Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Gohmert, and I would like to submit this statement into the Congressional Record on behalf of all the Members and staff of the Judiciary Committee regarding our dear friend and colleague, Rachel King, who, after a long battle with cancer, passed away on August 25, 2008, at her home in Wayne, Maine, overlooking Dexter Pond, surrounded by family and friends.

We were privileged to know Rachel during her time as counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Many of us, and many others who work on Capitol Hill, already knew her from when she worked with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rachel was one of the most intelligent, passionate, and committed advocates in the fight for justice and equality. On issue after issue, whether it was the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, drug policy, child soldiers, or denial of due process, Rachel was a clear, strong, and articulate voice for justice, and she was loved and admired for it. She continued to pursue this commitment energetically at the Committee right up until the week before her last days in Maine.

She was well-known and well-respected for her tireless advocacy against capital punishment. She authored two books about the death penalty, each from the perspective of families affected--one, regarding families of murder victims; the other, families of the condemned. She also wrote a novel detailing the lives, challenges and triumphs of advocates in Washington, DC, working for progressive social causes. And many did not know that she was pursuing a master's degree in creative writing at Johns Hopkins University, in addition to the Juris Doctorate and Masters in Law degrees she already had.

We will remember Rachel not only for the wise and experienced counsel she gave us on issues going to the heart of what a criminal justice system should look like in a civilized society, but also for her gentle and tireless spirit.

We are grateful that she chose to spend the last part of her distinguished career working with us.

Mr. Speaker, today, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes:

Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1449. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On agreeing to H. Res. 1449. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

On the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 6604. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay.''

On passage of H.R. 6604. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

On the motion to table H. Res. 1460. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

On ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1441. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

On agreeing to H. Res. 1441. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Congress, I am delighted to come here this evening to have listened to two doctors and a judge talking about a subject that is of great interest to me as well. And the reason that I mentioned their names is that the subject matter that brings me to the well tonight with other colleagues is how we improve the health care system.

And when I hear Judge Louie Gohmert, who serves with distinction on the Judiciary Committee, I always love to try to involve him in what we're doing. And of course we have great respect for Representative Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia, who is a physician, a medical doctor; Dr. Boustany of Louisiana. All of these are gentlemen whose attention I would like to draw and invite to join us in this and future discussions about the state of health care in the country. I will be making every attempt to communicate with them on it.

We happen to have a doctor here on our side, Dr. Donna Christensen from the Virgin Islands, a medical doctor as well. And so just think of the exciting exchange of views that might have otherwise occurred.

But this is nevertheless an opportunity to take special orders to review, Mr. Speaker, that over 45 million Americans are currently without any form of health insurance whatsoever. More than eight out of ten of these Americans are members of working families, of all things. And then another 50 million Americans are underinsured and face possible financial ruin due to an unexpected medical bill for hospitalization or other emergencies that might occur.

And so for many Americans, the cost of health care, the cost of insurance, the insecurity of employer-based coverage--because many companies are downsizing or moving out of the country entirely--and these factors limit their most important choices in life: staying well and staying healthy, their decisions to work, to raise a family, to return to school, to have children, to retire early or not, to change careers. And the fact of the matter is that health care is the number one subject for nearly everyone in this country.

And so it is truly odd that some of my colleagues seem to believe that health care for all is somehow divorced from what they perceive to be the ``American Dream.'' Indeed, the American Dream is posited on the notion that you would be healthy. Before you would become educated, prosperous, rich, accomplished, you have to have good health. Physical and mental as well.

And so I begin our discussion underscoring the fact that the American Dream assumes that we're in good health and that good health, continued good health is available to all.

One of the Presidents of the United States once stated that Americans already have universal health care because the emergency rooms cannot legally refuse to treat patients. That is the sitting President of the United

States that made that statement, the 43rd President of the United States. And there's only one way that he could have made that statement, and that is that he's never had to use the emergency room for health care or it would be very clear to him that this is the most expensive and immediate and emergency-type circumstance that a person could receive medical care.

