Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Conflicted Investment Advice Prohibition Act of 2009, CIAPA, which would restore the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's, ERISA, prohibition on self-interested investment advisers providing advice to employer-sponsored retirement accounts; thereby, safeguarding the retirement savings of millions of hardworking Americans.

On the eve of the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the Bush administration attempted to finalize a regulation concerning the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, that raised substantial questions of law and policy. Essentially, the final rule issued would have allowed conflicted financial advice to workers with regard to their 401(k) and other types of defined contribution plans. Fortunately, thanks to letters of opposition from Chairman Miller and me, as well as several other Members of Congress, as well as consumer advocacy groups and several financial industry insiders who serve in the interest of investors, the Obama administration has delayed the effective date of the regulation for further examination of its intent.

I believe in the value of providing American workers with access to investment advice, so long as the advice is independent and free from conflict--serving in the interest of the worker, rather than the interest of the financial advisor. During a time where American workers have already lost $2 trillion in assets due to last year's market downturn, exposing their hard-earned retirement savings to greater risk by allowing advisers to offer them conflicted

advice is irresponsible and imprudent. During consideration of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, many of my colleagues were well intended with respect to ensuring that if workers were to receive investment advice with respect to their retirement savings, it would be independent. Despite their good intentions, the process of the bill's consideration created a statutory loophole; at the end of the regulatory process, conflicted advice could be offered to workers.

In lieu of exposing workers to conflicted investment advice, CIAPA would permit independent investment advisers to provide advice to workers regarding their retirement goals. Furthermore, it would maintain the allowance of the computer model arrangement so long as an independent expert or agency certifies the model.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor and support the Conflicted Investment Advice Prohibition Act of 2009.

Madam Speaker, I would like to bring attention to a letter sent by John M. Reilly, of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, to Minority Leader John Boehner. During the debate on the FY10 Budget Resolution, the cost of a cap and trade program became a major point of contention. Mr. Reilly, in this letter, clearly explains the methodology used by MIT to determine the approximate cost to an average family of a cap and trade proposal. As the letter makes evident, the actual cost to the average American family will likely be far less than estimated by our friends on the other side of aisle.

Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, MA, April 1, 2009.

Representative John Boehner (R-OH),

Office of the House Republican Leader, Washington, DC.

It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted

examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

Report No. 146, Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals,

has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed

by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The press

release claims our report estimates an average cost per

family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet

targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000,

but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is

approximately $340. Since the issue of legislation to control

greenhouse gases is now under consideration, I wanted to take

an opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding created by

this press release and to avoid further confusion.

Why is this amount so different? As far as I can tell the

$3,000+ is based on the potential auction revenue the

government could collect by auctioning the allowances over

the period through 2050 where a simple average over all years

from 2015 to 2050 was computed. The tax revenue collected

through such an auction, the costs of reducing greenhouse gas

emissions, and the average impact on a household are very

different concepts. Thus, there are several things wrong with

this calculation. First, the auction revenue is determined by

the CO2 price and how many allowances are issued--

allowances tell us how many tons of CO2 (or more

broadly greenhouse gases) will continue to be emitted. The

cost of reducing emissions depends on how much emissions are

reduced not on how much continues to be emitted. Second, the

CO2 price reflects the cost of the last ton of

emissions reduced but there are many options that cost much

less than avoiding the last ton and so using the

CO2 price multiplied by the number of tons (either

reduced or emitted) is also wrong. Third, the average cost to

a household depends on how allowances or the allowance

revenues are distributed. Fourth, the costs are borne over

time and it is wrong to produce a simple average of such

costs as that does not take account of the time value of

money.

We assumed in the analysis we did that the revenue is

returned to households. From data in the report we can

calculate the economic cost in each year (percentage loss

times the base welfare level in each year), and divide this

by the U.S. population, and then multiply this amount by four

to estimate the cost for a representative family of four. We

further apply an economic discount rate of 4 percent to get

the Net Present Value (NPV) cost in each year in the future.

Doing this we find that the NPV cost per family of four

starts at about $75 in 2015, rises to nearly $510 by 2025,

and then falls to $205 by 2050. We can calculate the average

annual NPV cost per family by summing over all years and

dividing by the number of years, and this shows the average

annual net present value cost to be about $340--only a part

of which would be actual energy bill increases. This $340

includes the direct effects of higher energy prices, the cost

of measures to reduce energy use such as adding insulation to

homes, the higher price of goods that are produced using

energy, and impacts on wages and returns on capital. The cost

per household will vary from our hypothetical average family

of four depending on the household's circumstances. Those

households with large heating and cooling bills because of

the climate in which they live or who drive more than average

will face higher costs. Those with smaller homes who live in

benign climates will have lower costs. The higher energy

prices encourage reductions in energy use by increasing the

payback on improvements in energy efficiency, and through

such investments households can avoid paying more for energy.

