Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, this Nation has lost one of the great chroniclers of the American experience. I rise today to honor the memory of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and a member of the Kennedy administration. He was 89 years old.

Mr. Schlesinger was among the most prominent historians of our time and a widely respected observer of contemporary politics. As an author, he received a National Book Award for ``Robert Kennedy and His Times'' and a National Book Award and a Pulitzer for ``A Thousand Days,'' his memoir/chronicle of President Kennedy's administration. He also won a Pulitzer, in 1946, for ``The Age of Jackson,'' a chronicle of Andrew Jackson's administration. He was also widely described as the ``court philosopher'' of the Kennedy Administration.

Madam Speaker, I celebrate the life of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., and he will be surely missed. He contributed a great deal toward our understanding of our Nation's past. His legacy of service to his country and his fellow man will surely be remembered for years to come.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and thank her for her great work in shepherding this bill along.

I deeply respect the ranking member of the full committee, and I know his intentions are very sincere, but I think the Members of the House deserve a record that is accurate. Let me review the five points that he made and set forth what the bill actually says.

The gentleman says that the bill does away with secret ballots. That is not the case.

If those choosing to organize a union wish to have a secret ballot, they can follow the same procedure that is in the law now: get 30 percent-plus to sign a petition for a secret ballot, and have one.

The gentleman says that the bill legalizes coercion by unions. That is not the case.

Coercion by a union against a worker is and still will be an unfair labor practice. The bill says if a signature is acquired by coercion and is involuntary, it is not presumably going to be a valid signature and therefore does not count.

The gentleman says that the bill takes away the right of privacy from workers. Not so.

The same process essentially by which people sign petitions under the present law, they would sign cards under the new bill. Perhaps the gentleman should be more concerned about the loss of privacy of workers during campaigns by employers to coerce and intimidate people to vote against the union.

The gentleman says the bill takes away the right to vote on contracts. Absolutely not so.

What the bill says is if there is not an agreement for a contract between management and labor, after negotiation, after mediation, then and only then there would be arbitration. It does not take away the right to vote on contracts.

Finally, the gentleman says that penalties are somehow out of balance, but I think the gentleman respectfully misunderstands.

If in a union-organizing drive the unions are found to have coerced people into signing cards, the cards are invalid and it is the death penalty for the union because they lose the organizing drive. That is the most significant penalty there can be.

We are all entitled to our own opinion; we are not entitled to our own facts.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous-consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a strong voice for American workers, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

Section 6 of the bill makes it clear that if a card is invalid, it will not be counted, and an employee who asks for his or her card back clearly would be an invalid card.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a gentleman who has run a successful small business.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the subcommittee who has worked very hard on this issue for a number of years.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman's point about small business.

The minority was given and has taken advantage of a full substitute here. If the minority had chosen to include the provision in the substitute, it was in their prerogative. They failed to do so.

I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a strong voice for working people in this country.

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a new Member of Congress who speaks with authority on this issue and many others.

Madam Chair, it is my pleasure at this time to yield to someone who has walked in the shoes of the people who will be best helped by this act, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to an individual who has turned the direction of this institution and the country towards the forgotten middle class, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, this bill has the potential, I believe, to do great good for the working people in this country. I believe it has the potential to reenergize the middle class of our country. But I believe the opponents of the bill have grossly overstated the severity and magnitude of the changes that are proposed.

We repeatedly hear the phrase that we are ``doing away with the secret ballot.'' This is false. The bill sets up two mechanisms for people to organize and join a union. The first is to get a majority of those eligible in the bargaining unit to sign a card, at which time there will be an investigation by the National Labor Relations Board. It will determine the validity or invalidity of the cards. If the board determines that a majority of the bargaining unit has signed a valid card, then there is a union recognized.

There is one key difference between this provision in the bill and the law under which we have lived for the last 6 decades-plus. We have had the majority sign-up procedure for more than 60 years, but present law says even if a majority sign valid cards, the employer can arbitrarily veto that choice of a majority. This bill transfers the power from the employer's veto to the employees' majority.

Secondly, if the employees instead wish to organize by pursuing the election path, by getting at least 30 percent to manifest their intention to have an election, then there is an election. It is very important, and we have heard different points about who the union leadership is.