I wish he would come with me--if I had one wish, I would probably wish something else other than coming with me to the hospital to an emergency room to find out what it's like and how limited the treatment of necessity is because the hospital is defective or the doctors are not fully prepared--but they're under the stress of all emergencies coming from anywhere in the area to come in.

So that sort of reminds me of the phrase ``Let them eat cake.''

``Go to the emergency room. What is the problem?''

Well, the problem is that many emergency rooms cannot handle all of the cases for people who don't have insurance. And I am sorry to report that on some occasions, they are not able to entertain the health needs of the people that seek emergency room medical treatment.

And so we, in our office, have been bombarded with the tales, the tragic stories from people who are facing permanent injury, unemployment, death, bankruptcy, foreclosure, even the breakup of families due to the unaffordable health care costs.

So during this discussion this evening, we want to share--I invite that we share with each other the experiences that have been related to us, Mr. Speaker, that have come from the American people because nothing has become clearer in the course of my experience here that before we can discuss policy options to reform our health care system, Congress needs to hear from patients and citizens and constituents who suffer under our current non-system, broken way that we deliver health care in the United States.

And so it is in that spirit that we begin this discussion.

I want to just relate one, and this is entitled ``Robin's Story.''

``My son was 16 when he was diagnosed with a rare form of liver cancer (undifferentiated sarcoma of the liver). I was married. My husband and I were both working and we had health insurance through my husband's employer,'' Robin says. ``I had recently lost my job as a professor at a business college and was trying to start up my law practice from my home office. When Taylor got sick, we were barely making ends meet.

``The doctors had told us Taylor,'' 16 years old, ``Taylor didn't have cancer but they weren't sure what the mass in his liver was. When they opened him up, they knew it was cancer but it took 5 days to determine the exact type of cancer. They had to close Taylor up without removing the tumor because it was so intertwined with his major blood system. They would have killed him,'' they thought, ``if they tried to remove it.

``As I sat next to Taylor's bed at about 3 in the morning, we both were awake because we couldn't sleep. My husband and I had words. We were so stressed over the uncertainty of our future. We were facing the possibility of losing our son to cancer and we couldn't even pay our bills, let alone pay for the medical bills we were already facing from the surgery and hospital stay. Then to have to pay the cost of cancer treatment was overwhelming.

``Apparently Taylor had heard parts of our conversation. He lay on the bed, barely able to get up to go to the bathroom, facing an uncertain future. He said, `Mom, I'm so sorry about the money.'

``I can't begin to explain how inadequate I felt. I couldn't take care of my own son. He should be focusing on recovering from this major surgery and on gathering his strength to fight the biggest battle of his life. Instead he was worrying about how we were going to pay for all of this.

``We had insurance but we had a large deductible and co-pay. The cost of his treatments over the next year was a quarter of a million dollars. Even though we only had to pay a percentage, 20 percent of an astronomical figure is astronomical. Our phone rang constantly with creditors and collection agents wanting to know when we were going to pay our bills. I was unable to work much because Taylor's treatments and the everyday issues of cancer were as much as I could handle. So in addition to extra bills, we had a fraction of our previous income.

``After Taylor's first surgery and chemo treatment, we were preparing to leave the hospital. We were told we would have to administer a shot to Taylor every day to try to keep his blood counts high enough to continue his cancer treatment. It was stressful to consider giving your son a shot every day. That doesn't compare to the moment the first 14 shots were delivered to our hospital room along with a statement for $6,122! My heart sank to my stomach. I asked the delivery person if I had to pay them right then. He said they would bill us. Thank God. I can only imagine having to decide whether we would pay our mortgage payment and electricity, or give our son a shot that might save his life.

``We eventually got to the point we couldn't pay our mortgage. Our electricity was turned off many times. Each time, I had to pay the amount due plus an extra $100 cut-off fee. If I couldn't afford the original bill, how would I afford the additional $100? Friends and family raised money to help us. It didn't even begin to touch the amounts we owed. And as he turned the corner towards survival, everyone believed that the crisis was passed and stopped helping us.

