the private sector will improve security. While this is a relatively uncontroversial idea in concept, the bill before us raises a number of concerns.

It is important to note at the outset that the bill allows companies to share information, including private e-mails and other Internet communications, with the government--notwithstanding any other law. So, protections in existing law, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and the Wiretap Act, are totally superseded. The government could get all of your information without a warrant or subpoena, and you would have little ability, if any, to stop it. Such a blanket exemption should give us great pause.

Unfortunately, the rest of the bill does not provide sufficient safeguards to justify this blanket exemption. To begin with, the definition of the cyber threat information to be shared is very broad. Suggestions have been made that define what should be included as cyber threat information in a narrow but sufficient way. These suggestions were not included in this bill.

At the very least, companies and other entities providing the government with information should be required to take some reasonable steps to remove personally identifiable information. Such reasonable steps need not be overly burdensome, but, again, even this limited protection was not included.

Once this information was shared with the government, it could be reviewed and used by any department. The Department of Defense, National Security Agency, and other defense and intelligence agencies thus would have access to the private, domestic internet activities of innocent Americans. This mixing of domestic information with military entities is dangerous and unprecedented. In fact, our policy has long- been to keep the military out of such domestic affairs. Information about cyber security should be limited to the relevant domestic government bodies, such as the Department of Homeland Security.

The power of government to use the information it receives would also be tremendously broad. One allowable use for this information is the hopelessly vague ``national security.'' In the past, the government has considered peace groups, civil rights activists, and other advocates to be ``threats'' to national security. It is easy to imagine how this term could be utilized for all the wrong reasons. The bill is supposed to be about cyber security, but allowing use of the information collected for national security purposes does not necessarily serve that purpose.

Further, the bill makes enforcing even the limited restrictions it contains difficult. With respect to private entities, as long as they act ``in good faith,'' they are immune from any civil or criminal case in state or federal court. This low standard means that any time a company claims it thought it was following the law, persons harmed by the improper sharing of information will have no recourse.

The bill does allow for civil actions against government violations. Unfortunately, the ability to bring a lawsuit against the government, as provided for in the bill, is deficient in three ways.

First, the bill only would allow lawsuits against the government for breaches if filed ``not later than two years after the date of the violation.'' That time period is wholly unworkable, unfair, and unrealistic.

Second, as written the bill only would impose liability on the government only for ``intentionally'' or ``willfully'' violating its restrictions. While this is helpful, such a limited liability scheme ignores damages arising from negligence. Such negligent acts could involve the failure to properly protect sensitive information or the failure to act with due care in deciding what information should be used.

Lastly, the only remedy is monetary damages. Injunctive relief, which could force the government to change its practices, is not provided for.

I filed an amendment with the Rules Committee to solve these three problems regarding the ability to hold the government accountable. It was not made in order.

In fact, multiple amendments were filed with the Rules Committee which would have made significant improvements to this bill. They would have narrowed its terms, limited how information could be used, protected personal information, and so on. The Rules Committee chose not to make them in order. Some of the amendments the House was allowed to consider will improve the bill, but not enough to sufficiently protect our privacy and civil liberties.

In closing, I want to reiterate that I recognize the importance of the issue of cyber security. I agree with the proponents of the bill that we must improve our cyber security defenses.

But, I remain firmly committed to the notion that we can protect our security and maintain our liberty, privacy, and freedom. This bill puts our privacy at great risk, and unnecessarily so. As such, I oppose its passage and recommend my colleagues do the same.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amash- Labrador-Nadler-Paul-Polis Amendment.

While I believe most Members agree both that a cyber attack could be devastating and that sharing information will help to fight that threat, the underlying bill is overly broad and intrusive. Our amendment will add at least a modicum of protection for Americans' privacy.

While the idea of privacy may seem quaint to some in this day of social networking and the Internet, most Americans still believe that they have a zone of privacy vis-a-vis the government. As such, it is important we protect private actions from the prying eyes of government. Moreover, the government has a history of misusing such information and so we need to be very circumspect in what we allow it access to.