Jobs and wages in fossil fuel industries are likely to

decline but job opportunities will increase in industries

that produce alternative energy sources or that provide ways

to save energy.

While the $340 average annual cost we estimate for a family

is just one tenth of the $3000+ cited in the misleading press

release, Congress should address the costs of this transition

for middle and lower income families while developing Cap-

and-Trade legislation. In another paper (Report 160, Analysis

of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Tax Proposals) we make some

calculations on the burdens of a GHG tax on families at

different income levels. Our Report 160 shows that the costs

on lower and middle income households can be completely

offset by returning allowance revenue to these households.

Climate change poses severe risks for the U.S. and the

world. It will take efforts in the U.S. and abroad to reduce

emissions substantially to avoid the most serious risks of

climate change. One of the perplexing aspects of the problem

is that the solution involves using cleaner energy sources

that are more costly then conventional fossil fuels. And the

higher energy prices needed to cover the higher costs will

fall disproportionately on the poorer members of society in

the U.S. and in the world. However, the less wealthy members

of our economy also stand to suffer most from climate

change--whether it is through the risks of increased food

prices if climate change disrupts crops, the lack of access

to air conditioning under extreme heat, or vulnerability to

other extreme weather and storm events such as hurricanes

which may increase with climate change. Many of the proposals

currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the

Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost

impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is

simplistic and misleading to only look at

the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure

of their impact on the average household. Concern about the

cost impacts on middle and low income families needs to be

focused on making sure allowance or tax revenue is used to

offset cost impacts on these households rather than as an

excuse for not proceeding with measures that would help avert

dangerous climate change.

Sincerely,

John M. Reilly.

Madam Speaker, I think someone who sells real estate or teaches school for a living must listen to this budget debate and be befuddled by what he or she is hearing. Thankfully, today there will be a chance for that citizen to hear a wide range of alternatives, a wide range of views as to how we should fix the country's economic problems. For that, I commend the Rules Committee under Ms. Slaughter's and Mr. McGovern's leadership, and I hope the minority will vote for the procedure that lets that wide range of views be heard.

But that person who teaches school or sells real estate has heard consistently from the minority that their household will get a $3,000- a-year tax increase. That isn't so. The fact of the matter is that the hypothetical, mythical energy tax that the minority continuously refers to is not in the budget. If there ever were to be such a tax, it would have to come to this floor for a separate vote, a separate debate and separate consideration. The minority habitually says that small businesses and families will have their taxes increase. The fact of the matter is there are instructions to pay for health care that would probably look to repeal the Bush tax cut for the wealthiest 5 percent of people in this country, a platform the President ran on and was elected on. It is absolutely untrue that the 95 percent below that figure have any sort of tax increase. They don't. In fact, there is a $1.7 trillion tax reduction for the bottom 95 percent of people in this country, for middle-class people. We hear that small businesses are going to have their taxes increase. That is not true. Ninety-eight percent of the small businesses in this country file tax returns lower than the adjusted gross income that would be affected by the provisions that would help pay for the health care bill.

We hear habitually about deficit and debt, and those on the minority side gnash their teeth and weep that the debt, according to them, will be doubled in 5 years. They know all about that, because that is exactly what they just did. They just doubled the national debt in the last 5 years under their watch.

The fact of the matter is that this plan reduces the deficit by two-thirds over the next 5 years.

Now I do agree with my friend from California that this is about choice, this is about how to handle our economic distress. President Obama came to office and said he would do three things. He said he would pass a bill to stimulate the economy by helping people buy houses, buy cars, get construction workers back to work and keep people working and teaching in our schools. He did it. He then said his administration would lay out a plan to stabilize the collapsing banking system. Such a plan was laid out at the beginning of last week. And although it is far too early to measure its results, early signs are good. And then he said he would lay out a long-term plan for economic development, jobs and growth that would address the fundamental, underlying problems of this country. And that is what we are doing today. Stop living on borrowed money; he is cutting the deficit by two- thirds. Make us free from imported energy; he sets out a path to do so that Congress will either follow or not. Deal with health care reform; he sets out a path to do so that we will deal with through reconciliation instructions, whether you vote for it or not. And finally, he sets forth a path to broaden access to education and improve its quality.

Just one moment. I just want to finish this point. I would love to hear from you.

The other side wants nostalgia. If we were to have a third George Bush term, their alternative is what it would look like; make permanent the tax breaks for the wealthiest, reduce what we spend on education, nutrition, environment, energy and health care, and hope for the best. This is a choice between the future of promise and the failure of the past. And if my friend would like to ask me about the failure of the past, he can certainly do that.

Reclaiming my time, has the gentleman read the majority budget resolution? If the gentleman would read it, he would see that the deficit is two-thirds at the end of the 5-year cycle.

Reclaiming my time, if I may.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman can stand on whomever's shoulders he wants. I'm afraid that the economic collapse you have left us with is standing on the chest of the working American.

