Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the person who is being helped and touched by this bill is someone we all know. He is a person who comes home from work and is confronted with the heartache that his son or daughter is dealing with the ravages of clinical depression. And they are worried about it, but they feel secure because they say at least we are insured. At least we can take care of her.

Then they find out that there is a $10,000 deductible before the insurance company will pay for the visits. Or they find out there is a $5,000 limit on how much care can be received.

If their daughter had broken her knee, there would be a $100 deductible and no limit on the care. But because she is dealing with clinical depression or a substance abuse problem or another mental illness, they are conscripted and limited. This person is who will be helped by the efforts of Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad.

This bill is long overdue, and it will save the system money. More importantly, it will bring justice and fairness to people like the family I talked about in these remarks here today.

I congratulate Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ramstad on bringing together this broad coalition. I urge both Republicans and Democrats to vote ``yes'' on this worthy legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

If the gentleman will yield, that is correct. This bill will not preempt in any way the services and benefits provided to citizens of Pennsylvania Act 106 and similar legislation in other States. Some examples of the types of State laws that are not preempted by this bill include State laws that mandate minimum coverage, State laws that control access to benefits, and State laws that require access to out-of-network providers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our time to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very well- thought-out piece of legislation. School districts across our country are struggling economically to pay their bills for their basics, to do the basic things that we've established schools to do. And sometimes some things that they would like to do that are somewhat extra fall by the wayside. Very often they do.

This program builds a competitive grant program where school districts around the country can compete for the most innovative and effective environmental education programs.

This is the field trip that the students might not otherwise have; this is the summer course for the teacher that he or she might not otherwise have; this is investment in the learning materials for the technology that the students might not otherwise have; this is the science fair competition that is centered upon environmental issues that the students might not otherwise have. The beneficiaries of this well-thought-out bill are not simply the students and the teachers and the schools who will benefit from the program, it's the U.S. economy and all of us who depend on it.

The jobs of the future will be jobs that generate new ideas, particularly in the area of alternative energy production. So much of that is intricately tied to environmental education. And it's today's students, today's young people, for whom these ideas will be enlightened and from whom new products will come.

So this is not simply an assistance to America's schools today. I believe it's also an investment in the jobs of the future that the country so badly needs.

I congratulate Mr. Sarbanes for his excellent work on this bill. I would hope both Democrats and Republicans support it, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I would like to add my voice in congratulations to Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman Miller, and Mr. McKeon for their outstanding cooperation in this regard.

Today is Constitution Day. Over 200 years ago, the Constitution of our country was ratified. As majestic a document as it is, it has been an imperfect delivery and realization of that document because, over time, people have been left out of its benefits and privileges. Throughout our history, people with a disability have been among those left out of the many privileges of governments and economy in our country.

In 1990, the Congress, under the first President Bush, took a major step forward in remedying that injustice and discrimination. But sadly, since 1990, erroneous court decisions have stripped persons with a disability of the rights that they thought they had under that 1990 law.

Today we are working together to remedy that problem and fix it. This is a victory for common sense and for merit over ignorance and obliviousness. More importantly, it's a victory for human beings who will be very profoundly helped by this law.

There was a man who got a job with a major retail corporation in this country, and he's diabetic. When he first started work, his supervisor understood that for this worker to be productive, he needed a special lunch break in the middle of his work day so he could deal with his blood sugar needs and stay healthy and be productive.

So the man gets a new supervisor. The new supervisor comes in and doesn't understand that need, doesn't permit the lunch break, and the man's unable to do his work. So he files suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the court says he doesn't win the case because he's not disabled. Diabetes is not enough of a disability to remedy this person's concern.

Now that's just wrong. And the other body understands it, both parties in this body understand it, the American people understand it.

What we have done in this Act is to restore the commonsense, meaningful definition of what ``disability'' means, not so that people with disabilities get special privileges, but so they get the same rights and opportunities that everybody else is guaranteed in this country under the law.

