Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, the majority has known this program was going to expire at the end of this month all year and has taken no steps to reauthorize this important social safety net program. We are also in the position of having to pass an extension of TANF. I am not sure the Senator from Illinois is aware that the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee have put together a bipartisan 1-year extension of TANF. I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, the majority has known this program was going to expire at the end of this month all year and has taken no steps to reauthorize this important social safety net program. We are also in the position of having to pass an extension of TANF. I am not sure the Senator from Illinois is aware that the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee have put together a bipartisan 1-year extension of TANF. I object.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this joint resolution disapproving the National Mediation Board rule that will deprive railway and airline employees of a voice in their representation elections.

For 75 years, the Board's procedure for voting on union representation properly reflected the geographically broad workforce of the rail and airline

industries. Under this time-tested procedure, the workforce would become unionized if the majority of all the workers in a class voted to join a union.

The new rule has changed the way employees' votes are counted in order to favor the union. For 75 years, not voting at all has counted as a no vote. Now, employees who do not vote or cannot vote will lose any chance to weigh in on the question of union representation. In fact, a minority of workers in a class could determine the fate of the entire workforce. This new rule conflicts with the plain language of the statute. The method for selecting a union is expressly described in the Railway Labor Act: ``The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representatives of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act.'' No matter what the Board's policy justifications for this rule are, the law is clear. Supporting this resolution will send a message to those who want to change this 75-year-old rule to favor unions in an industry that is already majority unionized. The only appropriate manner to create new policy here is to amend the statute.

Proponents of the new rule say the election procedure under the Railway Labor Act should mirror the procedure used under the National Labor Relations Act. While this procedure may work fine with smaller units of workers, typically working within the same workplace, it is not an equitable method for workers in the railway or airline industries. The classes of railway and airline workers were intentionally created to be systemwide in order to allow uniform workplace rules and prevent the shutdown of an entire carrier should there be a strike in one local.

With workers geographically spread out across the country and working on different shifts, it is difficult for transportation industry employees to communicate their views with coworkers and voice their opinions during a union election. For 75 years, abstaining has been a way of saying ``not sure'' or ``need more information,'' as well as ``no.'' In many companies, unions try year after year to gain the backing of a majority of employees through elections. This rule change silences those who do not vote because they don't feel like they have gotten enough information to decide. Instead of requiring a union to convince the workforce to support the union, the Board is seeking to allow unions to force their way in. This is a matter of deep concern because once a union is certified, there is no way to decertify it.

Currently, the Board does not have a specific decertification process. This makes it nearly impossible for employees unhappy with their union to organize their fellow employees and vote the union out of their workplace. It seems logical that since the Board acted to make it easier for employees to join a union, it would have also simplified the process for employees to get rid of their union. But, despite requests to do so during the notice and comment period for the rule, they did not. In fact, employees stuck in unions they do not support because of this rule will also not have the benefit of State right to work laws, which would allow an employee to opt out of full union membership and dues obligations. The Railway Labor Act preempts the 22 States that have adopted right to work laws.

The Board has acknowledged that its primary duty in resolving representative disputes is ``to determine the clear, uncoerced choice of the affected employees.'' I could not agree more. But that important duty needs to apply equally when employees seek to vote a union out of their workplace. The fact that the new rule fails to include a decertification process based on the majority of votes cast, is not only troubling, but evidences the true intent of the Board and this administration to tilt the playing field to favor unions over individual workers' rights.

Last year this body unanimously confirmed two nominees to the National Mediation Board. Several members of the HELP Committee, including my office, specifically asked each of them about their position on changing the way a majority in a unionization election is measured. In reply these nominees stated that they had no preconceived agenda to alter election rules that have been in place for 75 years. Yet, practically before the ink had dried on their confirmations, these two nominees began pushing through this regulation which is a wholesale reversal of those rules to the benefit of labor unions. It is not as uncommon as it should be for nominees to say one thing in their confirmation hearings and act differently once in office, but this example may be one of the most concerning because of the way it was done.

In their haste, the majority NMB members thoroughly disregarded the rights of the single minority member. The minority member was given no notice about the other Board members' plans, including even the fact that there was a rulemaking effort underway. Instead, she was presented with the proposed rule to be published and given 1\1/2\ hours to review and determine if she would support it. They even tried to stop her from publishing a dissent to the rule proposal. Silencing dissenting views appears to be an alarming trend at the Board. And unfortunately, it has gone beyond the National Mediations Board.