Our amendment prohibits records or information regarding what books you bought or checked out of the library, your medical records, tax returns, and so on from being used by the government for any purpose if it obtained that information pursuant to this bill. There is no need for the government to have this most personal of information--I don't see how any of it could be possibly relevant to cyber security. And, if the information can't be legally used, hopefully that will discourage companies from sharing it in the first place.

The categories of information in our amendment are already given a protected status in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA requires a court order and the approval of a high-ranking FBI official to request these personal materials. If that is the standard under FISA, we should not let companies cavalierly hand such records to the government with no independent review at all.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4348, the second Surface Transportation Extension Act that we have considered this year.

It has become eminently clear that the Republicans in the House cannot get consensus among themselves on a long-term transportation bill. They can't get consensus on a short-term transportation bill. They can barely pass this 90-day extension. The only way to get it through is to yet again add the Keystone pipeline and other anti- environmental measures. The Republican leadership keeps playing the same cards over and over, but nobody is playing this game anymore. The Senate has moved on. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill. We should do the same.

The purpose of this extension is to serve as a vehicle to formally go to conference with the Senate. I must confess that I might be inclined to vote for it on that basis. If it passes, the House position in conference will essentially be an extension of current law, putting the policy reforms in the Senate bill on a stronger footing; but I fear that this is really just a delaying tactic and a smokescreen.

For a year and a half, the House Republicans have stubbornly refused to work with Democrats to develop a bipartisan bill, completely upending the historical traditions of our committee. This is despite the fact that there are plenty of individual Republican Members who are willing to work with us on certain issues.

When H.R. 7, the original Republican long-term reauthorization bill, was introduced, several Republican Members joined me on an amendment to preserve the transit funding that would have been gutted in H.R. 7.

That was probably one of the reasons that H.R. 7 was ultimately pulled before it could get to the floor. So there are clearly Members on the other side of the aisle who would work with us to develop a bipartisan bill, but the Republican leadership stubbornly refuses to let that happen. Why should we expect anything different in conference?

The Republican leadership could also just bring up the Senate bill, but they won't even allow a vote. Why? What are they afraid of? Because they know it would pass. And what would be wrong with that? The Senate bill isn't perfect, but it's a bipartisan compromise measure that would put people to work right away and provide more certainty to the transportation agencies than a stream of short-term extensions. We could resolve this situation right now, but they continue to block legislation that would likely pass both Chambers, on a bipartisan basis, and be signed into law by the President.

I hope that my concerns about the intent of the other side turn out to be unwarranted. I hope that if this extension passes, that it will ultimately move the process along in a positive manner and that we will have a meaningful conference that produces a good, bipartisan bill. Passing an extension is certainly better than passing H.R. 7, but given what has transpired so far, and given the addition of the Keystone pipeline and other anti-environmental measures, I must reluctantly vote ``no.''

The Keystone pipeline would cut through the United States to allow Canada to deliver up to 900,000 barrels per day of tar sand oil to gulf coast refineries. Tar sand oil extraction is destructive and dangerous. Producing one barrel of tar sand oil releases at least three times more global warming pollutants than conventional oil. If we allow this expansion to occur, it will be virtually impossible to reduce global warming. That's why the Keystone pipeline has rightfully been called a ``game-changer.'' And there is no guarantee that any of the oil extracted would be delivered to U.S. consumers. We cannot allow such a gigantic and irreversible step backward in the fight against global warming. But these objections are not the administration's. The administration simply wants to be able to complete the normal environmental review of the Keystone pipeline provided by law to decide whether to approve it or not. But this legislation mandates approval regardless of the law. It supersedes the normal process. This makes it impossible to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget.

Once again, the Republicans move a slash-and-burn budget that would turn Medicare into a private voucher system and force seniors to spend more than $6,000 out of pocket every additional year. It would gut Medicaid, education programs, medical research, and transportation among other things. You name it, they devastate it.

First, the Republican budget calls for a staggering $10 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations over 10 years. It would pay for it by closing unspecified tax loopholes, but this is a fraud. For loophole closing of this magnitude, the Republicans would have to get rid of all the tax breaks the middle class depends on, loopholes like the mortgage interest deduction, the tax exclusion for employer- sponsored health insurance, and charitable donations. This won't happen, which is why the Republicans won't name any of their loophole closings.