Again, I congratulate Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner, in particular, for working together and bringing together a broad coalition behind this bill. And on this Constitution Day, the House will set a mark in history and continue the progress so that people who work with a disability can achieve and thrive and succeed in our country and in our economy.

I would urge both Republicans and Democrats to vote ``yes'' on this very substantial piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Commander Joseph R. Drinkhouse for his 40 years of service in the United States Navy Reserve. As he nears his official retirement on January 1, 2009, Commander Drinkhouse deserves respect and appreciation for his long service in the United States Armed Services.

Commander Drinkhouse served the first 12 years of his Navy career as an enlisted intelligence specialist first class. During this time, his responsibilities increased as he served as an intelligence analyst, team leader, group leader, and leading petty officer. In 1980, Commander Drinkhouse received a direct commission as an intelligence officer with the rank of lieutenant, junior grade.

Commander Drinkhouse received full credentials as an officer agent in 1986, while serving in the Naval Investigative Service Reserve Unit 0893. He supervised an investigative team and conducted criminal investigations, including witness and suspect interviews, scene processing, and evidence collection. Commander Drinkhouse was transferred to Reserve Intelligence Area 15 in 1997, where he set up a team of officers and agents to take part in joint task force exercises as counterintelligence scriptors. For his service during this time, Commander Drinkhouse was awarded the prestigious Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal from the Secretary of the Navy.

Over the past decade Commander Drinkhouse has completed multiple deployments to Bahrain in the Middle East. In 2001, he provided force protection support to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service Middle East Field Office. Commander Drinkhouse also wrote and headed terrorist based exploitation assessment operations and vulnerability assessments while stationed in Bahrain. These services earned Commander Drinkhouse two additional Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals from the Secretary of the Navy. In addition, Commander Drinkhouse provided force protection support at Camp Lejuene in North Carolina.

Over his long career Commander Drinkhouse has won many awards, including the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with two Gold Stars, the Navy Unit Commendation Ribbon, the Navy Reserve Meritorious Service Medal with two Bronze Stars, the National Defense Service Medal with two Bronze Stars, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with Bronze Star, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, and the Navy Expert Rifle Medal and Navy Sharpshooter Pistol Ribbon.

Madam Speaker, Commander Drinkhouse is an excellent role model for young Americans considering serving in the United States Armed Forces. He is an inspiration to service members everywhere, and to all citizens of our great nation. I commend Commander Drinkhouse for his 40 years of service to our country and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, whereas, 22.2 million people in the United States have faced a substance use disorder in the past year, and all deserve to experience the many benefits of recovery; and

Whereas, treatment reduces reported job problems, including incomplete work and absenteeism, by an average of 75 percent; and

Whereas, treatment is cost effective, with some measurements showing a benefit-to-cost ratio of up to 7:1, with substance use disorder treatment costing $1,583 per person on average and having a monetary benefit to society of nearly $11,487 for each person treated; and

Whereas, we must recognize the financial savings associated with treatment services, and ensure that such services are readily available to those who need assistance; and

Whereas, cost and insurance barriers present obstacles to those who need access to treatment facilities and want to re-establish their place in the community; and

Whereas, it is critical that we educate our community members and local businesses that substance use disorders are a treatable, yet serious health care problem, and by taking steps to address it, as well as provide support for the families and children of those with these disorders, we can save both lives and dollars; and

Whereas, to help achieve this goal, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and The South Jersey Coalition invite all residents of 1st Congressional District of New Jersey to participate in National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month (Recovery Month); and now, therefore,

I, Congressman Rob Andrews, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2008 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month in the 1st Congressional District and call upon the people of the 1st Congressional District to observe this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies supporting this year's theme, ``Join the Voices for Recovery: Saving Lives, Saving Dollars.''

I would like to thank my friend from California for yielding. This bill is for the woman who runs the office, who makes all the important decisions, without whom the place couldn't function; who one day comes in and discovers that a man, usually a man younger than her, has been brought in and given a higher title, a higher pay, and fewer responsibilities. And she goes to work and says, this isn't fair. I'm doing a job that is actually more important than this other person and getting paid less for it.

Now it's true that the statutes presently say you have to get equal pay for equal work. But it's also true that the remedies are so limited under existing law that many women can't get an attorney to represent them in their case so it never gets brought.

The best idea in this bill is for the first time it gives robust and full remedies to help that woman so that if she is able to prove her claim that she is underpaid relative to the work that she is doing, she will be fully and fairly compensated, and out of that compensation will come the funds to get her the competent representation that she deserves. The woman who's the office manager who doesn't make as much as the executive vice president for administration.

Well, I will tell you, in my life, Mr. Chairman, I benefited from a lot of women who are office managers that don't have fancy titles but without whom institutions could not run. This bill is for that woman and for her daughters so that they do not have the situation where they are devalued, debased, degraded, and disrespected in the workplace.

It is long overdue that we vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I would urge colleagues on both sides to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because I believe it gives veto power over this legislation to the Secretary of Labor.

The premise of this amendment is we need to study more and let the Secretary of Labor decide whether we need stronger legal protections for women to earn equal pay for equal work. I don't think we need to study it at all. I think the fact that women are earning 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns is evidence of why we need this law.

I think the fact that 10 years out of college, when you adjust for different family factors such as child rearing, that women are earning, on the average, 12 percent less than men in similar professions shows that we need this law.

I think the fact that studies have shown that women are shorted millions of dollars, anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime because of inadequate enforcement of the law for equal pay for equal work, I think it makes it crystal clear that the idea of subordinating our responsibility and giving the Secretary of Labor the opportunity to subvert what we are doing here today is unjustified and unwarranted.

So I would urge the defeat of this amendment because I believe it is unnecessary, and I think it substitutes the judgment of the Secretary of Labor for the judgment of the elected representatives of the people. We should defeat this amendment, support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The purpose of this amendment is to kill this bill. It says to the woman who makes 77 cents to drive a truck when a man makes a dollar, wait your turn. It says to a woman who shortly out of college makes 90 cents for every dollar a man who majored in the same thing makes, wait your turn. It says to women who have lost $2 million throughout the course of their working careers, wait your turn.

If you want our sisters and our mothers and our daughters to wait their turn, vote for this motion to recommit. But if you believe, as we do, that the time is now, vote down this motion to recommit, vote for this bill, and vote

for justice for the working women of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the people of Cyprus who have experienced an illegal occupation that has divided their nation for the last 34 years. On July 20, 1974, an unlawful Turkish invasion created a division between the northern and southern parts of the island. This division still exists today despite the best efforts of the United Nations to broker a solution. However, I am encouraged by recent events that the reunification of Cyprus is now a real possibility.

The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 was followed by widespread condemnation in the international community. The invasion and occupation drove nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes. Sadly, about 5,000 Cypriots were killed in the attack and 1,400 Greek Cypriots remain missing and unaccounted for. Nearly a decade after the attack, Turkey advanced a ``unilateral declaration of independence'' in the northern area of the island occupied by the Turkish military. In response, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 541, which denounced the claim of an independent state and called for the withdrawal of the declaration.

I am greatly encouraged by the progress currently being accomplished in Cyprus. At his inauguration this February, incoming Cypriot President Demetris Christofias announced that solving the Cyprus problem is going to be the first priority of his government. In response, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mehmet Ali Talat, said that a solution in Cyprus is possible by the end of 2008.

The current state of affairs in Cyprus presents an opportunity for the United States to show leadership by working together with the

UN and Cyprus to facilitate a peace process. It will take the cooperation of the international community to bring the stalemate to an acceptable conclusion.

I applaud the leadership of President Christofias and his determination to reunify the country of Cyprus. The people of Cyprus have waited a long 34 years for peace and justice. They deserve the help of the United States and the international community in their endeavor.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on July 14, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: Nos. 486, 487 and 488.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained from voting on July 8, 2008. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 471, rollcall 472, and rollcall 473.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the 10 minutes of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation and would like to echo the comments of my friend from Minnesota in thanking the efforts of so many people to make this bill possible, beginning with Chairman Rangel, Mr. McCrery, Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee, Ranking Member McKeon, Subcommittee Chair Pomeroy, Mr. Ramstad and others. This has been a very cooperative and good effort.

Healthy pensions are healthy for the economy of the United States. When the tens of millions of people who are covered by pension funds feel more confident about the security of their money and the likelihood that it will continue on into the future, they are more likely to be consumers and investors and engines of economic opportunity for the rest of us in the economy.

This act makes a number of important corrections that will strengthen and therefore make more healthy the pension funds of our country. I embrace and support each of those changes. I would like to highlight three of them that I believe are of significant and important relevance.

The first has to do with the so-called smoothing provisions, which will particularly benefit the larger employers. We have significant and rigid new standards under the 2006 act which require underfunded plans to catch up so that they are fully funded as soon as reasonably possible. But it is important that those rigid standards do not choke off the economic activity of the plan sponsor, and when they are too rigid, they run that risk. So these smoothing provisions give the plan sponsor, the employer, the flexibility to make a rational judgment about how much money is needed to be put into the fund to catch it up how soon.

In my view, this reform is a win for the taxpayers, it is a win for the pensioners and employees and a win for the employer. It is a win for the taxpayers in that a plan that is caught up in a rational way by a successful employer is qualitatively less likely to go into default, to go into insolvency and to call for a bailout by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Ultimately, the taxpayers of the country stand behind the PBGC. The fewer claims of insolvency, the less risk to the taxpayer.

Second, I believe that these provisions are very good for pensioners and employers because these provisions substantially increase the likelihood that the pension fund will be stable, permanent and a source of income for the person for the rest of his or her life.

Finally, this is most certainly an advantage for all those who benefit from the pension system. So I think that this is a very important change.

This is an important change for small business as well. One particular change that lets small businesses rely upon a fixed 5.5 percent rate of interest in their pension calculations means that the person running a dental practice or a small manufacturing plant does not have to incur unnecessary legal or accounting or actuarial fees to calculate and recalculate changing assumptions. The matter of a few thousand dollars for that plan sponsor is very important, and it leads to the result that more employers will keep these plans, as my friend Mr. Pomeroy expressed concern about earlier on.

Finally, I would join with the comments of Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. Ramstad about the very significant importance of the public employee pension fund provisions in this bill. The history of public employee pension funds in this country is a very stable and positive one. With a few rare exceptions, fund trustees around this country have made proper fiduciary choices with the investment decisions for the men and women who rely upon those decisions, and one of those decisions they make is the credit interest rate that ought to be used in calculating certain distributions to retired firefighters, teachers, police officers and other public employees.

There is a saying that is not unique to pension law, but unique to common sense, which is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Public employee trustees around the country have done an excellent job in managing their funds, by and large. This bill has a provision in it that assures that those trustees will continue to have the freedom and flexibility to make their own determination as to what that credit interest rate ought to be and that that determination should not be supplanted by the judgment of any Federal agency or by this Congress.

You might say, well, what about the issue of exposure of the Federal taxpayer? Aren't we subjecting the Federal taxpayer to risk if the State and local trustees make the wrong decision?

Mr. Speaker, we are most emphatically not, because the plans about which I speak are not backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. So the idea of Federal regulation imposing itself upon the decisions of these trustees is without any merit or

justification. This will mean that police officers and firefighters and teachers and other public employees will get the fair pension for which they bargained and to which they are entitled.

I would like to express my appreciation to the minority and majority staff for their hard work on this bill. I think it well serves the country. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just reiterate that we urge passage of this well-thought-out bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Silvester R. Del Rosario for becoming the first Hispanic Aviation Limited Duty Officer in the United States Navy to achieve the rank of Captain. This promotion makes Mr. Del Rosario the highest ranking Dominican American in the United States Navy.

Captain Del Rosario was born and raised in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. He moved to Queens, New York at the age of 17 and enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1976. After basic training, he was rapidly promoted from ``striker'' to Aviation Structural Mechanic Chief Petty Officer. His first assignment was to Naval Air Station Keflavik, Iceland where he trained in structures, hydraulic, and flight control systems. Mr. Del Rosario was subsequently moved to the prestigious Navy Flight Demonstration Squadron ``Blue Angels'' Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida.

In 1990, Captain Del Rosario was selected to serve as Officer-in- Charge for the VP-45 Detachment at Cecil Field, Florida where he earned distinction when he was honored as ``1990 Maintenance Officer of the Year'' by the Association of Naval Aviation. Over the course of two tours to the Mediterranean and North Arabian Gulf, he was awarded the ``LTJG Clint Neidecken'' award for leadership, selected by Strike Fighter Wing, U.S. Atlantic Fleet as the ``1993 Maintenance Officer of the Year'' and honored as the 1994 COMNAVAIRLANT ``Capt. Charles J. Nechvatal Aviation Maintenance Officer of the Year''. Under Captain Del Rosario's management, the Naval Air Maintenance Training Unit Norfolk won the 2002 Bronze Hammer Award, the 2002 NETC Training Excellence Award, and the 2002 NETC Retention Award. In 2003, his command was recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as a nationally accredited institution.

Over his long career Captain Del Rosario has won many awards, including four Meritorious Service Medals, five Navy Commendation Medals, four Navy Achievement Medals, three Navy Good Conduct Medals, Navy Rifle and Pistol Expert Medals, and various service campaign and unit decorations. In light of his considerable achievement, it is fitting that Mr. Del Rosario was promoted to the rank of Captain on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008. Captain Del Rosario is an exceptional role- model for young Americans considering a career in the United States Armed Forces. I congratulate him on this achievement and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

I thank my chairman for yielding.

I would like to thank and congratulate him and Mr. McKeon and Mr. Sensenbrenner and others for their hard work on this. Mr. Hoyer in particular.

Words have meaning. And when the original Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted, the word ``disability'' had a commonsense meaning. It meant if someone had a substantial impairment, mentally or physically, that would interfere with their ability to do something important, that was a disability. I think a hundred of Americans, if you stopped them on the street and asked them if they agreed with that, they would say ``yes.'' Unfortunately, not enough of those Americans served on the United States Supreme Court, and we wound up with a tortured rendition of the definition of ``disability'' where people that we clearly would think were disabled were excluded from the protections of this law.

The authors of this bill worked long and hard to clear up that confusion and strike the right balance between the opportunities of Americans with disabilities and a fair set of ground rules for employers and other institutions in our society. I believe this legislation clearly strikes the right balance.

Something else is very important, too. It liberates the talents of people who have been heretofore kept out of the workplace and out of other institutions: the person in a wheelchair who might be the best computer programmer, the blind person who might be the best financial analyst, the person with tuberculosis who might be the best financial planner or health care technician. The talents of these individuals have too often been kept out of the fray.

This bill will put them back in the fray, put them back on the playing field and help not only Americans with a disability but all of us who will benefit from the liberation of their talent.

I congratulate the authors and urge a ``yes'' vote on this necessary and important piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I was not present on June 4, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 370, rollcall 371, rollcall 372, rollcall 373, rollcall 374, rollcall 375, rollcall 376, and rollcall 377.

I would have voted ``nay'' on the following: rollcall 378 and rollcall 379.

Madam Speaker, I was not present on June 3, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall No. 367, rollcall No. 368, and rollcall No. 369.

Madam Speaker, I was not present on May 22, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 350, rollcall 351, rollcall 352, rollcall 353, rollcall 354, rollcall 357, rollcall 359, rollcall 360, rollcall 361, rollcall 362, rollcall 363, rollcall 365, rollcall 366.

I would have voted ``nay'' on the following: rollcall 355, rollcall 356, rollcall 358, rollcall 364.