My friend from California continually references this energy tax increase. He's very astute on the rules, Madam Speaker, and he knows that the way you can set the predicate to raise revenue in a budget resolution is by a reconciliation instruction.

Would the gentleman care to tell us where the reconciliation instruction is to raise money for this cap-and-tax that he keeps talking about?

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his statement. It is not in place. Therefore, there's no tax in this budget.

Madam Speaker, there is nothing in the underlying budget resolution that adversely affects the marriage penalty situation for any middle-class person. Again, 95 percent of families in this country get a tax cut, not a tax increase. It's just not so.

Madam Chair, I think there are a couple of points that the Record should accurately reflect.

Number 1: There is no energy tax in this budget. It's a statement that has been claimed again and again and again. It's not correct.

Number 2: This budget reduces taxes for middle class Americans by a net $1.7 billion over time.

Number 3: The budget resolution assumes that the Pomeroy estate tax plan will be adopted, meaning that individuals will get a $3.5 million exemption and that couples will get a $7 million exemption from the estate tax.

Then the final point that, I think, can't be stated enough is: When our friends on the other side worry about doubling the national debt in 5 years, it's a subject for which they speak with great authority, because that's exactly what they just did. Their plan doubled that debt over 5 years. So they do know what they're talking about when that happens.

Madam Chair, I want to ask my friend from Tennessee who just spoke, if she's still here, that when she makes reference to MIT analysis about the so-called cap-and-trade, first of all, as my friend from Wisconsin knows very well, the way that we raise revenue in a budget resolution is to direct reconciliation instructions. And I frankly think his interpretation of the Energy and Commerce instruction is incorrect. It's for health care.

But I want to go back to what our friend from Tennessee just said about the MIT study, and I will ask unanimous consent at the appropriate time to enter this letter into the Record, a letter dated April 1 from Professor John Reilly, I believe is his name, who is the author of that study. I will read what he says.

He said, ``It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee.

``The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap-and-trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000. But that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate, which is approximately $340.''

Is the gentlelady still on the floor? I would yield to my friend, the ranking member, to explain--is that the study on which you're relying?

Reclaiming my time, I believe that's true. But I would like you to answer the fundamental question: Is that the study on which you're relying?

If I can just ask for 30 more seconds.

The budget doesn't repeal any rebate whatsoever. What it does is set up a process where, if the Congress wants to deal with cap- and-trade, it will evaluate all the different ways the money could be a raised, the ways rebates could be paid, and whatnot.

I'm just very troubled that the minority continues to rely, apparently, on a study that the author claims is just being blatantly misrepresented.

Reclaiming my time, this argument we've heard ad nauseam here that there's $3,100 per home rests on two arguments. The first is that there is an instruction to raise the revenue in the budget. Mr. Dreier admitted on the floor earlier that's not the case. Then, the $3,100 rests upon this MIT study--and the author of the study has now told us that's a misrepresentation.

I think a lot of the other claims that the minority makes about the budget are equally invalid.

I would object to that.

Madam Chairman, if you ever wonder what a third Bush term would look like, this is it. This is a budget plan that maintains the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America, pays for it by giving people 55 and under a voucher to go fend for themselves in the insurance market instead of Medicare, which I think would pay maybe 80 percent of what it costs.

I only have 1 minute. If you give me some of your time.

Well, I tell you what, when you get your time, I'll answer your question.

It would privatize Social Security. It would squeeze money out of the Social Security system.

May I continue?

It continues the enormously successful policy of deregulation that has brought us to the brink of financial disaster. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. For every one job this approach has created, our approach has created 108.

We shouldn't go back to a sequel for a movie that was so bad to begin with.

Madam Chair, my very sincere and articulate friend from Wisconsin forgot a few facts. He forgot that during the watch of his party, for every $1 of debt they inherited, they left us with nearly $2.

He neglected to mention that the budget before us cuts by two-thirds the deficit that we inherited from our friends on the other side. He neglected to mention the budget before us cuts by $1.5 trillion taxes on middle-income Americans who drive school buses or sell real estate. And he neglected to mention that under their method of job creation, for every one job they created under their way, we created 108 under our way of managing the economy.

This is a very big debate and a very big choice between a failed status quo of the past and a progressive way to change our country in the future. That is why we are going to vote ``yes'' for this budget.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Chair, for 8 dreary years, we have heard what the other party could not do. No, they could not stop the hemorrhaging of dollars from our pockets to pay for health care. No, they could not bring quality health care to every American. No, they couldn't provide health care for hardworking people who stand behind cash registers or pump gas or work at a nursing home. No. No. No.

We have turned a new leaf. There is a new opportunity to talk about what America can do. And this budget says what we can do together in health care. It says to those who have health care and like their coverage, they can keep it. It says to those who like the doctor or the hospital they go to, they can continue to do that.

But it says to those Americans who work so hard every day but cannot have a health care card in their pocket when they take their child to a pediatrician that it is your time now, it is your turn now to have some attention from this Capital and from this government.