In my district, I will tell you who the union leadership is. They coach baseball teams. They read the epistle at mass. They volunteer in fire companies. They sign up and recruit people for the United Way. They are the first people to show up if there is a fire or a flood. They are the hardworking, basic core of this country.

I know there have been instances of intimidation on both sides, but it is important we look at the record. A group that is strongly opposed to this bill scoured over 60 years of court cases, and in those 60 years, they could find only 42 examples which they chose to highlight where there was a finding of coercion by a union person in an organizing job.

By contrast, in 2005, more than 31,000 workers in 1 year were awarded back pay because it was found that their rights had been violated. Yes, there is coercion on both sides, but the record shows that the coercion has been disproportionately on the management side. That is why this leveling of the playing field is needed.

This bill replaces the employer's arbitrary veto with a valid expression of majority will. It does not eliminate the secret ballot. It eliminates the systemic coercion under which we live today.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, since we have only one speaker at this point, I would reserve my time. I will tell my friend that the majority leader is en route to the floor. We are waiting for him as well, but we simply have the majority leader and the chairman of the full committee left on our side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman will yield, I will yield to the majority leader, yes.

Madam Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the majority leader of the House who has brought this consequential legislation to the floor, my friend from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the very proactive Member from Texas, my friend, Ms. Jackson-Lee.

I am pleased to yield at this time to the new Member from Ohio who knows these issues very well, my friend from Ohio (Mr. Wilson) 1 minute.

With the indulgence of the minority, which we appreciate, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee whose expertise is matched only by her passion in this area, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield the balance of our time to someone whose diligent efforts are about to pay off with a victory on this vote, the chairman of our committee, the author of the bill, our friend from California, Mr. Miller.

Madam Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Chair, can the gentleman reserve the balance of his time?

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

I oppose the amendment. First of all, let's make it very clear that salting, the practice the gentleman addresses, is legal. What is not legal are disruptive practices if one is working for an employer, as they should be illegal.

The gentleman's amendment frankly offers a breathtaking introduction of a discriminatory practice in the statutes of the country. If I read the amendment correctly, an employer could refuse to hire someone simply because someone is in a union. So let's think about the facts that would be involved here.

Let's say a person works part-time for a grocery store, and as a part-time worker they become a member of the union at the grocery store.

Then they go to apply for a job at a telecommunications company. As I read the amendment, the telecommunications company could refuse to hire the individual who worked in the grocery store, who is a member of the union, simply because the person was a member of a union.

This is a remarkable precedent. It basically suggests that by being a member of an organization, you subject yourself to discrimination. I think if the gentleman would think about someone else's ox being gored, he would understand what's wrong with this.

If an employer said we won't hire someone because you have been in the chamber of commerce, you have a pro-business attitude, we would be offended by that. If someone said we are not going to hire you because you have been in the National Rifle Association, we think there is something wrong with that, I think we would be offended by that.

There is no functional difference between what the gentleman is proposing and those discriminatory scenarios. The purpose of our law is to prohibit discrimination, not sanctify it. I believe that this would be a breathtaking departure from the tradition of American law where we discourage discrimination rather than make it a part of our statutes.

Salting is legal. Disruptive behavior is illegal. It stays ``illegal'' under the bill before us. But if the gentleman's amendment were adopted, discrimination against someone simply because the organization he or she is a part of, would become legal. That is a very, very unwise policy.

I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My friend from Indiana, I would ask if I have in any way misstated the amendment, that what I say about the amendment, is it accurate or inaccurate?

Madam Chairwoman, I yield to my friend from Indiana if he cares to answer. Is my characterization accurate?

I am yielding to the gentleman from Indiana who made the point.

I think my characterization is accurate.

Madam Chairwoman, we reserve the balance of our time.

I would ask the gentleman if he has further speakers. We will reserve our right to close debate on the amendment.

We would continue to reserve our time.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of our time in opposition to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Miller.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary. It is unfair, and I believe it is unconstitutional, and it should be opposed.

If there are practices where union employees are coercing workers to sign cards or sign a petition, those practices are illegal and will remain illegal after this bill is passed. Under section 6 of this bill, if there are circumstances where union organizers are coercing or intimidating people to try to get them to sign a card or cards, the labor board would presumably find those efforts to be invalid, and the card would be invalid, so the amendment is unnecessary.