``We are so blessed because our son survived cancer. It is truly a miracle. But our family didn't survive. After 23 years, my marriage dissolved. The financial pressures were more than the marriage could stand. I still have all of the medical debts and other debts on top of that. I try to just get through each day. I know that I am one of the lucky ones. Although I didn't survive cancer, my son did. I know many families who lost their child and then are also financially devastated. . . . probably even more so than I because they had years of medical treatment that failed to save their child.

``We tried to keep our insurance coverage. But we had to go on COBRA coverage, which was over $1,000 per month in addition to the medical bills. So both Taylor and I and Taylor's father have no insurance. After treatment, Taylor went in for a checkup every 3 months. Each checkup costs $6,000. We are now on six month checkups and hope to go to one a year next year.

``However, all of the other medical issues will just have to be placed on hold. Because I don't have health insurance, I don't take care of medical issues I used to address as they arose. Last summer I fell. I may have broken my wrist or at least tore ligaments. I didn't go to the doctor but just let it heal on its own. My wrist will always be a problem because it didn't heal right. Taylor's beautiful teeth that we worked so hard to straighten with braces will just have to be dealt with later.

``I just pray Taylor or I don't have a major medical problem. I live in fear for both of us because I know what treatment can cost.

``What I learned through our ordeal is that the individual is expected to pay for an inflated `retail' price for health care but the insurance companies, the ones who have the financial ability to pay, have made deals with the providers to pay a fraction of the `retail' price. As an `insured,' we received an explanation of benefits showing that the insurance company was given a `discount' and they usually only paid one-third of the amount paid by an individual with no insurance. That is so wrong. That means that the individual is paying the price for the insurance companies' `discounts.'

``This insanity must stop. We need to tell our story. The insurance companies and providers are making money on the backs of individuals already in crisis, facing life threatening illness and financial struggles because their income is reduced. I knew that survival is related to attitude. I assure you we are losing lives because it is hard to have a positive attitude through financial crisis on top of medical crisis. I want to help tell the story.''

A similar wind is now blowing in the 21st century. I believe the people, not special interests, should decide what type of health care system exists in this country. I believe this

wind of change will usher in a new day; a day when hope for the just treatment of all of our brothers and sisters will be reborn.

A truly open and democratic process is needed as we pursue this endeavor to ensure equal, just, and comprehensive care for all. To this end, I implore the inclusion of the American people in this discussion, so that the singular, resounding voice of those who believe in change, who believe in moral responsibility, can reverberate across the nation loudly enough so as to drown out those who would profit from continued injustice.

The struggle for health care for all is the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. Let there be no doubt: the powers aligned against us are powerful and vast; the coming struggle will be long and hard. But, we have been down this road before, and we have succeeded. We shall succeed once again, because as Fannie Lou Hammer once said, we are sick and tired of being sick and tired.

Kathryn's Story

My sister was 46 when she saved enough money and was able to go to her doctor for a physical. Her doctor discovered an orange sized mass in her uterus. He recommended that she have an ultrasound. She said she would when she had saved more money. This was August 2005. She continued to work two part time jobs, one at a hospital as a housekeeper in the operating room on the OB/GYN floor. The other job was working for the State of Michigan as a maintenance worker cleaning restrooms. She worked hard and was a loyal employee. Unfortunately, both jobs were part time, so no benefits were offered. She also didn't qualify for aid from the county or State because she worked too much! By September 2006, she was dead. The mass was cancerous, spread to her ovaries, and finally to her lungs. She died three months after diagnosis. Medicaid was approved after her death.

conclusion

My friends, the vital issue of the health care crisis in this country is rising to the surface; the plight of the uninsured and the underinsured can no longer be ignored. As the election season continues to progress, and as we draw nearer to a new administration, the time is now for Members of the House to call for serious, comprehensive health care reform.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' I am privileged to have known Martin Luther King, Jr. and to have worked closely with him on civil rights issues. Madam Speaker, health care is a civil right.