And this budget facilitates and makes possible a plan where hardworking Americans can finally have access to affordable health care. The naysayers will say, no, it's too soon. No, it's too much. No, it's too grandiose. I don't think it's too soon. I think it's too late for a lot of people. I don't think it's too much. In some ways it's too little, and it certainly is time to stop the hemorrhaging of dollars from the pockets of our people, provide health care for hardworking people, and that is what this budget does.

I thank my chairman for yielding.

Our friends often honor the memory of our late President Reagan, but they forget one thing that President Reagan said, that facts are stubborn things.

I think I understand why, because they overlook the fact that this budget cuts taxes by $1.7 trillion for people who teach school or fight fires or who sell real estate for middle-class people. They overlook the fact that they inherited a situation where we're on track to retire the debt within a decade but they wound up doubling it from $3.4 trillion to $6.3 trillion under their watch. They ignore the fact that 95 percent of Americans get a tax cut under this budget, and their favorite constituents, a few of them do not.

Facts are stubborn things. The fact is that our approach has created jobs and economic growth; theirs does not.

I thank my friend for yielding.

My friend, a very articulate new Member from Wyoming, said it only takes one second to say ``no.'' I would respectfully say the Republicans have gotten it down to that short a period of time because they say it so often.

``No,'' we don't have an approach to solve the global warming problem. ``No,'' we don't have an approach to fix the health care approach. ``No,'' we don't have a plan to create jobs. ``No,'' we don't have a plan to improve education.

This idea that when you turn a light on, your taxes are going to go up, is just false. There's nothing in this budget that requires any energy tax to be raised upon any person. If there ever is such a discussion of that, it will come to the floor under a separate vote, under a separate debate, and Members can make their judgment.

So I'm not surprised it takes them, Madam Chairman, only a second to say ``no.'' Because they say it so often, they've gotten very good at it.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would want to say to my friend from Oklahoma that this budget has robust defense increases. What it doesn't have is throwing money into a bottomless pit in a war in Iraq that has consumed so much of our resources for so long.

My friend from California, one of the senior Ways and Means members, criticized our budget. These are familiar words, because this is what Mr. Herger said once before: The simple fact is that the plan will not lower interest rates, it will not lower inflation, it will not create jobs, it will not lower the deficit. The tax plan will spur inflation, lose jobs, increase the deficit, and hurt our economic growth.

Mr. Herger said that in August of 1993 about the Clinton budget plan, which was going to destroy all these jobs. It created 23 million new jobs, as opposed to the 200,000 new jobs the Republicans created during their 8 years on their watch.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Chairman, we would urge a ``yes'' vote on behalf of this budget for many reasons. One is the strong increase in funding for our veterans.

In less than 2 months, just about every Member of this House will go and make Memorial Day speeches. In November, just about every Member will make speeches lauding our veterans on Veterans Day.

Tomorrow, Madam Chairman, the Members of the House have a chance to do something more than talk; we have a chance to vote for a budget that strongly supports our veterans. But do not listen to us. Listen to the national commander of the American Legion, who says in a letter dated March 25, ``The American Legion applauds the Budget Committee for the budget resolution recommendation for $53.3 billion in discretionary funding for veterans.''

Listen to the executive director of the VFW, who in a letter dated March 25, 2009, says, ``On behalf of the 2.2 million men and women of the VFW and our auxiliaries, I would like to express our strong support for your proposed budget mark for veterans funding. The $53.3 billion in appropriated veterans funding demonstrates your appreciation for those who have worn the uniform of this Nation, and it acknowledges the debt that this Nation owes to its former defenders.''

Listen to the voice of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America through its executive director. ``For the second year in a row, the committee's budget resolution surpasses even the recommendation of the independent budget, the blueprint for the VA budget endorsed by the leading veterans organizations, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. By increasing veterans funding by 11.5 percent, or $5.5 billion, the committee has displayed their serious commitment to supporting our Nation's veterans.''

Listen to the words of the Vietnam Veterans of America. ``The Vietnam Veterans of America appreciates that Chairman Spratt continues to make it possible even in this difficult budget year amidst tough economic times for the appropriators to be able to properly fund health care and other vital services for veterans,'' says the VVA's national president, John Rowan.

Listen to the Disabled American Veterans who say that, ``Our support for

the discretionary funding levels included in Chairman Spratt's budget closely reflect the recommendations of the independent budget and reaffirm the goal to provide sufficient funding for the VA.'' They say they particularly appreciate the fact that the chairman's budget rejects any proposal to bill veterans' third-party insurance for the care of service-connected illnesses or injuries.

These are not the words of Republicans or Democrats. These are the words of the elected leadership of the veterans service organizations of our country.

Veterans funding is one of the strongest aspects of this proposal. The increase is 11.5 percent. It is precisely the request that had been made. There is no issue with respect to requiring veterans to pay more than they presently do for their own health care.