Over at the National Labor Relations Board, workers' rights and freedoms are similarly at risk. Just recently, at the end of August, the NLRB chose to revisit a 2007 ruling known as Dana Corp. that protected workers' rights to a secret ballot vote. In that 2007 ruling, the Board held that card check was inferior to the use of secret ballot voting in union elections. The Board concluded that when an employer recognized a union in the workplace by card check, employees had the right to request a secret ballot vote to show whether they actually wanted union representation. This was an important ruling to protect workers from union coercion and intimidation that can occur in the card check process. The ruling gave employees a voice in whether they actually wanted union representation, instead of having their employer and a union decide for them.

Now fast forward to August 2010. The NLRB has just decided to revisit that 2007 ruling. Why? There has not been a major shift in management- labor relations that warrants such a change. In fact, the 2007 ruling has served as an important oversight mechanism. According, to the Wall Street Journal, since the 2007 ruling, 1,111 workplaces have become union by the card check process, of which 54 of those have demanded a vote. Only 15 of the 54, voted against the union. So clearly, the 2007 ruling has not led to huge losses for the unions. But it did give employees a say in their workplace.

This Congress should be very concerned about the current state of these administrative boards that were intended to be independent. Concealed agendas cannot become the norm for Senate confirmed positions. If it is then we will have difficulty confirming anyone whose former employer would fall under the nominee's jurisdiction.

I thank the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, for offering this resolution to send a message to the National Mediation Board that when they seek a change in policy, they must do so within their constitutional and legal authority.

I also note that every member of our caucus has cosponsored Senator Isakson's resolution and joins him in sending this message. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for his kind words and also for his great leadership on the HELP Committee. We have a big area we cover--health, education, labor, and pensions--and we have a lot of bills we are working on. I am pleased at the bipartisan way we are able to work on them, his staff and my staff. Actually, the members of the committee are very engaged on the issues we are covering, and they are very important issues for America.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, one reason I am proud to be from the great State of Wyoming is that our State is the land of many firsts. We have the first national park, which is Yellowstone National Park. We have the first national monument, which is Devils Tower, and we have the first national forest, which is the Shoshone National Forest, just to name a very few.

But another huge milestone and important first for our State is that we were the first State to give women the right to vote. We are pioneers in more ways than one out West. That is how Wyoming got its nickname, the Equality State.

I rise to talk about an important anniversary that our country recently celebrated. August 26 was Women's Equality Day, marking the 90th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote. Of course, that is 50 years after Wyoming's special vote. We just celebrated 140 years since Louisa Swain became the first woman in the world to vote.

When the Wyoming territory was being considered to be a State, we were told to repeal women's right to vote. Our legislators said: No thanks. It is not worth that to be a State. Wyoming stood first and, of course, the rest of the country followed suit five decades later.

The ratification of the 19th amendment to our Constitution was a landmark in our need to recognize the voices of women and welcome their contributions to our country. Women have always offered a wealth of knowledge and spirit, and the 19th amendment showed our commitment to continually fight for women's equality.

In Wyoming alone, we have been graced by women's accomplishments from past to present. Wyoming had the first female justice of the peace in the United States, Esther Hobart Morris. We had the first woman to head up the mint. In fact, she is one of the few female statues displayed in the U.S. Capitol today. Wyoming also welcomed the first woman to serve as Governor of a U.S. State, Nellie Tayloe Ross.

Today, we are continually impacted and influenced by strong women in our State. I am honored to serve in Wyoming's congressional delegation alongside U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis, who took the reins from her predecessor, Barbara Cubin, and has been a remarkable leader for Wyoming. She has served Wyoming in a variety of roles, as a lawyer, a rancher, a legislator, and State treasurer, now U.S. Representative. Now in her role in the House, she continues to do an outstanding job serving her constituents and fighting for their interests in Congress.

It is clear there is no shortage of women looking to stand and make a difference in this country. I am optimistic that we are continuing down a path that looks out for women's best interests and seeks to provide them with more and more venues to have their voices heard and resources known.

Women serve as a pillar of strength in our country. I am proud to recognize the 140th year of Wyoming women voting, and this 90th anniversary of women in the rest of the United States gaining the right to vote and look forward to continually welcoming their contributions and achievements.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kristen Leis of my personal office have floor privileges for today.