It is the spirit of the civil rights crusaders of the past from which we should draw inspiration and strength. Abolitionists did not settle for piece-meal appeasements or token change. Rather, a dynamic and sweeping wind reshaped the Nation for the better, capitalizing on a nagging conscience that Americans, both black and white, knew was the moral and just thing to do.

I'd like now to turn to the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Donna Christensen, who not only serves on two very important committees in the House of Representatives, but in addition, she chairs the Congressional Black Caucus Health Caucus, and I've had the honor of working with her across the years, and I would yield to her.

Thank you, Dr. Christensen. ``Everybody in, nobody out.'' I know a doctor in Chicago that uses that term very frequently.

I'm pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who I had the great privilege to be in the White House when his Second Chance bill was signed into law after many years of working in this body and the other body to see that it came to fruition. It derived from his long experience as a civil rights activist, as a commissioner, a county commissioner in Chicago, and as a community health worker in community clinics for a considerable period of time. I'm so proud that he's an original cosponsor of H.R. 676, and I yield to him.

And Physicians for a National Health Plan, PNHP.

We're expecting his presence at the 38th Congressional Black Caucus event next week in which we will be having a forum on universal single-payer health care.

Thank you.

I thank the gentleman for his kind references.

I ask unanimous consent to include any other materials in the body of our discourse today.

I return the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, I was inadvertently detained today and regret missing the vote on House Resolution 1335. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea''.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to make express my gratitude for my fellow jazz enthusiast and Detroiter, Ed Love. For more than 24 years, Ed Love has delighted listeners with Destination Jazz: The Ed Love Program on weekdays from 7 pm to midnight on WDET 101.9FM. Ed's passion for jazz and radio extends all the way back to his youth in Kansas, when he was an avid listener of his mother's records and hosts like Dick Martin of WWL in New Orleans. After graduating from broadcasting school, Ed worked for Armed Forces Radio in several states and in the Philippines. Starting in 1960, he worked at various stations throughout Detroit until joining WDET in 1983. Ed has not only entertained Detroit radio listeners throughout his impressive career, but also spent six years hosting a nationally syndicated program entitled ``The Evolution of Jazz,'' educating and entertaining listeners on 125 stations from coast to coast.

Ed was honored for his contribution to the world of jazz with the ``Distinguished Achievement Award'' from the Motor City Music Foundation. Ed was recognized by the Friends of the Detroit Institute of Arts with the ``Dr. Alian Locke Award'' in 1999 for his contributions to the arts. He's earned two ``Spirit of Detroit Awards'' from Detroit Mayors Coleman A. Young and Dennis W. Archer. The Michigan House of Representatives, the Michigan Senate, the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Broadcast Awards have all recognized him for his profound knowledge and love of jazz. The Southeast Michigan Jazz Association (SEMJA) recognized Ed for his outstanding contribution to jazz and the arts. In 2005, Ed received the ``Detroit Jazz Guardian'' Award from the Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts and the Detroit International Jazz Festival. Ed was also honored in 2005 with the ``Distinguished Arts Achievement'' award from the Oakland County chapter of The Links. He has also served as the senior program consultant for the Detroit International Jazz Festival since 2000.

In the wake of the collapse of the International Association of Jazz Educators, Ed Love and other jazz advocates will be even more important in the preservation of one of our nation's treasures and original art forms, jazz. I know that as long as jazz has stewards like Ed Love, we can be assured that it will be taught and will thrive the future. Through his work, Ed Love has and will continue to inspire generations of performers, educators, and students for years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the memory and accomplishments of Gene Upshaw, a tremendous athlete and upstanding individual who had a successful career both on and off the football field. During his 16-year career as a National Football League player, he was an 11-time All-Pro offensive guard for the Oakland Raiders and was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1987, his first year of eligibility. He played in 217 league games and appeared in six Pro Bowls. He was named Lineman of the Year in the AFC in 1973 and 1974. In 1977, he was voted top lineman in the NFL, and runner-up for that honor in 1980. Upshaw is the only player in NFL history to play with the same team in three Super Bowls in three different decades--in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

Not only did Upshaw have an outstanding career on the field, but he also had a distinguished career off the field serving 38 years with the NFL Players Association. Upshaw worked as a player representative and officer for 13 years. He served as alternate representative or player representative for the Raiders from 1970 to 1976 and was a member of the executive committee from 1976 through 1980 when he was elected president of the NFLPA, a post he held until 1983.