The Republican budget then proposes $5.3 trillion in non-defense discretionary spending cuts, beyond what was agreed to in last year's debt ceiling, $1.2 trillion beyond. It would slash $860 billion from Medicare and all to pay for tax cuts because it wouldn't balance the budget until 2040, because these cuts are to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy.

For shame.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget for FY13 as offered by Mr. Ryan.

Last year, the Republicans moved a slash-and-burn budget proposal that would have eliminated Medicare and substituted for it a private voucher system, and would have implemented devastating cuts to Medicaid, education programs, medical research, and transportation, among other things You name it, they wanted to devastate it.

Now we turn to this year's Republican budget proposal and, as one famous New Yorker would say: It's deja vu all over again.

First, the Republican budget calls for a staggering $10 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations over ten years. They claim to pay for this giveaway by closing unspecified tax loopholes. But this is a fraud. For loophole closing of this magnitude, the Republicans would have to get rid of all the tax breaks the middle class depends on--``loopholes'' like the mortgage interest deduction, tax exclusions for employer-sponsored health insurance, and charitable donations. This won't happen--which is why the Republicans won't name any of their ``loophole-closings.''

So this would make the budget deficit $10 trillion larger--which is why they do not anticipate balancing the budget until 2040. But they make devastating spending cuts--not to balance the budget, but to pay for their tax cuts for the wealthy. What priorities!

The Republican budget seeks even deeper spending cuts than last year's proposal. It proposes $5.3 trillion in non-defense discretionary spending cuts--$1.2 trillion (22 percent) beyond the cuts agreed to in last year's Debt Ceiling deal. More than 60 percent of these cuts would come on the backs of middle- and low-income families.

For example, the Republican budget would slash $860 billion (34 percent) from the Medicaid program while turning it into an unguaranteed block grant. These severe cuts would shift the cost burden to the states, who would have to decide between investing even more of their own money, cutting benefits, shifting the cost onto beneficiaries, doctors, and hospitals, throwing people out of the program, or all of these. The Urban Institute estimated that the Republican plan would result in between 14 and 27 million people being dropped from Medicaid by 2021.

Additionally, the Ryan budget would reduce food stamps by $134 billion, knocking 8 to 10 million people from the program and leaving them to go hungry. WIC, which provides nutritional assistance to women and children, would also be cut, taking food out of the mouths of 700,000 pregnant women, new moms and their kids. Over the next decade, nearly two million women and children would be left without access to critical food. What kind of cruel and heartless country do the Republicans want us to live in?

Seniors on Medicare don't fare much better. First, Republicans would raise the eligibility age to 67, leaving seniors aged 65 and 66 out in the cold. They would force seniors to go it alone in negotiating with private insurance companies for coverage. Seniors would receive vouchers to offset the cost of private insurance--vouchers whose value would increase much more slowly than the cost of buying medical insurance. CB0 estimates that within ten years seniors would have to pay $6,000 more out of pocket for medical care annually. All this, mind you, while promising to do away with all of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act, like medical ratio requirements, which actually help to stem the cost of private insurance.

Don't look to the Republican plan for investments in infrastructure, medical research, or education--primary or collegiate, for students or for teachers--because they are not there.

And the Republican budget would greatly increase unemployment. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Republican spending cuts would result in the loss of 1.3 million jobs next year and an additional 2.8 million jobs the year after that. That's 4.1 million jobs lost in just two years, thereby eviscerating all the jobs added to the economy in the last 23 months and then some.

Mr. Chair, the sheer gravity of the cuts proposed by the Republican budget is staggering and disastrous. While no budget is perfect,

any of the Democratic proposals under consideration today is head and shoulders better for America, and for Americans, than the Ryan Budget Against America: Part Two.

While we may disagree on how to continue to support and grow our economy, let's stop using the working poor, the middle-class, women, kids, and seniors as pawns. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Ryan budget.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Motion to Concur with the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups, JOBS, Act.

Many of us agree with the general principle that we should modernize the financial system to help small businesses raise capital, attract investors, and contribute to our economic recovery. However, this must be done in a balanced way that also protects those investors and the public interest. I had hoped that the Senate would have an opportunity to bolster the bill with key consumer- and investor-rights provisions-- provisions that had no chance of passage in this House. While the Senate certainly strengthened the proposal, the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3606 does not go far enough to ensure that investors will be protected from unscrupulous actors.