Mr. President, I just heard the discussion about this bill. I know in the health care bill we hired 16,000 more IRS agents. If we hired 16,000 more IRS agents, we should not need a whole bunch more paperwork for small businesses to do, to see if they are being honest.

This is going to cost a fortune for small business, even if you go to the $5,000 level, because you have to keep track of how much you buy from every supplier. You have to see if you hit the $600 or $5,000 mark. That is a cost to business with no benefit. I do not think it is going to wind up with the kind of benefit they are talking about in raising revenue to finance health care.

As far as the mandate to buy insurance, I am not in favor of the mandate to begin with. But it mandates that they spend 8 percent of their income on health insurance. This reduces it to 5 percent of their health care. I think that is a pretty big mandate all in itself.

But during the last month, my wife and I traveled around Wyoming. We visited small businesses. We looked to see what their problems were. I do that to get a sense of what Federal legislation is going to do to help or hinder them. I want to see firsthand the struggles they deal with. Every business looks simple until you have to make the decisions that deal with that business.

The last thing we want to do in Washington is hurt those businesses by passing legislation that takes resources away from growing businesses and puts it into more paperwork. We also should not be passing legislation using regulation that stymies new jobs and causes uncertainty about what will come out in the near future.

Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what happened in the health care reform law that was enacted earlier this year. Today, we have a chance to fix it. Although the health care reform battle may be in the rearview mirror for some of you, it is the small businesspeople in our hometowns who continue to bleed from it.

The provision I am referring to will require business owners to submit onerous and duplicative 1099 forms for every single business-to- business transaction over $600. Even $5,000 does not solve the problem. This includes anything from utilities, office supplies, construction materials. There are ways to audit that anyway. This is just trying to do an easy thing and putting a whole burden on businesses. So everybody on Main Street will have to do 200 to 2,000 of these 1099s depending on which one of these forms you go with. Repealing it is the best way to do it.

Something else that is not mentioned is they have to get the taxpayer's ID number. If you are a small businessman, a really small businessman, your taxpayer ID is your Social Security number. How willing are you going to be to give your Social Security number to some kid that bought $600 worth of gas so he could mow lawns over the summer? If he does not get the taxpayer number, he is supposed to withhold 28 percent of the payment.

Most businesses don't have personal accountants on hand to file these forms so they will need to hire someone just to file paperwork. This is the kind of onerous paperwork burden that will distract small businesses from doing day-to-day business, providing much-needed jobs and stimulating the economy.

Many of my colleagues have joined me in co-sponsoring the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Eliminate Act to fix this problem, and today I urge them to join me in supporting Senator Johanns' amendment. The Johanns amendment eliminates the onerous section of the law and pays for it in a responsible way. While I appreciate the Senator from Florida would like to exempt businesses with under 25 employees, this exemption actually encourages businesses to stop growing so they aren't burdened with onerous bureaucratic regulations, and the method he uses to offset his amendment will lead to increased energy prices and fewer American energy jobs. My biggest surprise over the August recess was the number of businesses that have heard of this requirement. They know and they are mad. One more requirement that doesn't bring in a single dollar and has a huge cost!

I urge all Senators to help the businesses in their State and make sure this section is repealed by supporting the Johanns amendment. You don't have to be a Republican and you don't have to be a Democrat to know that this is something we need to do. To know that, you just have to ask the business people you represent in your home State.

Let's take a sandbag off the backs of the small business people. We know repeal will be better for them, our States and our country. Surely we can find a way together to do this one small thing

that will make such a huge positive impact on those we serve.

I think we can see what a terrible error it is to have this in the bill at all. I hope we will repeal it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about a provision in the new health care law that will impose monumental burdens on small businesses, reduce wages and eliminate jobs.

A provision that was included in the new health care law will require businesses to submit new tax forms every time they purchase more than $600 worth of goods. This new government mandate will impose significant new costs on 26 million businesses across America.

Given the economic challenges that our Nation already faces, this is a burden that we cannot afford. If it is not fixed, this new mandate will slow economic growth and prevent the creation of new jobs. The Commerce Department reported last week that the pace of economic growth is slowing down. U.S. economic growth slowed to an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter, the weakest showing in nearly a year. According to the Labor Department, wages and salaries are also suffering and the unemployment rate still hovers around 9.5 percent.