I think the Members would be wise to listen to the words of the American Legion, listen to the words of the DAV, listen to the words of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, listen to the words of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, listen to the words of the VFW, listen to the words of the Vietnam Veterans of America. There is strong support in this budget from the chairman, and it is one more good reason to vote ``yes'' for this budget.

Our friend from Utah just said that we have to learn to say ``no.'' That is something that his party has learned to say quite well. No plan for health care, no plan for education, no plan for job development, and no plan for energy independence. One of our colleagues talked about the estate tax. Interesting exchange, Madam Chairman, that our presentation was about honoring America's veterans and fully funding in a way that the VFW and the American Legion supports, and rather than any response to that point, the other side immediately jumped to talk about the estate tax, which I understand. And the reason we understand it is that this budget assumes that changes will be made in the present estate tax law so that 99.7 percent of American families will not pay the estate tax, 99.7 percent.

So our presentation was about veterans who wore the uniform of the country. Their presentation was about the .3 percent of Americans who would pay the estate tax under this proposal. That is where our priorities are.

I thank my chairman for yielding.

I would like to congratulate our leadership, both of our chairmen and our senior Republican member on both sides and the staffs on both sides and Mrs. McCarthy as well and Mr. Platts for their diligent work on this bill. I'm pleased to rise in support of the bill.

The glue that holds our country together is the voluntary efforts of quiet but determined Americans who do the important work of our community and our society. As we meet here this afternoon, there is a senior citizen volunteering to teach a child how to read. There is a high school student who is working in an eldercare facility, perhaps reading books to a senior who cannot see. There are people out cleaning parks. There are people out teaching people a new job skill. There are those who are working with our most at-risk youth to prevent them from self-destructive behavior and instead turning them toward behavior that realizes their full potential. We are fortunate in our country that although we have professionals who perform those services on a paid basis and do so very, very well, but the efforts of those paid individuals are more than supplemented by gifts of time and effort from Americans who volunteer.

The wisdom of this bill is it takes a relatively modest amount of money and leverages countless hours of volunteer service and millions of acts of contributions to our community. The reach of this legislation will go far beyond the pages on which it is written. It will touch the lives of those who are often forgotten about, most vulnerable and most in need of help in our communities. But more important, it will enrich the lives of those who are doing the volunteer work. There are few things in life more satisfying than doing a good job for someone because it is the right thing to do. And I think that this bill will create such an experience for a countless number of Americans.

Finally, this is a means of extending educational opportunity to many Americans who today presently do not have it. It is a commonsense solution that in exchange for doing valuable work for one's own community today, one can earn valuable credit toward paying for one's higher education tomorrow.

Our country's future hinges upon our ability to compete in the global economy. That future is impacted so positively by this bill because of the lives that will be touched by volunteerism and the lives that will be enriched by further education.

I again would like to thank our leadership in both parties. We look forward to the President's prompt signature on this bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time for the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have left in general debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this bill answers the question, whose skills does America need? Every day in our districts and in our travels, we see heartrending examples of the needs of our country. There are men and women who are struggling to find a job who cannot read and write. They need a literacy coach. There are elderly people who don't see anyone come visit with them at all during the course of a week who may be sick or hungry or certainly are very lonely. They need geriatric care workers to come in, friends to come in and be with them. There are children who today after school will face a choice between the ravages of drugs and alcohol, the irresponsibility of bad personal behavior, the violence of gang warfare, and really nothing else. They need an afterschool program. They need a loving and supportive family or religious institution to help them out.

Everywhere we look in this country, there are examples of great, unmet needs. Now, many of these needs require money to meet. And this President has proposed a budget, and this Congress just enacted, and the President signed, a stimulus bill that provides great new resources toward those needs. But money will never be enough, because in addition to financial resources, we also need the spirit, enthusiasm and integrity of our people.

The answer to the question, whose skills does America need, is America needs everyone's skills, everyone's skills to move forward as a country. This legislation is supported by both the Republican and Democratic Parties and is supported by the President. We are very hopeful it will be supported by the other body in short order. This legislation provides powerful new ways for people to offer those skills that America needs. It will be open to very young Americans who want to gain the experience of helping their neighbors while helping to finance their own education. It will be open to vastly experienced Americans who have achieved success in the classroom or the lab or the military base who now want to use the lessons of that success to help their friends and neighbors.

This is a bill that unlocks the door for opportunity, not just for those of our neighbors who are in need of these services, but also for those of us who will provide those services. There is very little in life that is more fulfilling than doing a job well whose benefits reach beyond your own personal interests and values.

The power of this bill, which is so well put together, is not its scholarship programs, although they are very needed; it is not its broad reach among the American people, although it is very desirable; it is not the track record of success that national service has already provided, although it is very admirable. The power of this bill is it provides bold new pathways for people to do right by their communities and right by themselves. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who has been a leader in the reconstruction efforts after the devastation in the gulf, and I am pleased to yield to him 1 minute.