Upshaw served as Executive Director of the NFLPA from June 1983 up until his death on August 20, 2008. As the first African-American labor leader in a major sport, Upshaw was a forceful advocate on behalf of professional football players. During his tenure, Upshaw skillfully negotiated several collective bargaining agreements and extensions that have been credited with enhancing the rights and compensation of NFL players.

Upshaw's career was best summed up by his close friend Art Shell, who played next to him on Oakland's offensive line and in 1989 became the first African-American coach of the modern era when he took over the Raiders. ``Gene was a true pioneer as one of the few African-American leaders of a major union. He was the equal of owners in negotiations and made the league a better place for all players. Playing alongside of Gene was an honor and a privilege. He was a pillar of strength and leadership for our great Raider teams.''

I extend my heartfelt condolences and prayers to his wife, Terri, his three sons, Justin, Daniel, and Eugene, Jr., and the entire National Football League community.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act of 2008, legislation that would preserve the intellectual property rights of our Nation's researchers and scientists. Specifically, the bill would prevent the Federal Government from requiring the transfer of intellectual property rights from researchers expressly in cases where there are non-federal financial or other contributions made toward the advancement or dissemination of science. Representatives Darrell Issa, Robert Wexler and Tom Feeney join me in this important effort to preserve intellectual property rights while furthering the national goal of advancing science and innovation.

This legislation is necessary to respond to a dramatic policy change which was instituted in April of this year at the National Institutes of Health, without adequate Congressional consideration of the impacts of those changes on the intellectual property system, innovation, the peer review system, or our international obligations.

In fact, this change in policy--from voluntary to mandatory submission of copyrighted materials--could severely impact important negotiations with our international trading partners. Already we are hearing reports, in conversations at the World Health Organization and in other international forums, the new National Institutes of Health policy to limit the exercise of copyright by authors and owners is being taken as a sign that the United States is shifting its position away from being a strong proponent of intellectual property rights and enforcement. Interest groups are using this example not only to promote a relaxation of copyright protections, but also to advocate for international diminution in strong patent policy.

The legislation that we have introduced today would restore intellectual property protections for scientists, researchers, and publishers until a more thorough analysis of the access issues and a determination of an appropriate policy can be performed by the Register of Copyrights in consultation with economic experts.

Our intent is that no harm should be done to the peer review system-- a system that has been in place for over a hundred years and is the gatekeeper winnowing out great science from careless science or even fraudulent ``research'' results. We intend to ensure that the intellectual property protections currently in place, which provide important incentives for the private sector to make significant I investments in research, are carefully considered before any policy change is enforced or proliferates in this area.

This legislative effort is supported by scientific societies, large and small publishers, and for profit and non-profit entities. It is an inportant and necessary step in the fight to maintain our competitive edge in a global marketplace. Copyright protections provide the incentive to ensure that publishers invest in the peer review process, thus ensuring that science is adequately vetted prior to being distributed to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 344 today and applaud the Congress for finally recognizing the serious human, economic, and moral impact the global food crisis has had on the world community. In particular, I want to recognize the author of this bill, the Gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, for her continuing advocacy on behalf of the many millions of hungry people around the world; people whose stories often go untold in our public debate.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the course of action proposed in this resolution. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon should immediately convene a taskforce, composed of the heads of the United Nations aid agencies and the World Bank, to both address this growing crisis and close the $755,000,000 funding gap for the World Food Programme. The 850,000,000 chronically or acutely malnourished human beings living on this planet demand nothing less.

If anything, the heavy toll borne by Haiti and other Caribbean nations during this hurricane season has only added to the urgency of holding such a meeting. Unless the world community crafts a serious, comprehensive aid plan that can be deployed in a quick and effective manner, the lack of access to clean water and food in these nations will lead to an untold and unacceptable loss of human life.