Since the bill was introduced, numerous experts and organizations, including the current and former chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Americans for Financial Reform, AARP, and the Consumer Federation of America, have raised significant concerns about this legislation. According to the New York Times, many fear the bill will allow companies to raise money without having to follow rules on disclosure, accounting, auditing and other regulatory mainstays. The deregulation measures in this bill could actually raise the cost of capital by harming investors and impairing markets, making it harder for legitimate companies to thrive. In addition, the bill will allow certain companies to ignore, for the first five years that they are public, certain regulations, such as the requirement to hire an independent outside auditor to attest to a company's internal financial controls. Also, recent experience clearly shows that arguments that the market will have sufficient incentive to police itself have led to disaster in the recent past and cannot be relied upon in the future. We should have all learned a lesson when it comes to hasty deregulation of financial markets. Even if there is a short term gain to be had, the long term consequences can be quite costly.

In light of the fact that the Senate has not been able to add adequate consumer and investor protections, and the growing information about the potential long-term harm of these provisions, I must vote ``No.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this deeply flawed and deceptively named legislation.

Contrary to the bill's title, this bill will not promote access to better health care nor will it make health care more affordable. If the wishes of many of the proponents of this legislation come true and the Affordable Care Act is repealed and Medicare and Medicaid as we know them are curtailed or eliminated, then decent, affordable health care will remain out of reach for millions of Americans, including many who now have access to health care services.

I urge all Members to keep one fact in mind as we debate the medical malpractice aspects of this bill. These provisions would apply only to people who had meritorious claims of malpractice against them. You don't have to limit people's recoveries or attorneys fees for people without meritorious claims. So whatever we're doing here today will be done only to those who have been injured, whose injuries have been inflicted by someone else's wrongdoing, and who need and should be entitled to compensation.

The argument we hear, which is not a new one, is that if we allow the players in the health care industry, including Big Pharma, the manufacturers of defective medical devices, and even big insurance companies and HMOs that routinely pay for health care services, to escape the consequences of the harm they inflict, then somehow we'll all be better off.

This is not true, has never been true, and, despite the extravagant claims of the proponents of this bill and the industries lobbying for it, that will not be true if this multibillion dollar gift to bad actors in the health care industry were to become law.

Just how pricey a gift to industry are we talking about here? According to the Congressional Budget Office, $45.5 billion over the next decade. Now, anyone who believes that those savings will be passed along directly to consumers, health care providers, and victims of medical malpractice is living in a dream world. Some of us will remember the debates we had in this House for the 8 years preceding enactment of the 2005 Bankruptcy Code rewrite. We will no doubt remember the argument that abuse of the bankruptcy system was a hidden tax of $400 a year for every American and that tightening the rules would be of interest to all consumers. Well, we passed that huge giveaway to the big banks. Consumers have not seen a nickel of that $400. The banks pocketed all the money. If you think that this bill will lower costs for consumers, that the big insurance companies will not simply pocket the money, there's a famous bridge in my district that I might be willing to sell to you.

So keep in mind just who will be bearing the burden of this legislation: people who are subject to limitations on damages and on their ability to obtain competent counsel--something not imposed on insurance companies, drug companies, or HMOs. That may be good for the insurance companies, for the manufacturers of defective drugs and medical devices and all the other wrongdoers walking these Halls with open checkbooks, but it will come at the expense of their victims.

Nowhere does CBO, or their sponsors, explain why their belief that insurance companies, Big Pharma and medical device manufacturers will pass any savings along, nor do they account for the cost of the care needed by people who have been injured and who will be unable to receive adequate compensation.

This bill is not limited to suits against individual health care service providers, doctors and other licensed health care professionals. It would provide protection against malpractice claims for large corporations, insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and pharmaceutical giants when they deal in defective products or when someone else's health is destroyed because an insurance company refused to pay for necessary care.