If these numbers are going to improve, it's going to be a result of the hard work and ingenuity of our Nation's small business owners. The entrepreneurial small business community has been the driver to pull us out of all recent recessions. They are the key to job creation that will pull us out of this economic downturn as well. Small businesses create 65 percent of all new jobs in America. In Wyoming, that number is a lot higher. We have 62,000 small businesses in Wyoming that employ nearly 70 percent of our workforce. We need to advance policies that encourage small businesses to grow and hire new workers.

Unfortunately, buried in the new healthcare law is a provision that will have the opposite effect. It will cost every business, even the smallest of the small, more money to file their taxes.

Because of the new healthcare law, beginning in 2012 businesses will have to send new tax forms to the IRS for every business to business transaction of $600 or more for both goods and services. This new requirement creates a punishing new paperwork mandate for small businesses.

The new paperwork requirement means that a small business owner will have to file two forms--one to the vendor and one to the IRS--for almost every purchase his or her business makes. Imagine you're a freelance writer and you buy a new laptop. Well, now you have to send Form 1099 to Apple and the IRS or, be labeled a tax cheat. Oh, and you'll need Apple's Taxpayer Identification number too so don't forget to ask the salesman for that.

Complying with the tax code is already one of the most expensive burdens placed upon small businesses. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the typical small business pays as much as $74 per hour to prepare and file various tax-related documents. Because they cannot afford to have their own finance departments, the costs of complying with the Federal tax code are 66 percent higher for small businesses as compared to their larger competitors. The new healthcare law will significantly increase these tax burdens and the costs that come with them.

This new reporting requirement hits small businesses hardest because they typically don't have in house accounting departments and have to hire outside help. Every penny a small business spends on these services is money they can't spend on hiring new workers and expanding their business. Every hour a small business owner spends filling out these new tax forms is time he or she is not making a sale, manufacturing a product or working with a customer.

I understand the challenges this can create for a small business. Before I came to the Senate, my wife and I started and owned several shoe stores back home. When you own a small business, you have to be the CEO, the bookkeeper, the salesman and the person who empties the trash and cleans the toilets.

Every hour that I spent filling out government-mandated paperwork, was an hour I couldn't spend selling shoes. Government mandates, like the new 1099 requirement, have a real cost, and it is small businesses who end up having to pay them. The National Taxpayer Advocate, based inside the IRS, has already warned of the new reporting burden on small business.

This new reporting requirement hurts small businesses at the same time our economy needs them to help our recovery. Small businesses across this country are still struggling to stay open. Rather than forcing these businesses to comply with burdensome new paperwork requirements, we should be finding ways to encourage them to reinvest their money in growing their businesses and hiring more workers.

Our country has always relied on small businesses to grow the economy and create new jobs and they have always been the drivers to pull us out of economic downturns. Given the still difficult challenges facing our economy, the last thing we should be doing is piling on the paperwork that takes their time and precious resources away from creating jobs.

I believe things like the 1099 requirement are causing our entrepreneurs to think twice about taking new risks for fear of more government burdens and regulations. That's the worst thing Washington should be doing right now. Instead, we need to be focused on creating an environment where small businesses can grow and aren't worried about what might be the next new burden thrown on them from Washington.

It seems like a reoccurring bad dream around Washington over the past few years. Washington politicians tuck something into a giant bill that's rammed through Congress without fully understanding the impact in the real world.

This 1099 reporting requirement is just one of the many things in the new health law that need to be re-examined. Our small businesses need to be focused on creating jobs and helping our economy recover, not on new paperwork burdens. When a business is considering making new long term investments in employees or equipment, they shouldn't have to be worried about the next new wrinkle to be uncovered in the health reform law.

We can make a statement right now to America's small businesses that we want you out there creating jobs, hiring new employees and growing your business--not worrying about what Washington will require of you next. Let's tell our small business men and women that we stand behind them, not on top of their backs, and let's repeal this new tax paperwork burden. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue important to us all--the safety of our food. Food safety is not a partisan issue--we all want to be confident that the food we eat and give to our children will not make us sick. That is why I have been working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to pass S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

This bill goes a long way to bringing the regulation of food into the 21st century. No longer will outdated laws hold the FDA back from protecting us. This bill takes into account the changes in our food supply over the more than 100 years since food safety authorities were first granted to the agency. This bill provides real consumer safety improvements, while maintaining an appropriate balance between regulatory burden and food safety benefit.