It is unfair in this respect. It is rather remarkable, the ranking member of the full committee just talked about adults being able to protect themselves against certain circumstances. I see no amendment from the minority that says that workers could be free from going to one-on-one meetings with their supervisors. I see no amendment from the minority that says that workers could be free from being forced to attend captive meetings where their employer has all the say and the union has none of the say.

I see no amendment that indicates there would be a strengthening of protection against firing people during an organizing drive for which there is a strong record that this is happening on a regular basis.

I further believe the amendment is probably unconstitutional. The amendment says that it outlaws efforts to ``communicate with individuals with respect to questions of representation.'' As I read this, if the union took an ad in a newspaper that encouraged people to sign a card and join a union, that is an attempt to communicate with an individual about the question of union representation.

We have a principle and constitutional interpretation in this country, where overly broad prohibitions against speech are presumptively invalid. This is an overly broad, and, I believe, presumptively invalid prohibition against free speech.

The amendment is unnecessary, it is unfair, it is unconstitutional. It should be defeated.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds and, once again, point out that a group that is opposed to this bill has scoured the record and over 60 years of history has found only 42 instances of illegal behavior by union organizers.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of our time in opposition to the amendment to the chairman of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Chairman, I would like the Record to reflect a couple of points.

First of all, with respect to this continued phrase about a public ballot. The card is not a public document. When the card is collected by the organizers it is turned in at some point to the Labor Board for certification.

Second, this public opinion poll that keeps being referenced, or these polls that keep being referenced, none of the respondents to these polls were party to the information about the systemic pattern of coercion that has taken place in the workplace and asked questions, I believe, that were rather loaded.

And finally, on the issue of decertification, the fact of the matter is that the law today gives an employer the right to refuse to bargain with and recognize a union if there is a manifestation by a majority of the workers that they no longer wish to be recognized. There doesn't need to be a vote before an employer can choose not to recognize the union.

Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the

gentlelady from New York City, Brooklyn, more specifically, Ms. Clarke.

Madam Chair, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a new Member making quite an impact, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hare.

Madam Chair, we have no other speakers on our side. We reserve the right to close. And if my colleagues would like to do so, we would yield to them. We will reserve our time.

Madam Chairman, in closing, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the committee, the author of the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, enforce the law. The erstwhile majority wants organized labor to do what its own administration has failed miserably to do. In the last 6 years before this administration took office, there were an average of 587 convictions of employers for hiring illegal workers.

Since then, this administration has averaged 73 convictions for a year for hiring illegal workers. In 2004, this administration got zero convictions for hiring illegal workers. Do not force organized labor to do what this administration has failed so miserably to do.

Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 11\1/2\ minutes.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution because it provides the affirmation and the change that I believe we need in Iraq. The affirmation is essentially universal in this House. It is an affirmation that we are irrevocably committed to arm, support, equip, and protect the troops that we have sent to Iraq. We are committed to stand by the young men and women who have made the choice to make a sacrifice for this country. That issue is not an issue.

What is an issue is whether American policy is working in Iraq or failing in Iraq. I believe it is failing, and I believe that a vote for this resolution is a vote for change.

We have frequently heard, Mr. Speaker, from the minority side that they would like to hear a plan. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest they start listening to this debate and to the American people.

Here is how you build a plan: First, you acknowledge reality by properly defining the problem. The administration persists in rhetoric that defines the conflict in Iraq as a struggle between forces of civilization on one hand and the forces which wrought September 11 on the other. To some extent this characterization is accurate, but to a great extent this characterization is inaccurate.

A significant portion of the violence in Iraq is not the result of Islamic violence against American troops, although it exists. A significant portion of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian violence, Shiia against Sunni, Sunni against Shiia, and occasionally others against the Kurds. This is not the position of the Democratic Party. This is the observation of the military and intelligence leadership in public documents of this country. Sectarian violence is the principal problem in Iraq.

If the problem in Iraq were that a fragile but legitimate young government was struggling to hang on but could not overcome the resistance, then this idea of a troop surge would make sense. The idea of sending more fighters to defeat the resistance would make sense. This is not the proper definition of the problem. The troop surge does not send more fighters to defeat the resistance. It sends more referees to inject themselves into the violence between Shiia and Sunni militia and warfighters. The problem in Iraq is largely, not exclusively but largely, how to stop the sectarian violence.