Mr. Chairman, we heard the gentleman from California refer to the California legislation that is the model for this legislation passed in 1976, 36 years ago. That legislation enacted a limit and said for noneconomic damages you can only get a recovery of $250,000 because you lost a leg when they removed the wrong leg. They felt in 1976 that $250,000 was an appropriate amount to limit it to. In today's dollars, that's $38,000.

But there's no inflator in that legislation, and there's no inflator in this legislation. That $250,000 in 1976 today is $1.4 million. So if we were modeling this on that, we should say the limit is $1.4 million, but we're not doing that. We're saying 250, and we're not putting an inflation adjustment in here, so it will be $250,000 this year, and 5 years from now it will be the equivalent of $100,000, and 10 years from now $35,000 and eventually zero.

I submit that it is very wrong. It may be that if malpractice causes a woman to lose her fertility, causes her to lose the ability to bear children, the medical costs to her may be minor, the lost wages, the economic damages may be minor. But the inability to bear a child should be limited to $250,000 and eventually to almost nothing because there's no inflation in this? If someone is put in a wheelchair for life, the pain and suffering is worth almost nothing? That's what is wrong with this legislation, and that's what's immoral about this legislation. That's why we ought to vote against this legislation.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for her excellent exposition as to the law and the constitutionality, with which I am in full agreement.

As we all know, the administration recently announced that a popular and critically important component of the health care reform law would guarantee that most women have access to contraceptives paid for by their health insurance. This decision was based on the sound science of the impartial and independent Institute of Medicine, which recognized that contraceptives are an essential health service fundamental to improving the lives of women and their families.

This decision is a major victory for women. Eighty-nine percent of American women, including a similar percentage of Catholic women, use contraceptives at some point in their lives. Particularly at this time of economic uncertainty, women will have one less cost to worry about that can be a substantial cost. Make no mistake about it, freeing up $600 or $800 a year will have significant effects on working families.

The decision also recognizes and supports religious freedom by providing certain limited exemptions for places of worship, as well as for those organization that hire and predominantly care for those who share the same religious beliefs. They were protected against being required to violate their religious teachings.

I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with President Obama and his administration for helping to strike this important balance between religious rights and the rights of women to protect their health.

Yet to hear some people talk about this decision, you'd have no idea that the religious organizations and the religiously devout have their liberties protected. Amid all the hyperbole, the truth is that the administration's decision, while significant and important, is hardly new. This measured approach that balances religious rights on the one hand and the rights of women on the other is already the standard in 28 States, including my home State of New York.

Because it is not just employers and corporations that have rights at stake, hardworking people and their families also have rights.

Under the approach adopted by the administration, universities and hospitals which serve and employ people from a multitude of faiths and cultures are not exempt from the requirement that health insurance provide coverage for contraceptives, nor should they be. Women should not be denied a basic health service merely because they work or study at a university or hospital affiliated with a religious organization.

The difference here is that churches are and should be protected in their religious role, protected against having to violate their religious views, but they must not be protected in their role as employers. We permit a church, for example, to discriminate in religious practice. No one asks the Catholic Church how come you do not permit women priests? That's their business.

But we do not permit them to discriminate as employers. We do not permit a church-affiliated hospital or university to say we will not permit the hiring of female doctors or female professors or black doctors or nurses because that would impinge on liberty. If a church has a doctrine against hiring female priests, that's fine. But hiring female professors in the university, unless it was a solely ecclesiastical university, only for religious purposes, if it is a regular university, then they cannot be permitted to have that kind of discrimination.

We protect religious liberty, but we cannot permit a church to impose its views on others who may not share those views.

The church can preach its views, it can seek to persuade people, but it cannot coerce people who may work for a church-affiliated university or hospital that they cannot use contraceptives if they want to. The liberty here is the

liberty of the employee that must be protected. The liberty of the church must be protected in its churchly function and in its function as a religious institution. In its function as an employer, the liberty belongs to the employees. And that is the distinction that is made here. It is the proper distinction.

Imagine if some other church that thinks that it is wrong to give transfusions to people, blood transfusions, ran a hospital. We would not permit them to let people die in that hospital for lack of transfusions because it's not up to them to decide medical practice by their religious doctrine. If the person wants to refuse treatment because his religious doctrine says, I don't want a transfusion, that's his liberty. But we must not confuse the religious liberty of the church to propagate its views and to conduct its religious affairs as it sees fit with the liberty of employees in a secular institution affiliated with the church to have the normal protections against discrimination and the normal rights that we afford all people.