I want to thank Senators Gregg, Burr, and Durbin for their hard work and leadership in developing and introducing this bill. Their efforts to ensure that this was a bipartisan process, starting from a blank piece of paper, were critical to seeing this bill move. I also commend Senator Harkin, the chairman of the HELP Committee, for prioritizing this bill and moving it through committee.

We, along with Senator Dodd, have continued to work together over the last few months, which resulted in only a few issues remaining to debate on the floor. That kind of cooperation is what the American people expect of us. It certainly wasn't easy at times, but this is how we are supposed to legislate, and I am glad we met our obligations.

The House passed a food safety bill 1 year ago. There are significant differences between the House and Senate bills, and I hope we can bring this bill to the Senate floor as soon as possible so that there is sufficient time to conference the two bills and see legislation signed into law this year.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to speak about the passage of a bill that is a top priority for the disability community--Rosa's Law. As always, I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Mikulski on this bill. I would like to thank her for her leadership and her commitment to this issue.

The bill is simple in nature but profound in what it will do when it is enacted. Rosa's Law will change the phrase ``mentally retarded'' to ``an individual with an intellectual disability'' in all of the laws that fall

under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, without negatively impinging or expanding upon the rights, services, benefits, or educational opportunities that people with this diagnosis are entitled to. It will make a greatly needed change that should have been made well before today.

Some people will ask why this bill is so important and why it is needed. They will wonder if Congress has more important work to do than to change a few words in our laws for the sake of being politically correct. In response, I would share what Rosa's brother Nick said to the Maryland General Assembly. ``What you call people is how you treat them. What you call my sister is how you will treat her. If you believe she's `retarded' it invites taunting, stigma. It invites bullying and it also invites the slammed doors of being treated with respect and dignity.''

For far too long we have used hurtful words like ``mental retardation'' or ``MR'' in our Federal statutes to refer to those who are living with intellectual disabilities. While the way people feel is important, the way people are treated is equally important. When words such as ``MR'' are used to describe a person, it dehumanizes them, and as Nick said, it leads to a situation in which some people are not treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

This is not the first time Congress has taken similar action. Our laws once referred to people with intellectual disabilities with terms like ``feeble minded'' and other language that I cannot bear to say. Back then we thought that was the appropriate language to use until we switched to using the term ``MR.'' Forty years later, we are taking another big step and replacing ``MR'' with ``intellectual disability.''

This change is already taking place across the country with organizations like the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities which dropped the term ``MR'' from its name. Likewise, The Arc of the United States has stopped using this archaic terminology and dropped the term from their agency name. The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, has already voted to use the term ``Intellectual Disability'' in the next publication of their manual. Internationally, the World Health Organization uses the term ``intellectual disability.''

This bill will start the process of change in the Federal Government and make such terminology consistent. The President's Committee on Mental Retardation was changed by executive order so it is now the Committee on Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also uses the term ``intellectual disability.'' After the House passes this bill it will become law and begin a chain of events that I hope will lead to the Finance Committee's action on this matter so we can see similar changes in Medicaid and Social Security programs.

In 1963, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'' That same concept rings true for people with intellectual disabilities--that they will also be judged by who they are and not by a label that has been forced upon them. That's the beauty and simplicity of this bill--and why it is so important.

Finally, there are a number of people I would like to thank for their assistance with passing this bill out of the Senate. First, on my staff I would like to thank Frank Macchiarola, HELP Committee staff director, Greg Dean, HELP Committee general counsel, Beth Buehlmann, education office staff director, and Aaron Bishop, professional staff member on disability policy for their determination and hard work on this bill. I always say that I have the best staff in Congress and I couldn't have done it without them. I would also like to thank Mario Cardona with Senator Mikulski's office and Lee Perselay and Michael Gamel-McCormick, with Senator Harkin's office, for their leadership and effort to get this bill through the Senate, and for working with us in a true bipartisan fashion. I would also like to thank Pattie DeLoatche and Karen LaMontagne from Senator Hatch's office, Karen McCarthy from Senator Murkowski's office, and David Cleary from Senator Alexander's office for their assistance with putting this bill together, Liz King with Legislative Counsel for drafting the bill, and Cassandra Foley from the Congressional Research Service for her work.