The second change that we must have is a change that vests the Iraqis themselves with the primary responsibility and eventually the exclusive responsibility to defeat that sectarian violence. Sending more American troops to do the job of the Iraqis is not the answer. Insisting that the Iraqis do their

own job, defend their own country, fight their own fight is the answer.

Now, the United States should not divorce itself from that effort. The United States, in my view, should not immediately vest the Iraqis with all that authority. But sending more young Americans to fight the fight for legitimacy of the Iraqi Government will not further the legitimacy of the Iraqi Government. It will defer it. It will weaken it. It will undermine it. There is one way, and one way only, to determine whether Iraqis themselves are willing to fight for this government, whether Shiia are willing to fight Shiia militia, whether Sunni are willing to fight Sunni militia. And that is to let them do it, not to give the job to more and more Americans. This is the change that we need.

And, finally, we need a change which recognizes that the principal problem in reaching a unity government in Iraq is political negotiation. Now, this is not to say that diplomats alone can solve this problem, but it is most certainly to say that if those who are vested in the outcome of this civil war are not brought to a conference table, brought to a negotiation, and compelled or encouraged to reach a solution, I doubt very much that it will come.

The United States has become the guarantor of the status quo in Iraq, and the status quo is failing. The best way to serve the interests of the American troops is to engage in the democratic debate for which they are fighting. Young Americans are fighting and dying so that Iraqis will have the right to debate their country's future. It would be sadly and bitterly ironic if we abrogated our responsibility to debate our country's future over what they should be doing in that country and how long they should be there.

If you want to serve the troops, have the debate. And if you want to promote the idea of avoiding failure in Iraq, then change the policy in Iraq. Do not sustain the status quo. I believe that if you want to change the policy in Iraq, voting ``yes'' on resolution 63 is the right first step.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I yield 1 hour of our time to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control this hour of time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks with words of appreciation for Mr. Robert Knotts, who served with distinction as my legislative director and who will be leaving our office next week to further advance his career. I want to express my appreciation to Robert, Madam Speaker, for the service he has given to our constituents and the fine work he has done as a member of this institution.

He has helped me prepare these remarks tonight, and I mean them in a heartfelt way to say thank you.

For the last 25 years, the regime in Iran has secretly and unlawfully commenced the process of acquiring a nuclear weapon. This is a grave threat to peaceful and freedom-loving people around the world. This is a regime headed by a president who just recently has said that one Holocaust was not enough, that we need another one; a regime headed by a president who said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth; a regime that has flagrantly and blatantly disregarded international law in pursuing this weapon of mass death.

I believe that it should be a policy not only of our country but of freedom-loving nations around the world that this regime in Iran must never have a nuclear weapon that it could use against its neighbors or other peace-loving people around the world. It is truly a grave threat. In my view, Madam Speaker, it is a grave threat that calls for diplomacy, strategy, and cooperation, and not for a reckless rush into armed conflict. That is the purpose, Madam Speaker, of my remarks here this evening.

I am troubled by recent signs that I have seen from our administration with respect to the issue of Iran. Placement of naval assets in that area of the world is justified as a defensive measure, but I worry that it may be a provocative measure. The words of our President are words which can be taken, and I hope they are meant in the spirit of warning and cooperation, but they could also be taken in the spirit of provocation, and I hope and pray that they are not meant in that regard.

My principal message though this evening is not one about answering the question as to what we should do about the threat of a nuclear weapon in Iran. My principal message is to find who the ``we'' in that sentence is, what ``we'' should do about the question of nuclear proliferation in Iran.

The Constitution of this country vests the sole authority to declare war in the Congress of the United States of America. Our Presidents as commanders in chief have inherent authority to protect our country in time of emergency and to act in self-defense, but it is a clear principle of this Constitution that the power to initiate hostilities, the power to declare war, rests in this body and the other body.

I think it is imperative in the days and weeks ahead that in whatever forum, in whatever way, this House go on record as reaffirming that constitutional prerogative with specific reference to the issue of what we should do about Iran.