On behalf of the chairman and the ranking member, we would urge a ``yes'' vote from all Members. We proudly support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to modify the manager's amendment by replacing it with the modification at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, this bill has moved to the floor under an open spirit of bipartisan cooperation. The Committee on Education and Labor had a markup very much in that spirit. Members' views have been solicited and received from throughout the House, and this manager's amendment is very much in that same spirit. I want to briefly review the substance of the manager's amendment so that the Members may understand it.

The amendment clarifies that the goal of reaching a quarter of a million volunteers is throughout all national service programs and not simply AmeriCorps. It promotes the use of interagency agreements between the Corporation For National and Community Service and other Federal agencies. Many of these agencies have innovative service projects they carry out through nonprofits, and this manager's amendment will allow these participants to earn education benefits.

The amendment adds a new definition of ``severely economically distressed community,'' and allows the corporation to consider whether projects in the bill respond to the needs of economically distressed communities.

The amendment includes language that will allow participants in the Opportunity Corps to conduct activities that would increase access to child nutrition programs.

The amendment also ensures that programs and models currently authorized could be incorporated into the new corps created in the bill.

The amendment is needed to make further technical clarifications in the bill, and we would ask for our colleagues to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his very diligent work on this bill and this amendment, and for his spirit of bipartisanship. It is very much appreciated.

I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

On behalf of the committee, I just want to congratulate the author of the amendment and indicate my enthusiastic support for your amendment.

In hearing the gentlelady tell the story of her neighbors volunteering to bring wind energy to her hometown, imagine how many hours of volunteer effort we will leverage by AmeriCorps and other participants being expanded under this bill. I think the gentlelady is not only directly addressing one of the great needs of rural America, which is energy diversification, but also opening the door for many more people to participate. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The majority strongly supports the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the request for the rollcall vote on the manager's amendment and to reinstate the voice vote for which the Chair ruled in favor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the committee majority supports the amendment and thanks the gentleman for offering it.

The amendment is a great idea for two reasons: First, it will significantly broaden participation by our veterans in the national service programs. The skills and abilities and integrity that veterans bring to these programs will no doubt enhance each one of them. And then secondly, we share with the author of the amendment the conclusion that service in the Armed Forces should not act as a penalty, which it

sort of does right now. By counting veterans' benefits against the subsidy characterization, the award characterization, in effect we say that veterans aren't entitled to the same benefit everybody else is. So we think it is an excellent amendment, and we enthusiastically support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I rise in support of the amendment he's offering.

The ranking member is correct that the purpose of the underlying bill is to generate volunteers, but I think that the gentleman from Iowa has put a finer point on that and given the structure of the program a specific place at which volunteers will be generated.

It is a full-time job to generate volunteers. You need someone who gets up every morning dedicated to that purpose. And although the present program has generated millions of hours of volunteer service, I think too often that's been done in a way that's not as effective and robust as it could be.

So we support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption because I believe it will result in a quantum leap in the number of volunteer hours.

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

Mr. Chairman, we oppose this amendment because it replaces carefully reasoned consideration of the growth of the program with an arbitrary standard.

I'm quite sympathetic to the author's concern that no program grow more quickly than it should. I think that he's right, and I think that that's a concern we should have in every aspect of the Federal budget. But I think that the proper place to adjudicate that concern is in the appropriations bill.

What the bill before us does is to set a maximum limit, an authorization limit, for how much money can go into these programs. As the gentleman knows, each year the Appropriations Committee will consider, among competing priorities for the public funds, how much money this program should receive. The purpose of an authorization level is aspirational. It is to set a goal that we think is the optimal goal. But we may be wrong. It's shocking, but it's been known to happen around here. If that's the case, it is the job of the Appropriations Committee, after full public hearing and usually under a very open procedure here on the floor, for Members to come and debate the proper amount of funding that should go into such a program.

So we believe that the goals are right. We believe that the aspirational goals in this organization bill are quite right. But we understand that it's our responsibility to subject those aspirational goals to the rigor of the annual appropriations process, and that is what would happen if the bill passes without this amendment's being adopted.

So although we certainly understand the gentleman's concerns, we respectfully oppose his amendment because it deprives the appropriate committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the entire body of the right to make that annual assessment as to what the appropriate level of funding is.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we would again respectfully request a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

The fiscal concerns that the gentleman raises are quite valid. We believe that the procedure that's in place to address those fiscal concerns is the right one, and we actually believe that this bill in many ways is a partial answer to the country's fiscal crisis in three ways:

First, it promotes many more people getting a higher education. A skilled workforce is one of the most important ways we can grow the economy.

Second, it addresses some of the most pressing needs of the country that are precluding us from growth. Whether it's illiteracy, juvenile delinquency, gaps in our health care system, this underlying bill, we believe, addresses those needs, and this amendment artificially cuts off funding for some of those needs.

And, finally, we think that the volunteer hours that are leveraged by this legislation accomplish so much more for the commonwealth at no cost to the public treasury.