Next, the bill would not have been a success without the work of so many families and groups. We all need to thank Rosa Marcellino, her brother Nick and the entire Marcellino family for their strength, determination, and willingness to lead, teach and for not being afraid to voice their opinion and say that this just hasn't been right.

While this bill may not change the whole world, it will make the world a little better, more hospitable place for us and for the entire disability community.

Mr. President, I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to bring to the Senate's attention a remarkable citizen of Wyoming and the United States on the occasion of her 107th birthday. Her name is Kay Siggins, and she is a resident of Cody, WY.

Over the years, Kay has seen it all--the beginnings of aviation, the introduction of the automobile to everyday life, the Great Depression, two World Wars, the birth of the computer, the advent of television, the evolution of radio, the start of the space program, the landing on the Moon, and so much more. In a very real sense, for all she has seen and done, she is a walking history book.

The great adventure of Kay's life began when she was born on August 12, 1903, in Medford, MA. After she had completed her school years, she took a job in the State's education system and soon became her school's acting principal, in charge of the education of about 3,000 students. It was right around then that she and a friend traveled west to stay as a guest at the Triangle X Dude Ranch in Wyoming. I believe that must have been the start of her great affection and regard for the West and Wyoming, for in the years to come she would often return there to visit and enjoy all that the West has to offer.

Then, with the 1940s, the winds of war began to blow. Kay decided to join the Navy. She became a commissioned officer and was soon placed in charge of the WAVES Boot Camp. Later, as a lieutenant, she was assigned to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center and placed in charge of the Center's WAVES barracks. She stayed on Active Duty for several years, after which she joined the Reserves. She continued to serve in that capacity until she retired with the rank of commander.

Anyone else would have been satisfied to call it a career at that point but not Kay. She was just getting started. Kay decided that the time had come to head West and see what life was like out there. Unfortunately, she must have had a problem with her compass for she wound up not in Wyoming but in Green Valley, AZ, where she made her home.

Actually, Green Valley was more of her home base as she pursued her goal of visiting all the States. It seemed that she was always on the road heading to points north, south, east, or west. She would get her motor home ready, hop aboard, and hit the highway. It wasn't long before she had seen every State that way but Hawaii. She eventually made it there too. She also headed up north to visit Alaska not once but twice, just to experience what life was like up there.

As the years continued to roll by, I have to think that the urge to come home to Wyoming and relive those days on the Dude ranch was just too strong. She was a young 70ish lady and full of adventure and a love of life. She caught the eye of Raymond Siggins, who lived there, and they were soon married.

A check of the records shows that Kay is now believed to be the oldest female military veteran in America, the senior statesman of our Armed Forces. She may be the oldest veteran in terms of age, but she is the youngest in spirit--and she will always be so. That is why Kay has always been so successful. She has always led the best way--by example--at everything she did, and because that is the way she lived her life, she was able to blaze a trail and leave a path for others to follow.

There are always lessons we can learn from how someone else has lived their life. Kay has taught us all the wisdom of the old adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln: It is not the years in your life, it is the life in your years. For Kay, both have been extraordinary.

I have often said that there is something magical about living in Wyoming. The way I see it, although Kay is celebrating her 107th birthday, since she moved to Wyoming when she was in her seventies, she is only in her thirties in Wyoming years.

Happy Birthday, Kay. Wyoming couldn't be more proud of you. Because of you and your service for so many years of a very wonderful and productive life, our Nation is a much better place to live--from coast to coast. You have made a difference wherever you have been, and we hope you continue to enjoy every day of your life in Wyoming.

Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in marking the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I am particularly proud of this legislation and the impact it has had on addressing the rights and needs of people with disabilities all across the country for the past 20 years. As we mark this great anniversary, I also want to express my great appreciation for the hard work and determined effort those with a vision of equality and justice put into seeing this bill through the legislative process. It was a courageous and heroic cause and it has made a difference in more lives than we will ever know.

Just 20 years ago this month, on July 26, 1990, President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. It is without question the most important civil rights legislation that has been passed by the Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was such a great achievement because it reflected our fundamental and growing concern for human rights by extending civil rights protections to all Americans with disabilities.

Prior to the passage of the ADA, far too many of our fellow Americans with disabilities led isolated lives, artificially separated from the mainstream of society, denied the basic opportunity to pursue the American dream. Things had to change if we were to remain true to the ideals and principles upon which our Nation was founded that are enumerated so well in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. By any standard, those with disabilities did not have the chance to engage in all that life has to offer including their own pursuit of happiness.