If there is to be consideration of military action involving Iran, in my judgment, such consideration would be reckless and premature at this time and under these facts. But if there is to be consideration of military action, it should be careful, deliberate, thoughtful consideration done under the auspices of this Constitution.

America's greatest resource in the area of national defense is the men and women who step forward voluntarily to serve this country and wear the uniform of this country. They step forward because of their faith that we are a country that follows the rule of law, and not the edict or desire of any one man or woman irrespective of what office he or she is elected to. It is my concern that that faith would be eroded and indeed misplaced if we do not follow the rule of law in this crucial instance.

This House needs to affirm our constitutional prerogative in this matter. There should be no consideration of the initiation of any preemptive hostilities against Iran or anyone else without the careful, thorough, constitutional consideration that such a question mandates and demands.

Madam Speaker, it is my honor today to announce that Brett D. Myles has been promoted to the rank of Chief Petty Officer of the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. Family and friends of CPO Myles will gather on the battleship New Jersey on Saturday, January 21, to honor this outstanding young man.

In order to achieve this high rank, CPO Myles had to complete many months of intensive training as well as a broad range of U.S. Navy courses. Throughout his service, Chief Petty Officer Myles displayed superior qualities of patriotism, leadership, and expertise. He should be very proud of his achievement: Less than \1/2\ of 1% of the almost 10,000 Naval Sea Cadets in the program succeed in attaining this rank.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to honor CPO Myles for his outstanding achievement. He is truly an inspiration to all U.S. Naval Sea Cadets and to all citizens of this great Nation. I want to again congratulate CPO Myles for this achievement and I wish him the best of luck in the future.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this debate is about a promise broken and a promise kept. When President Bush ran for President the first time in 2000, he promised to make the maximum Pell Grant $5,100 per year. Today, the maximum Pell Grant is $4,050 per year. It is true that the erstwhile majority spent more money on Pell Grants, but it is also true that many, many more people were eligible for Pell Grants and the value of the Pell Grant shrunk during the tenure of the erstwhile majority. The new majority is keeping a promise to significantly reduce student loan rates for students across this country. And we are keeping, in my view, a more important promise, to pay for keeping that promise by not adding to the deficit.

Unlike the tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country, this bill doesn't add to the deficit. Unlike the seemingly endless misadventure in Iraq, this bill doesn't add to the deficit. Unlike the huge tax breaks for the energy industry at a time when they receive the most profit in their history, this bill doesn't add to the deficit. The ways that this bill is paid for invite careful review of how we balance the direct and private loan programs and they invite careful review of how we adjust the present programs. But this bill is paid for.

This is the change that the American people voted for, help for the middle class, not increasing the deficit, and pay-as-you-go. I am delighted to hear that at least two of our colleagues on the other side will vote ``yes'' on this bill. I hope, Madam Speaker, that dozens or even hundreds of our colleagues on the other side will join us in voting ``yes'' in favor of middle-class students and deficit reduction.

Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of the First Congressional District of New Jersey, I take this opportunity to enter into the Record my position on the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007, H.R. 4. First, I would like to congratulate Speaker Pelosi on her outstanding performance over these last few weeks in bringing the real priorities of the American people to the forefront of the 110th Congress's agenda. Reforming the House of Representatives ethics standards, increasing the minimum wage, authorizing Federal research of embryonic stem cells and providing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, the authority to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry are all essential measures for the American people.

On January 12, 2007, I voted in favor of H.R. 4; however, I have some concerns for seniors in my home State of New Jersey. Although I believe Congress should authorize the Secretary of HHS to negotiate drug prices, I believe his authority should be limited so to not disrupt areas in which the Pharmacy Benefit Managers, PBM, are obtaining the best deal for seniors. If our goal is to ensure that all avenues of achieving price discounts are being used to benefit the seniors and individuals with disabilities in the Medicare program, then Congress should allow drug companies and PBMs, who are successfully negotiating affordable drug prices for seniors, to continue to do so without interference from HHS and focus the Secretary's attention on those areas where competition is stymied and prices are artificially inflated by drug companies.