We believe that the amendment artificially cuts off those possibilities and we urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 1388 pursuant to House Resolution 250, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although we do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. We will support this amendment because we certainly want whatever analytical tools the Office of Management and Budget or whomever uses to rigorously look at all aspects of this bill and this program.

We believe that it's a very sound program, but we certainly invite rigorous scrutiny of the expenditures of the program when it's adopted.

I do want to address some of the remarks by my dear friend from North Carolina. I notice she's left the floor.

She asked the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman, ``When is the right time to discuss the bonuses paid by some of the recipients of the financial recovery legislation of last fall?'' The answer is: Probably within the next 24 hours.

It's the intention of the House leadership, my understanding, to bring to the floor a bill which does not make a political point but actually solves the problem.

So I think the short answer to the gentlelady's rhetorical question is: The right time is when you know what you're doing, when you have found the mechanism that will actually solve the problem, and you can bring the bill to the floor when it's the issue on the floor, and not make it into an ancillary diversion, which is what happened here.

This bill is about improving and strengthening national service. We believe this amendment is consistent with the bill, and we will support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Adam Taliaferro, who grew up in Voorhees, NJ, for receiving the 2009 Humanitarian Award given by the Philadelphia Sports Writers Association. Mr. Taliaferro received this award in recognition of his work in creating the Adam Taliaferro Foundation, which helps athletes who, like Adam, have suffered spinal cord injuries. His foundation offers financial, emotional and educational support to student-athletes who experience head or spinal injuries.

While making a tackle in the fourth quarter of a game at Ohio State on September 23, 2000, Mr. Taliaferro suffered a severe neck injury. His fifth cervical vertebra, located at the base of his neck, was fractured and doctors warned Adam and his family that he likely would never be able to walk again. Despite this dire prognosis, Adam regained the ability to walk only five months after the injury. Mr. Taliaferro has used his experience to touch the lives of others who have suffered similar injuries. He spends time personally responding to e-mail and phone calls from individuals who have life-altering disabilities. His encouraging words, from someone who knows from personal experience what it feels like to be seriously injured, mean the world to those on the other end of the line.

Madam Speaker, since the injury Mr. Taliaferro has received his undergraduate degree from Penn State and his JD from Rutgers School of Law-Camden. He has also created the Adam Taliaferro Foundation which plays a vital role in the community, helping those with serious injuries. Mr. Taliaferro is an excellent role-model for every American. His ability to use adversity as the impetus for such a positive contribution is an example for us all. I congratulate Mr. Taliaferro for receiving the Humanitarian Award and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Specialist Timothy R. Long for his service in Iraq. In 1996, when Tim was eleven years old, I sat with him in his middle school classroom and prepared Valentine's Day cards for U.S. troops serving in Bosnia. Thirteen years later, as this Valentine's Day approaches, Tim is stationed in Iraq serving in the National Guard. On behalf of New Jersey's First Congressional District and the entire Nation, I would like to thank Tim for his service and dedication.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate her for stewarding through in her first effort as a member of the Rules Committee this very historic piece of legislation. I think it is fitting that the gentlelady from Maine, who has excelled as a businessperson, as a State legislator, and now as a legislator here, has left her very considerable imprint on this process and I congratulate her.

The process has afforded under the rules of the House, both in committee and here on this floor, the opportunity for competing views to be heard about

this idea. I know, Mr. Speaker, we will hear frequently this afternoon that no one in the House supports discrimination on the basis of gender, and I believe that is true. The issue is not what we say, though, it is what we do. And we have a chance to take a step against discrimination on the basis of gender, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there will be those who say this is the wrong time and the wrong step. I respectfully disagree.

There are those who say this is the wrong time to take this step because there will not be any statute of limitations; that is to say, people can sue forever if they have been the victim of employment discrimination. That is not accurate. You have 180 days in most States and a few more days in other States to file a claim once an act of discrimination has occurred. If a plaintiff does not file his or her claim by that time, the claim expires. This has been the law in a majority of circuits for a very long time. The U.S. Supreme Court disrupted that law. We are restoring it.

We expect to hear that there will be a flood of litigation, that the courthouses will be filled with people filing discrimination claims once this bill becomes law. That is not the case. Again, this bill restores the law as was understood by a majority of the circuits until the Supreme Court gave its ill-founded decision in the Ledbetter case. There was no flood of litigation under the prior understanding of the statute, and I do not believe there will be a flood of litigation now.

We will hear that this should apply only to intentional discrimination against women or others on the basis of gender. You know, if you are hit by a truck, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter if the truck driver intended to hit you or simply did so carelessly; if you are injured, you are injured. And if a person can show discrimination on the basis of any of the suspect categories under title VII under the law, they should be compensated, whether or not they can prove the discrimination was intentional. If there is a pattern and practice of discrimination because an employee is a woman, it should be remedied, and limiting this to intentional discrimination makes no sense.