Fortunately, things are different now. Although there is still more to do we have every reason to be proud of what the ADA has been able to achieve thus far. We can see the vision of the ADA being carried out before our eyes as it enables our family members, friends, and neighbors to go about their daily lives, praying, going to school, and pursuing their goals in every area of their lives--on every level--in large part because of what the Americans with Disabilities Act has made possible.

Twenty years ago, before the passage of this legislation, our country was a much different place for those with disabilities. It was difficult, if not impossible, for them to access the resources in their communities that we all take for granted. Minor barriers most of us could easily navigate had long been major obstacles for people with disabilities. We needed to do something to make it easier to access the places we all had long enjoyed with our friends. It wouldn't take a lot--just simple accommodations like curb cuts, ramps instead of stairs, more accessible stadium features, and better equipped telecommunications devices. Just these few simple changes would have made all the difference. Unfortunately, although easily done they were all too scarce and all too often impossible to find. Then the ADA came to pass and it raised our awareness of what needed to be done and our resolve to do it.

When the ADA changed everything it meant a lot to people like Ellington Herring, a young man from Germantown, MD, who has an intellectual disability and uses a wheelchair. Thanks to the ADA and the efforts of people to get it implemented across the Nation, he has full access to all the resources of his community. Without the ADA Ellington wouldn't be able to spend the day doing what he enjoys most-- going to the mall, going places with his family and friends, getting his hair cut at the local barber shop, taking in a movie, and going to church.

Twenty years ago while students with disabilities had to be included in the same school those without disabilities attended, they did not have to be placed with the others in a general education classroom. It was the ADA along with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

that has subsequently guaranteed them access to the general education curriculum and we are all the beneficiaries of that.

Let me introduce you to someone else--Ted Dawson of Buffalo, WY. Thanks to the ADA, he was able to graduate with a high school diploma-- not a certificate of achievement--but a high school diploma. There is a difference and it meant a lot to him and his parents, teachers, school administrators, and his friends. They all had high expectations for him--and he delivered! It wasn't easy. In Wyoming you have to be proficient in at least 5 of 9 common core areas in order to graduate. Ted, who has Down's syndrome, stepped up and met the challenge because that was what was expected of him. More importantly--it was what he expected from himself. He is an important example of what can happen if people are valued and included instead of being segregated into special classrooms and regarded as less capable. Thanks to the ADA, Ted is 24 now and living and working in his community.

Twenty years ago it was not well understood that people with disabilities wanted to work and pursue a career, go to school, be a part of the activities in their communities, and be treated just like everyone else. Let me introduce you to George Garcia of Cheyenne, WY. He is a 53-year-old gentleman who works part time at a meaningful job, sits on multiple boards, volunteers with several organizations and just so happens to have an intellectual disability. Mr. Garcia, as the Governor of Wyoming calls him, knows everything about the city he calls home and the State of Wyoming. In fact, he knows just about everyone who lives in Wyoming because he has spent years traveling the roads of our State sharing his story and his message about the importance of choice, freedom and independence. Without the ADA George, and thousands of people just like him, would not have had the opportunity to hold meaningful jobs, live where they choose, and go anywhere they want to in their communities.

That was so because 20 years ago people with disabilities were destined to live in an institution--community based services and support were not an option. Now families have choices and many of them have chosen community living. That brings me to Owen Johnson. Let me share Owen's story with you. He was born with spinal muscular atrophy in January of 2008 at Primary Children's Hospital in Utah. When he was born doctors told his dad, Lenn and his mom, Gayle, that Owen's life expectancy would be a mere 2 years. Lenn and Gayle wanted to bring Owen home to Wyoming to be with his family. Unfortunately they were informed that Cokeville, WY, was ``too rural'' and they would not be able to find the services and support they would need to do so. Some doctors were even suggesting they place Owen in a nursing home in Utah. With the support of multiple State agencies and local organizations, after 6 months Owen Johnson went home to live with his parents on their rural ranch. Today he is 2\1/2\ and he and his family are thriving in their community and Owen is going strong--defying the odds of his doctors who are amazed and thrilled by his progress.