That is why the administration's decision to say that contraceptives are scientifically a necessary health care service which must be provided by health insurance is right, and any attempt by a religious institution to say that they should be exempt from having employees allowed to get contraceptives paid for is wrong, and I applaud the administration for making the proper distinction to protect the liberty of the employees and the religious liberty of the church both.

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill to repeal the CLASS Act. Last year, we watched as Republicans implemented a slash-and-burn offensive against almost every and any Federal program that helps people. No matter that the program helps women or children or seniors or sick people; let's get rid of it.

Apparently, this year is no different. With this bill, Republicans have set their eyes on the CLASS Act, which when implemented, will help provide some relief to aging Americans as well as to those who love and care for them. The CLASS program was designed to combat the rapidly increasing cost of long-term care, costs that currently account for nearly half of all health care spending in this country, by helping enrollees in this program to afford a variety of long-term care services,

such as home modifications, assistive technology, accessible transportation, respite care, home health care aids and nursing support.

Currently, long-term care facilities cost on average $70,000 per year, and home health care aides can cost $25 per hour in some areas. How many middle class families can afford that?

I understand the concerns that my Republican colleagues have voiced. As currently structured, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the program will not be solvent beyond about 2029, about 20 years from now. But what is the Republicans' knee-jerk solution to all budget issues? To trash a program, a necessary program, that will provide much-needed support for seniors today and in the future.

This is completely wrong-headed. We should not destroy this program and ignore the problem. People will still grow older, hopefully, and they will need assisted living, they will need home health care, and they will need accessible transportation. At some point, we are going to have to face this issue.

The current situation, where Medicaid will pay for this but only after the family has impoverished itself and eliminated all their assets, it's not a long-term solution, it's not a tolerable solution. Why should middle class families who have worked all their lives have to impoverish themselves if an elderly relative needs home health care or assisted living or a nursing home?

Our job here is to make people's lives better, to identify problems and to find solutions. We have certainly identified a problem. There is simply no denying that only the wealthiest among us can possibly afford to pay $70,000 a year for a nursing home.

So let's do our jobs. Let's roll up our sleeves and work to make this program better. Let's work to make it solvent, not simply eliminate it. Let's not simply abandon middle class Americans who are scared to death that after working their entire lives and playing by the rules, they will have to bankrupt their children and grandchildren just to have any sense of dignity as they grow older.

This is not the American Dream. We don't want to tell our old people, get lost, get out of sight, go into the poorhouses and the almshouses we had before Social Security. We don't want to tell our seniors, you can't have the health care, the home assisted living, the home health care aides that you need. We don't want to tell our families that you must impoverish yourselves, sell off all your assets because your mother or your grandmother is sick or can no longer live independently.

This is why we have government, to solve problems for all of us that we cannot solve for ourselves individually. That is the reason for government, to provide for the common welfare, as the Constitution says. We know we have this problem. We know as the population ages the problem is going to get worse and more intense, not better. We know the problem is not going to go away. So let's deal with it.

After many, many years, Congress in the Affordable Care Act finally passed the CLASS Act program to start dealing with this. There are problems with it. Yes, the financing that was brought into that program is only sufficient for about 20 years.

That gives us only 20 years to fix the program.

Now, the sooner we fix it, the sooner we amend the financing, the easier it will be to do it. The longer we wait, the harder.

So what do the Republicans want to do? Kill the whole program, put our heads in the sand, ignore the problem, and to heck with the senior citizens and to heck with their children who worry about how they're going to have their parents live their last years in dignity. That is not the American Dream. It is not right.

I urge my Republican colleagues to rethink this. Withdraw this bill. This program is not being implemented immediately. Figure out how to finance it better. Figure out how to deal with this problem. Don't simply say let's ignore the problem and to hell with our senior citizens. That is not the American Dream. We simply must do better.

We've made a start. Let us continue that start. Let us build on it. Let us not destroy the beginnings that we have made.

I yield back the balance of my time.