I also want to remind my colleagues that the global food price surge is hitting Americans here at home. According to the Department of Labor, prices for staples such as bread, milk, eggs, and flour are rising sharply, surging in the past year at double-digit rates. Milk prices, for example, increased 26 percent over the year. Egg prices jumped 40 percent. Chronic hunger and malnourishment are ailments that affect more than just the citizens of third-world foreign locales; they affect our neighbors, our children, and our parents.

In the long-term, our country must confront our contribution to this crisis. Although we have little control over sky-rocketing oil prices, we have the power to re-evaluate and improve our agricultural policy in ways that will ease the pain at the register for food consumers, both here and abroad. In particular, slashing some farm subsidies and ending de facto price controls that mainly benefit massive corporate farms would go along way towards lowering food prices. Our country can only afford to pay our farmers not to produce when prices are low and food is ample. In times like these, such subsidies may be a luxury we cannot afford.

In the meantime, I encourage the Congress to speak with one voice and endorse the multilateral engagement proposed in this resolution. While It alone wIll not solve this complex problem, it is a necessary and needed component of a successful and comprehensive strategy.

Mr. Speaker, on September 8, 2008, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present to vote on S. 2403, S. 2837, and S. 2135.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all votes.

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 2851, Michelle's Law. This important legislation amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit a group health plan from terminating coverage of a dependent child due to a medically necessary leave of absence from a postsecondary education institution.

Madam Speaker, few Americans can simply write a check to cover the cost of attending college. The average college student graduates with alarming amounts of debt, in fact, most undergraduate students graduate with close to $20,000 in student loan debt. I find it unconscionable that, in a time of worsening financial burdens, we would also place the burden of costs associated with unexpected illness on the lives of our young students.

According to Harvard Medical School, the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States is due to unpaid medical bills, most of which were filed while the individual or family had health insurance. My bill, H.R. 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, creates a health care system where there is no such thing as medical debt, problems with credit, or filing for bankruptcy because of unpaid medical bills. Under H.R. 676, financial insecurity from fear of indebtedness from medical expenses will cease to exist.

Martin Luther King, Jr. stated that every human being requires four things to lead a happy and productive life: shelter, employment, education, and health. When a person has access to the aforementioned four requirements, a fifth, justice, holds them all together. When a student loses full-time status because of an illness and access to healthcare, a home and education become more difficult to maintain. However, with Michelle's Law, we can provide justice to college students and help them retain access to care so they can work towards the American dream.

Madam Speaker, instead of making it more difficult for the young men and women of our nation to achieve higher education, we should be doing everything in our power to facilitate completion of their courses of study, especially when faced with hardships such as debilitating physical or mental illness. Please pass Michelle's Law, and help ensure that there is one less impediment to education and healthcare for our nation's hardworking college students.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the conference report agreed to by House and Senate negotiators on H.R. 4040, ``The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.'' The final version of this Act will institute long-needed reforms to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, require toys and infant products to be tested before they are sold, ban lead and 6 toxins categorized as ``phthalates'' in children's toys, and provide other critical safety improvements.

This bipartisan and bicameral compromise dramatically improves the House version of the bill and adopts the vast majority of the provisions found in the much stronger Senate bill. Such robust provisions are a prudent response to the regulatory embarrassment our nation suffered in 2007, when almost 30 million toys and 15 million child products were recalled because of safety concerns. By acting today, we will ensure that our nation's mothers and fathers will never have to suffer through another year filled with such terror and uncertainty.

I have long been a supporter of strengthening the Consumer Product Safety Commission, so that it can finally serve as the first line of citizen product safety defense. Over the past three months, I have joined with a coalition of my fellow Members on two separate occasions to advocate for the strong consumer protection provisions included in this legislation.

After today, the Consumer Product Safety Commission will cease to exist as a ghost regulator; starved of the resources, authority, and transparency that an effective regulator needs. With this bill, this long-running frustration of Congressional intent will finally end.