Furthermore, I am concerned about how H.R. 4 will affect various States' prescription drug assistance programs. For example, New Jersey provides drug coverage to over 200,000 low-income seniors through two programs known as the Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled program or PAAD and Senior Gold. After passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, the State of New Jersey made a decision to make beneficiaries whole by providing a ``wrap around'' benefit to Medicare Part D. Therefore, PAAD beneficiaries continue to pay only a $5 co-pay per prescription with no deductible, regardless of the terms of their particular Part D plan. Secondly, because PAAD maintains an open formulary for its beneficiaries, medications not covered under Part D, are covered by PAAD. It has been argued that if the language of H.R. 4 places a restriction on medications Part D will cover, the cost of the PAAD and the Senior Gold program will increase as the burden to provide even more medications not covered by Medicare falls onto the State. As we move toward conference of the two Chambers, I want to make sure H.R. 4 does not lead to restrictions on access to new medications and gives seniors the best possible price for their medications.

Again, I commend Speaker Pelosi for a job well done and for making affordable prescription drugs for seniors a top priority in the 110th Congress.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 10 years ago, I sat on this floor and listened to speeches like the one my friend from Texas just gave, and we voted to raise the minimum wage. And what happened?

Unemployment went down. The economy grew. And America prospered. It will happen again if we pass this increase in the minimum wage. There have been many days since that day nearly 10 years ago. One of those days when the prescription drug bill was on the floor, the industry came, and it wanted special protection from lawsuits and special pricing. It was their day, and they got it.

When the energy bill was on the floor, the energy companies came in and wanted massive subsidies, and no crackdown on pricing. It was their day, and they got it.

When the tax bill was on the floor, the wealthiest people in the country, people making more than $300,000 a year wanted massive tax breaks. It was their day, and they got it.

I am sorry to disappoint the opponents of the minimum wage, but this is not your day. This is the day for the people who empty the bed pans, change the bed linens, sweep the floors, and do the hardest work of America. After a 10-year wait, even though they don't have the lobbyists here, even though they don't have the political action committees here, this is their day.

This is the day we are going to raise the minimum wage, change the direction of the country, and restore economic fairness for the American economy. Join with Republicans and Democrats and independents across this country. Vote ``yes'' on the increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to honor Amy Edinger, the recipient of the great state of New Jersey's No Child Left Behind 2006 American Star of Teaching award.

Throughout her distinguished career, Amy has worked with special education students at the James Fenimore Cooper Elementary School in Cherry Hill. Her efforts to improve the educational atmosphere of her students have earned her both admiration and praise from her colleagues, students, and parents. Her extraordinary innovation and commitment has enabled her to assist her students in moving forward both academically and through improvements in their social skills. Amy's expertise can be measured through the many achievements by the children in her classroom.

I would like to commend and congratulate Amy Edinger on this impressive honor. She is an example of excellence in the classroom, and she serves as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Patrick J. Brennan, Mayor of Merchantville, New Jersey and lifetime resident of New Jersey. Mayor Brennan served on the borough council for four years before becoming mayor.

Mayor Brennan is married to Joan Foley and they have seven children. He was born in Camden, New Jersey, raised in Collingswood and attended Camden Catholic High School, Georgetown University and Rutgers University. After an unsuccessful run for state Assembly, Mayor Brennan was elected mayor, a job he has held for 12 years. Mayor Brennan is also the owner of three companies in Turnersville, NJ.

Mayor Brennan has successfully maintained Merchantville's hometown, laid-back atmosphere while improving, revitalizing, and redeveloping the borough. He has overseen the development of a new senior housing complex, which will make it easier for the elderly to stay in the town while providing housing opportunities for new seniors. He has also overseen the opening of Chestnut Station in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to Mayor Brennan for his years of outstanding service to the borough of Merchantville. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two courageous New Jersey residents and cancer survivors, who have transformed their personal pain into an opportunity to bring hope to others. Dara Marcozzi and Maryellen Yurkow are inspirations to their communities, and it is my privilege to honor them today.

Dara Marcozzi and Maryellen ``Mimi'' Yurkow, both ovarian cancer survivors, have worked tirelessly to promote ovarian cancer awareness. They co-founded Teal Magnolias, the south Jersey chapter of the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition, to raise funds for ovarian cancer research and to bring together others suffering from the terrible disease--the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States.