We expect to hear that employees will sit on their rights; that they will have an opportunity to sue and wait for a very long time to do so. There is simply no evidence that people did that under the prior law as understood by the circuits. And, frankly, it would be a very ill- founded plaintiff who would do such a thing since it would cost them money to do so, reminding you that the burden of proof would fall upon the plaintiff to come up with the evidence of discrimination that took place a long time ago. So she or he has no incentive to sit on their rights and have to bear that burden of proof.

Finally, we will hear that employees will sit on their rights because somehow it makes economic sense to do so. Mr. Speaker, it simply doesn't. The statute limits someone to go back 2 years backwards, for back pay, from the point at which discrimination took place. It would be a very irrational plaintiff who would wait a very long time to wait and go back those 2 years. The longer you wait, the more it costs you as a plaintiff.

So these arguments have been fully aired. I respectfully would argue they are all wrong. The time is right for us to stand up and not simply say we are against discrimination, but vote against discrimination, and pass this bill this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for yielding.

Lilly Ledbetter went to work in a factory in Alabama. She was one of the best at her job as a supervisor. She routinely won awards for being best at what she did. Late in her career, when she retired, she found out that she was systemically paid about 30 percent less than the men next to whom she worked. She filed suit in Federal court. The company said she wasn't underpaid because she was a woman, she was underpaid for other reasons. A jury of her peers heard her case and the employer's case, and she won unanimously.

The case went up through the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court, in the case that now bears her name, unfortunately, said that because she didn't file suit when she didn't know that she had been discriminated against, she couldn't recover. So because the employer was successful at hiding the discrimination for a period of time, she couldn't recover.

Lilly Ledbetter could be any one of our mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, or neighbors. What was done to her is an affront not only to her, but to the law. Women should not confront this law as a trap to deny them their rights. The law should not be a vessel of injustice. And we should not wait to pass this bill, put it on President Obama's desk, and make it the law of the land today.

Madam Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding.

I wanted to clear up what I think were three inaccuracies in my friend from Minnesota's statement about the bill.

First of all, this bill will not extend an endless statute of limitations. It restores the statute of limitations the law recognized until the ill-considered Ledbetter decision. It essentially says you have 180 days after each paycheck to make your claim. If you don't make your claim, your claim expires. It doesn't extend the statute beyond that.

Second, with respect to pensions, the bill makes it clear in the ``findings'' section that the same law that applied to pensions is not touched by this bill at all. The courts have generally recognized that when the pension structure is put in place and the person gets their pension, the clock starts running, and if the time expires after that, your ability to make the claim expires after that.

Finally, with respect to the point that is made about people who never worked for the employer being able to sue, I think that is simply not an accurate statement. What is true is if someone suffers discrimination and their estate is owed money for what they would have earned when they were working, the estate is absolutely entitled to recover that sum of money because the man or woman who died would have recovered that.

So this is a good bill. There was an extensive hearing on this issue previously. I would urge the House to do the right thing and adopt this bill. It should not become the law of the land that if you're an employer and can hide discrimination for 180 days you get away with it. If the Ledbetter decision stands, that's what the law is. Let's change that law and adopt this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey) in favor of this restoration of 40 years of civil rights legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 2 minutes to one of the civil rights champions of this Congress, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield, at this time, 1 minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) who truly understands what's wrong with the situation where you get paid based on your gender.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield to the majority leader of the House of Representatives, who will lead us to reverse this unfortunate Court decision today, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 1 minute.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Rules Committee, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a strong and consistent voice for the rights of all people in this Congress, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a strong voice for civil liberties.

Madam Speaker, it is my distinct and humble privilege to yield 1 minute to a person of great strength and dignity and leadership, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlelady from California.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Chicago (Ms. Schakowsky) who is the Democratic leader of the bipartisan Women's Caucus in the House.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time left on each side?

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would be pleased to recognize for 1 minute a gentlelady who once chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who is the House's leading expert on this statute, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York, a leader on the Equal Rights Amendment Campaign, Mrs. Maloney.

Madam Speaker, we have one further speaker, and then we would anticipate closure from the minority, in which case we would then close.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to a new Member, who is already making a very positive mark on this very important issue, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter won an award for being the best at her job in her company. She was woefully underpaid compared to the men along whom's side she worked doing the same job. She said that she was underpaid because she was a woman, the employer said she was underpaid because she wasn't as good at her job. So they both went before a jury of their peers in Alabama, and the jury unanimously decided that Ms. Ledbetter was right and the employer was wrong, and they decided that she should be financially compensated for that wrong. But then she got an unwelcome surprise, that because she hadn't acted at precisely the right moment, because she hadn't acted against a wrong she did not know existed yet, because she did not have the power of a stance, she could not file her claim.

The Supreme Court, with all due respect, turned this law into a trap and a game. Today, we are recorrecting that law, restoring the notion that when a woman goes to work in this country, she should be compensated on how good she is at her job, not her gender. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.