A vote for this conference report is a vote for industry accountability, regulatory integrity, and most importantly, child safety. I encourage my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1338, ``The Paycheck Fairness Act.'' This legislation will help our Nation take the final steps in its long journey towards ensuring that men and women receive equal pay for equal work. The Congress first committed itself to remedying the scourge of pay discrimination in 1963, when it passed the Equal Pay Act. At that time, full-time working women were paid on average 59 cents on the dollar earned by their male counterparts. In the ensuring 43 years, the wage gap between men and women has narrowed. In 2008, women earn about 77 percent of what men earn. While this is a dramatic improvement, the 23 cent gap that exists still exemplifies that gender discrimination is a real and contemporary problem in our labor market.

H.R. 1338 would attack this problem in a comprehensive manner. It builds on many of the innovative policies found in the original EPA and adds provisions specifically crafted to address the realities of 21st century offices. H.R. 1338 will:

Strengthen the EPA by making it unlawful for an employer to pay unequal wages to men and women who have substantially similar jobs that are performed under similar working conditions within the same physical location of business. Under the original EPA, employers can justify unequal pay if it is based on: Seniority; merit; quality or quantity of production; or ``any factor other than sex.'' This legislation clarifies the ``any factor other than sex'' defense, so that an employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same job must show that the disparity is not sex-based, is job related, and is necessary for the business;

Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or disclose salary information with their co-workers. However, employees such as HR personnel who have access to payroll information as part of their job would not be protected if they disclose the salaries of other workers;

Strengthen the remedies available to include punitive and compensatory damages. Under the EPA currently, plaintiffs can only recover back pay and in some cases double back pay. The damages would not be capped;

Require the Department of Labor to improve outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities;

Enhance the collection of information on women's and men's wages in order to more fully explore the reasons for gender-based wage gap and to assist employers in their efforts to rectify pay disparities; and

Create a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

Mr. Chairman, I was shocked when I heard last year about the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire plant employee who suffered from pay discrimination for nearly two decades. After learning that she had been victimized by her employer, she brought an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint against Goodyear. Unfortunately, a majority of our anti-worker, pro-corporate Supreme Court denied her claim, ruling that employees can only file a wage-discrimination complaint within 180 days of a discriminatory payroll decision. Ms. Ledbetter, a clear victim of discrimination, was left without recourse in a country founded on a respect for the rule of law. For this, we should be ashamed.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that our courts are our last line of defense when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and in our civil rights laws. With our marketplace and court systems unwilling to correct obvious injustices, we need a legislative solution that will ensure that the universal values of fairness, respect, and decency continue to be a part of the American workplace. To this end, I urge my colleagues to step up for ``equal pay for equal work'' and pass H.R. 1388.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1338, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title, numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 3370) to resolve pending claims against Libya by United States nationals, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 194) apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 194, which is bipartisan legislation apologizing for the enslavement and the continued racial segregation of African Americans. For numerous Congresses past, similar resolutions have been introduced, but none have made it to the floor for consideration by the full House. So I salute my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the Judiciary Committee, the Honorable Steve Cohen, for his leadership and indefatigable energy in bringing us to this point in support of this resolution which he has created.

While much progress has been made since the civil rights era, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow is still at the root of many critical issues facing the African American community today; educational opportunities, health care access, business capital, they are still victimized by crime, and many other socioeconomic considerations.

Our friend the former President, Bill Clinton, expressed his regrets over the Nation's role in the slave trade. The current President, George W. Bush, described it as ``one of the greatest crimes of history.'' A number of States, Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey, have made moving apologies in their own ways. Now, with an official United States Government apology before us, this measure will take us another step forward toward the national healing, atonement and continued progress that must be made along these lines.

The discussion of race is a sensitive, difficult issue even today in our society. And, of course, the apology is not the end of the story, but it does reaffirm our national commitment to understanding and addressing, in the words of the resolution, how to rectify the lingering consequences of the misdeeds committed against African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow and to stop the occurrence of human rights violations in the future.

So I am proud to join the many Members on both sides of the aisle that have helped us bring this suspension forward today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the measure before us, the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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