Dara and Mimi are inspirations to us all, and their stories remind us that while we might face difficulties in our own lives, we have the power to overcome. These two remarkable survivors not only overcame their own challenges but now support others in their times of need. Their tireless efforts make our community, and our Nation, a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the LEAP Academy Lancer Basketball Team on their first South Jersey Group I championship.

The Lancer Basketball team completed their season 18-7-0. The LEAP Academy basketball program, in its second year, is affiliated with Rutgers-Camden University. Much of their schedule consists of playing teams from the Philadelphia area and Central and North Jersey.

Coach Marco Morcos led his team to a phenomenal season that included a seven game winning streak and defeating teams like Bishop Eustace from the South Jersey region. The team included four seniors, Earl Knight, Nathaniel Cooper, William Mace, and Lance James; four juniors, Crawford John, Michael Craig, Chauncey Gillian, and Jamal Baylor-ali; two sophomores, Gary Lyons and Dylan Talley; and four freshmen, Jeremy Delgado, Orlando Hidalgo, Tyrone Parker, and Eric Johnson. Scoring leaders of the team include William Mace (196), Lance James (191), and Dylan Talley (190). Assists leaders include Lance James (103), Crawford John (42), and Dylan Talley (34). Blocks leaders include William Mace (40), Crawford John (19), and Earl Knight (10). Rebound leaders include William Mace (161), Crawford John (121) and Dylan Talley (89). Steals leaders include Crawford John (54), Lance James (40), and William Mace (26). Three point field goal leaders include Lance James (17), Dylan Talley (17), and Crawford John (12).

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the LEAP Academy Basketball Team for an exceptional 2005-2006 season and on their championship. I wish the entire team and school the best of luck in their future athletic, personal, and professional lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Rutgers-Camden University Women's Softball Team for winning the NCAA Division III Women's Softball Championship in 2006.

The Scarlet Raptors defeated the defending champion, the University of St. Thomas, in a thrilling 3-2 decision during play at Peace College in North Carolina last spring in May 2006. This is the first national sports title in Rutgers-Camden history, and also the first NCAA title for a team sport earned on any Rutgers campus.

Mr. Speaker, I celebrate the outstanding season of the Rutgers-Camden Women's Softball Team. I applaud every member of the Scarlet Raptors softball team, as well as Coach Carl Taylor and his staff, for this outstanding accomplishment. I am proud of their skill, determination, and fierce competitiveness, and thank them for the excitement they created for all Rutgers-Camden supporters throughout the season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ed Bonnette, a man who was ``instrumental in lowering the national voting age to 18.

Ed served as the New Jersey Chair for the Let US Vote 18 (LUV 18) Committee at the age of 20. His efforts, combined with the efforts of LUV 18 members in 10 other states, made it possible for the 26th Amendment to the Constitution to be ratified in 1971.

The Let US Vote 18 Committee had placed referendums on New Jersey ballots throughout the 1960s, without success. In 1970, members of this group took their case before the Supreme Court. The Court agreed that the voting age must be lowered for Federal elections to

comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States soon realized it would be impractical to have separate voting systems for Federal and State elections, and subsequently moved to change the law. The 26th Amendment was the fastest yet to be certified, with Ohio's ratification making it official. In July of 1971, less than 100 days after the process began, President Richard M. Nixon officially signed the 26th Amendment into law, officially lowering the voting age to 18.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Ed Bonnette today for all that he has done for the First Congressional District of New Jersey and our country. Ed's service is worthy of admiration, and I applaud him for his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to honor John Browne, a courageous cancer survivor and citizen from the great state of New Jersey. After winning his battle with cancer, Mr. Browne tirelessly worked to bring hope to others afflicted with this terrible disease. He is truly an inspiration to others and it is my privilege to honor him today.

Diagnosed with a rare form of cancer, John Browne needed a liver transplant to save his life. Now healthy, John is working to make others aware of the importance of organ donation. He works as a volunteer for the Gift of Life Donor Program, an organization that matches donors with patients, Today about 90,000 people in the United States are awaiting an organ transplant. Making the decision to be an organ donor can save lives.

I want to thank John for all that he has done. He was given a second chance at life and selflessly used it to help others in need. John's story proves that one person can make a difference in the world. His volunteer efforts have given hope to cancer patients, and he has made our community, and our Nation, a better place.