While it is true that we all have our own struggles in life to deal with, it is also true that some face more difficult challenges that they have to work to overcome just to do the things that are part of our own daily routine. Such an individual is Cindy Bentley from Milwaukee, WI. Cindy is an articulate, engaging, upbeat, and charismatic individual. She is a world traveler, and a national speaker and spokesperson for millions of people with disabilities. People have no idea about her history. Cindy was born with fetal alcohol syndrome with cocaine, alcohol, and heroin in her bloodstream, resulting in lifelong intellectual disabilities, seizures, and some motor control problems. She then received severe burns when she was placed in foster care at the age of 2\1/2\ and her foster mother set her shirt on fire. Shortly thereafter she was placed in the Southern Wisconsin Center for people with developmental disabilities. Cindy now lives independently in her own apartment in Glendale, WI. She was chosen as 1 of 12 Special Olympics Global Messengers from 2000-2002, and she is an active member of two statewide Governor-appointed councils.

Twenty years ago people with disabilities could not access public transportation and those that lived in the community couldn't go anywhere because they lacked the means to easily travel on their own. The ADA changed all that by removing the barriers that faced those with disabilities when they tried to travel. Such was the case for Richard Leslie, the founder and executive director of the Wyoming Epilepsy Association that is located in Cheyenne, WY. Richard himself has epilepsy and he does not have the ability to drive because of his disability. He has used his disability to empower himself and others by becoming an advocate for people with disabilities. The ADA has assisted him and others like him by creating public transit systems that are usable and accessible, much like the Cheyenne Transit Program. The Cheyenne Transit Program offers accessible bus rides at reasonable fares as well as curb-to-curb services which not only allows for mobility within the city but makes the opportunity for employment better as well because the service is tailored to the individual's needs.

These are just a few of the remarkable stories that can be told because of the Americans with Disabilities Act which is still making a difference throughout the United States. While no one would ever say that the lives of these people has been easy, the Americans with Disabilities Act has helped to make things easier by making the things people with disabilities do every day a somewhat smaller mountain for them to climb.

The ADA opened the world to people with disabilities by guaranteeing their independence, freedom of choice, ability to control their lives, and the opportunity to completely, fully, and equally participate in the American mainstream.

No law is perfect and some problems still arise with this one. As recently as 2008 Congress had to revisit the ADA. After negotiating together through the committee process in the Senate, we acted with overwhelming bipartisan support to pass the ADA Amendments Act, which restored ADA protections that had been complicated by judicial decisions narrowing the scope of the law.

While Congress has continued to address the issue the Capitol complex is not fully accessible yet. When I served as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions I routinely heard from people with disabilities about inaccessible hearing and conference rooms on Capitol Hill, the use of offensive terminology by Members and staff and a lack of understanding and awareness about disability issues.

That was when I took it upon myself to write a manual to help congressional offices prepare for visitors, interns, and staff who may have accessibility needs. As elected officials it is our role to ensure that everyone who comes to visit the Nation's Capitol or our home offices, including people with accessibility needs, are included in our daily dialogue. The manual contains all disability specific resources offered by the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services, the Sergeant at Arms, the Capitol Police, the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, the Architect of the Capitol, and other offices in the Capitol Hill complex in an easily available and easy to read format so that if a constituent who is deaf arrives at a meeting and a sign language interpreter was not reserved the office can easily determine who to call for assistance.

Just as the Architect of the Capitol is improving signage for people who are blind, and ensuring that all restrooms are accessible by wheelchair users I am currently updating the manual to account for such changes and the addition of the Capitol Visitor Center.

Today, we recognize and celebrate the anniversary of a law that brought freedom, choice, and independence to many Americans. It is a constant reminder of who we are as a people, and what we stand for as a nation. As President Bush noted when he signed the ADA into law: ``This Act is powerful in its simplicity. It will ensure that people with disabilities are given the basic guarantees for which they have worked so long and so hard: independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, the opportunity to blend

fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the American mainstream.'' This law makes it clear that all Americans are entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As we continue to make this law more responsive to the needs of those with disabilities, we will continue to ensure that the chance to live the American dream is an avenue of opportunity that is available to everyone--without exception.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the Senator from Delaware for those comments in his weekly update on Federal employees and the great job they are doing. In the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we know quite a few of them who are doing outstanding work, even something that would surprise America; that is, cooperation between agencies that is outstanding. So I thank the Senator for his efforts.

Mr. President, as under the previous order, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess.