Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jirair S. Hovnanian, a successful family and businessman who started a construction company in New Jersey over 40 years ago.

Mr. Hovnanian is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in 1952, after emigrating from Kirkuk, Iraq. His company, J.S. Hovnanian & Sons, built more than 6,000 homes, mainly in Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester counties. To his family he was known as a generous nurturer, who pursued the American dream. Mr. Hovnanian started his company in 1964 after splitting with a company he started with his three brothers. In recognition of his success, the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations presented Mr. Hovnanian with the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 2006 for his numerous contributions to the country.

Mr. Hovnanian's life of service is worthy of admiration, and in addition to being a constituent and colleague, I am proud to call Mr. Hovnanian a friend. Madam Speaker, I commend Mr. Hovnanian today for all that he has done for the First Congressional District of New Jersey and our country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Jimmy Fifis, a family man and successful business owner of Ponzio's Restaurant in Cherry Hill. Mr. Fifis recently passed away and his restaurant, Ponzio's, was widely regarded as a Southern New Jersey dining tradition.

Born on the Greek Island of Andros in 1939, Mr. Fifis immigrated to Southern New Jersey in 1966. He began as a dishwasher in a restaurant owned by his two brothers and rose through the ranks to become the owner and operator of Ponzio's. Mr. Fifis has three sons who currently run the family business, which serves 10 to 12 thousand loyal customers per week. Mr. Fifis was loved and respected by all of his employees for his willingness to do any task, whether it was peeling potatoes or managing the restaurant.

Madam Speaker, I commend Mr. Fifis today for all he has done for The First Congressional District of New Jersey and our country. Mr. Fifis's presence will surely be missed at Ponzio's and throughout the entire Southern New Jersey community. In addition to being a constituent, I am proud to call Mr. Fifis a friend.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez for winning the 2007 Judge John F. Gerry Award. The Camden County Bar Association marks Judge Gerry's life for his outstanding humanitarian spirit and integrity, in which Mr. Rodriguez greatly exemplifies.

The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez is a Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He is currently a member of the board of trustees for LaSalle University. In addition, he has been a lecturer for the past 37 years for the Professional Trial Lawyers Seminar. He has been distinguished in an impressive amount of honorary doctor of law degrees from St. Peter's College, 1972; Rutgers University, 1974; Seton Hall University, 1974; Montclair State College, 1985; and Kean College, 1985. Furthermore, for ``Distinguished Service in the Cause of Justice,'' Judge Rodriguez received the Trial Bar Award in 1981 from the Trial Attorneys of New Jersey. In 1985, he accepted the Karen Ann Quinlan Center of Hope Award, ``Friend of Hospice.'' His Honor was named ``Man of the Year'' in 1992 from the National Hispanic Bar Association. The Camden County Bar Association has previously bestowed another award upon him, the ``Peter J. Devine Award'' in 1992. Judge Rodriguez was also the recipient of the ``Spirit of Edison'' Award in 1997 from Thomas Edison State College. The ``Medal of Honor Award'' was awarded to him in 1999 from the New Jersey State Bar Foundation. That same year, the Association of Federal Bar of State of New Jersey awarded this astounding individual the ``William J. Brennan Jr. Award.'' Recently, in 2001, Judge Rodriguez was named Knight by Order of St. Gregory the Great in receiving the ``St. Thomas More Society Award.''

Madam Speaker, I commend the Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez. His dedication and selfless public service to the first district of New Jersey is greatly treasured and respected. I want to sincerely thank Mr. Rodriguez and wish Judge Rodriguez the best in all his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I was meeting with constituents and was detained from voting during Thursday, September 6, 2007. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall vote: rollcall 876.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Ryan) name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1644. Our staff inadvertently, mistakenly added his name.

Madam Speaker, I was with my daughter on her first day of school and was detained from voting on Thursday, September 6, 2007. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall vote: roll No. 859.

Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall votes: roll No. 856, roll No. 857, and roll No. 858.

Madam Speaker, I thank and congratulate my chairman and friend for this excellent piece of work.

When middle-class people, when police officers and real estate agents and computer programmers sit down to fill out the forms at the kitchen table and apply for financial aid, they end the process very frustrated because they quickly conclude there's nothing in there for them. After hours and hours of putting their tax returns forward, filling out forms, there's nothing in the financial aid laws for middle-class people. That's the way people feel.

This bill changes that. For the first time in a long time, there is aid to middle-class students under this bill, and here's the way it works.

When your son or daughter borrows money, and we wish there were less borrowing and more scholarships, but the reality is, given the fiscal constraints we have, there is going to be borrowing. When your son or daughter borrows money, their repayment of that loan will rise as their income does. So when they are new, they have their first apartment, their first car payment, other issues in their life, their payments will be low. But as their incomes rise, their payments will rise to pay their loans back.

This is a loan repayment program that works the way life does. You start out with a low income and a lot of obligations, and hopefully your income grows. When it does, your payments do; but if it doesn't, then your payments stay reasonable.

This is the way life works. This is the way the student loan program ought to work, and I commend the chairman for his leadership in making this happen and urge a ``yes'' vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the ``Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007'' (CHAMP or H.R. 3162) and would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. John Dingell for the inclusion of my State Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) small employer buy-in proposal. He is a good friend and an invaluable leader in providing adequate health insurance to all of America's children.

Today, it is estimated that of the 9.4 million uninsured children, 7 million of them are eligible for SCHIP, but are not enrolled. Furthermore, approximately 37 percent of the 6.6 million children currently enrolled in SCHIP have parents who work in businesses with fewer than 100 employees. Due to the high cost of health insurance in the private small group and individual market, many of these parents do not have access to affordable health insurance for themselves. To help cover these parents and enroll the 7 million uninsured children eligible for SCHIP, I believe that one viable solution is for Congress to provide small employers access to buy into a public health care program, such as the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

With the support of Chairman Dingell, the CHAMP Act does just that-- it establishes a demonstration program for up to 10 States to offer employers and their employees the option to buy into a State's children' health insurance program.

In order for a State to participate in the demonstration program it may not impose a waiting list, enrollment cap, or any other enrollment limitation on low-income children at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level (FPL). As for the employer qualifications, 50 percent of his or her workforce must comprise of full-time employees with family incomes at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. Furthermore, eligible employees must have at least one eligible SCHIP child in their family.

If an employer agrees to participate, the program requires the employer to make a contribution no less than 50 percent of the premium toward the family coverage. The employee is required to make a contribution no greater than 5 percent of their entire income of the premium toward family coverage. The SCHIP funds used to cover the eligible children are the only allowable SCHIP funds that may be applied toward the family coverage. At the State's discretion, any remaining cost of the family coverage may be covered by the employer or the State. Specifically, the State may use its own funds or apply an access fee to the employer for utilizing the purchasing pooling power of their children's health care program.

As the CHAMP Act moves to conference, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will view this demonstration as one viable solution to addressing the health care crisis. Again, I thank Chairman Dingell for his outstanding leadership and support. At the end of the day, I am confident we will accomplish our goal of insuring as many children as possible.

I thank my friend for yielding and I rise in strong support of her legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no disagreement that we should do only what is right for our troops in the field and keep them safe, but there is a disagreement over the meaning of article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Conduct of the foreign policy of this country is not the exclusive purview of the executive branch, but for too long in this institution we have behaved as if it is. So this bill says that it is about time that the Congress of the United States took on our responsibility for assessing the problems in Iraq, took on our responsibility to provide for the common defense. Not to be a spectator as the executive branch makes these decisions in isolation but to be a thoughtful and full partner in that decision-making process.

It is very important for the Members to understand that if the President feels that there is an impairment to the national security of the country, he has the authority to waive the provisions of this bill. But, absent that, he should abide by it.

Please vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in America right now an 8-year- old girl comes home to her mother and father and says she has a numbness and ache in her right arm, and they worry about it, wondering whether it is just a strain from playing on the playground or whether she has a serious disease of her nervous system. But they can't send her to the pediatrician because they do not have enough money left in the family budget this week and they have no health insurance.

The question before the House is whether or not to provide health insurance for that family and that little girl. Yes or no?

The bill says ``yes.'' It pays for it responsibly by a modest increase in the cigarette tax and by eliminating subsidies to health insurance companies. You can say whatever you want, but the question comes down to that: yes or no? It is time we voted ``yes'' for that little girl and her family, voted ``yes'' on this bill.

Madam Speaker, in order to speak in favor of this restoration of the law, I am pleased to acknowledge the majority leader of the House for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I would urge our colleagues in both the Republican and Democratic Parties to vote ``yes'' in favor of this bill.

The opponents have raised two arguments. I believe both of them are wrong.

The first is that the bill repeals or eliminates the statute of limitations. This is not correct. What is, in fact, correct, is that once 180 days have passed from the final act of discrimination, the final tainted paycheck, then the plaintiff's claim would be barred.

The second argument that has been raised by the opponents of the bill is that there would be a flood of litigation and a flood of claims that would vex employers across the country.

This is not so. We are restoring the law as it has existed for more than three decades. During those three decades, there was no such flood or plague of litigation.

This conclusion is borne out by the Congressional Budget Office, which, in analyzing the costs of this bill, concluded that there would be no appreciable increase in the number of claims filed with the EEOC.

So, for these reasons and others, the arguments raised against the bill are invalid. Members should vote ``yes'' in favor of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a narrow bill that supports a very broad principle. The broad principle is that discrimination has no place in the lives of Americans.

This House has people working in it whose families came here who could not speak English but now their sons and daughters write the law. This House has people in it whose ancestors were brought here as slaves but now who write the law of the land. And this House has one person in it whose grandmother could not vote but who now is the woman who is Speaker of the House of Representatives. When we eliminate discrimination, great things happen in America. When we restore discrimination, America moves backwards.

This country is bigger and stronger than the worst thoughts of any bigot. Discrimination has no place in our law, no place in our hearts, and no place because of technicalities. Vote ``yes'' in favor of restoring this strong tool against discrimination.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the chairman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, our friend, the ranking member of the full committee, just said that this bill repeals the statute of limitations. This is completely wrong. The bill does not repeal the statute of limitations for these claims; it restores the statute of limitations that has been in existence for nearly four decades under this law, an interpretation of the statute of limitations that virtually unanimously, in the Circuit Court of Appeals, has been held to be the law.

What is this standard? It says that if a person works in a workplace, as most workplaces are, where knowing what your coworker makes is discouraged or even prohibited, that if you're the victim of discrimination because of your race or your gender or your religion or your nationality, then you have the right to pursue that claim each time a new paycheck is issued that manifests and evidences that discrimination. This is not a novel theory. This has been the law for nearly 40 years. And this bill restores that law.

Second, our friends on the other side talk about these cataclysmic events that are going to occur if the law is restored, people filing suits 70 years after discrimination took place. What an odd plaintiff that would be, Mr. Speaker, someone who has been victimized for 60 or 50 or 40 years by discrimination, but because they want to game the legal system, sit and wait it out? I've never

met that plaintiff, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think anybody really has.

If all of these cataclysmic events were going to happen, why haven't they happened for the last 40 years? Why haven't people sued 40 or 50 years after discrimination took place? It's because that's not what this statute of limitations permits, and that's not human nature.

My friend makes reference, Mr. Speaker, to the worst case scenario. My friends, Lilly Ledbetter lived the worst case scenario. She worked for nearly 20 years for Goodyear. She was very good at her job. She got awards for being an excellent employee. Very late in her career she found out that she was making 20 percent less than the men doing the same job because she was a woman, so she went to the EEOC. She pursued her claim in Federal court. Goodyear stood up and said, oh, no; she was discriminated against not because she's a woman, but because she wasn't as good at her job as the men. And a jury of her peers heard that defense, heard that evidence, and ruled in her favor.

Up the ladder the case went to the United States Supreme Court, and the Court said, she may have been discriminated against, she may have been wronged, but she just didn't do anything about it soon enough; never mind that she followed the rules that had been in effect for nearly 40 years.

This is a restoration of the statute of limitations, not a new statute of limitations or an abrogation of it. And more importantly, it is a restoration of justice for people like Lilly Ledbetter who deserve better than this Supreme Court ruling and deserve the passage of this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the subcommittee chairman in opposition to this amendment.

Members who believe in a balanced and fair competition where the taxpayers get the greatest value for the dollar should oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. The underlying bill, as the chairman said, is a carefully crafted compromise that permits a rational assessment of the cost and benefits of contracting out, and provides for a fair appeal process where whichever side loses that process would have the opportunity to bring its case to another level and have it reexamined.

So I think that the bill is neither pro-contracting out nor anti- contracting-out. I think the bill strikes a fair balance, and it says in instances where someone decides a contract should be permitted, it happens; and for instances where it should not be, it does not.

I commend the chairman for crafting a fair compromise. I join him in urging defeat of the amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.

This amendment seeks in 7 minutes to undue 72 years of labor law. For 72 years, it's been the law of the land that if an employer and an employee organization voluntarily choose to engage in collective bargaining, they're permitted to do so. This is a process that has led to labor harmony, economic prosperity and growth for the economy. Why we would even consider prohibiting that kind of arrangement from going forward is beyond me.

So I would urge the defeat of the amendment on grounds that it rather recklessly undoes a 72-year process that's worked quite well for both labor and management.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Keller for his strong statement of support of the legislation, Mr. Duncan for his very vigorous advocacy of this bill, Mr. McKeon for his cooperation in getting it here today, obviously Chairman Miller for his leadership, and especially my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

For Mr. Kildee, this has been a 12-year effort, an endurance test, where he has built a coalition of all different kinds of groups across party lines and around the country for a very worthy piece of legislation. So Mr. Speaker, I would commend my good friend for his persistence and congratulate him on a job beautifully done on this legislation.

There is a strong bipartisan consensus for this legislation because it's all about common sense.

Mr. Speaker, most Americans would agree that, almost without exception, every American should have the right to bargain collectively and organize and join or not join a union. This legislation gives that right to our career firefighters, police officers, emergency service personnel, corrections officers, and other public safety officials.

There is a commonsense consensus that because of the significant work that these individuals do, they should not have the right to strike if there is a difficult contract negotiation. Under this bill they do not. There is not a right to strike created by this bill because we recognize the difficulty that strikes would create in the public safety field.

There is a commonsense consensus that there should not be a one-size- fits-all national rule to govern police officers, firefighters and public safety personnel in each of the 50 States and other jurisdictions. That is not what this bill does.

It creates a set of standards. It says that if a State and local jurisdiction meet those standards, then public sector collective bargaining laws stay in place without exception or change. But it says, in those States with the right to bargain collectively, the right to organize, the right to grieve are not fully recognized, where those States do not come up to standard, then there is a new Federal procedure that would guarantee men and women these rights.

The critics of this legislation say it is a threat to public safety. There is not a shred of evidence that that is the case. Not a shred. There is not a difference in crime rates where there is collective bargaining among public safety professionals. There is not a negative difference in absenteeism or other chain-of-command type of issues.

Frankly, we saw a dramatic example of just how wrong that point of view is. On September the 11th, the police officers and firefighters and other public safety personnel in and around New York City, the Port Authority, the New York City Fire Department, the New York City Police Department, those public safety professionals who responded to this great crisis were all unionized. Many of them were in the middle of a difficult contract process where there was strong disagreement between the City of New York and the union as to what to do next.

Not one of those men or women failed to respond nobly and heroically to the crisis this country faced. Not one. When they went up the stairs in the towers as they were about to crumble, no one talked about whether they were in a union or not. When the New York City Fire Department lost more people in 1 day than it previously had done in months and years before that, no one talked about a contract dispute. These individuals responded nobly and heroically. So the suggestion that there is some corrosion of public safety because of unionization is unsupported by the evidence and just flat-out wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mr. Kildee for the strong bipartisan coalition he has built. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to our friend from Georgia's comment about compulsory unionism and affirm something my friend from Florida said earlier about compulsory unionism.

Section 8(a)(2) of this bill says that nothing in this act or the regulations issued under this act shall be construed to prevent a State from enforcing a State law which prohibits employers and labor organizations from negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that require union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of employment.

This bill expressly preserves the rights of States to maintain so- called right-to-work laws in their State. I want the record to reflect that point, that the gentleman's concerns about the Georgia Constitution are met in this bill.