Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I speak today on an important bill that I believe in, H.R. 758, The Breast Cancer Patient Protect Action of 2007. This bill is important to people facing this horrible disease, and it is time that we protect those who are the most vulnerable among us.

Patients who have breast cancer face a very tough road ahead. The medical realities are enough to frighten anyone and these patients face financial realities as well. With an ever corporatizing of the American health care system, it's more of an in and out process. Even those with excellent healthcare are pushed out of hospitals with great speed. Worse yet, those who do survive face an uphill battle making sure they can get the follow up they need to assure a long and healthy life.

This bill will show support for those with breast cancer that they are not alone. Worried

that while they are recovering from major surgery, their insurance company will look at the bottom line, and no longer pay for hospital stays. This bill will require insurance companies to pay for the stays as long as the doctor thinks is necessary. As I am sure all of my colleagues know, you cannot get an insurance company to do anything without regulation.

This legislation will also remove the doctor's biggest challenge, needing insurer's permission before doing what they believe is medically necessary. There is nothing worse about our healthcare system today then the thought that it's not your doctor making the decisions for your care, but it's the insurance company that pays him or her. It's an unfortunate reality that doctors must choose between caring for their patients and keeping their practice and families afloat. This bill will at least give these doctors back the right to have the option of always putting their patients first.

Last, this bill also provides for secondary consultations by specialists in the appropriate medical fields to confirm or refute a diagnosis of cancer. While the vast majority of cancer diagnoses are correct, with the small numbers that are ``false positives'' this bill will allow for patients to double check their status before undergoing very expensive and dangerous treatment.

I am reminded of the American political commentator, journalist, and author, Molly Ivins of Texas. Diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 55, she didn't look down on her situation and feel sorry for herself. She instead looked at it as an opportunity saying, ``One of the things I said was that I had been in great hopes I would become a better person as a result of confronting my own mortality, but it actually never happened. I didn't become a better person.'' After two mastectomies, Molly toured around the country speaking out about breast cancer awareness, tragically she later died of the disease.

Almost everyone has had, or knows someone who has breast cancer, it's our mothers and daughters, sisters and friends who face this disease, and it's time we honor them, by protecing those who come after them. I also pay tribute to the work of Sister's Network in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that doctors are making the right diagnosis, that they are making the choices in care and not the insurance companies and that the health and care of these patients are in the right hands. I urge passage of this bill.

I thank the Speaker very much, and I appreciate his leadership this evening, and I appreciate his managing the floor in such a dynamic and excellent manner.

Let me also thank the chairman of the subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Pallone, the manager of this bill. Let me thank our loyal opposition, Dr. Burgess, a colleague and friend from Texas. As well, let me thank Diana DeGette, who has worked so hard to get this legislation to the floor, one legislative initiative that has been championed by Stephanie Tubbs Jones and the honor that has been given her by naming this the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Organ Transplant Authorization Act of 2008.

This is a difficult question to debate on the floor of the House because, whenever you think of organ transplants, you're well aware that someone you've loved or some friend or some neighbor has passed away, and we know that when a loved one dies it is never a happy moment. Experiences like this

always bring sadness and sorrow, but when that loved one's death can serve, however, as a beacon of hope for someone else, maybe there can be an additional moment of comfort for those who have lost their loved ones. That's probably one of the most difficult aspects is to predict loss of life or to be able to say to your family that you want to be an organ donor.

This legislation, I think, goes a long way in responding to the thousands and thousands who are on the list for organ donations, such as for kidney and liver donations. Currently, there are over 60,000 people on the transplant list for kidneys, praying that someday they will receive a kidney and will be able to live a full life. Liver donations, I know, are extremely difficult.

I want to pay tribute to one of our very fine public servants in the State of Texas, State Senator Mario Gallegos, who goes around speaking openly about how his life was saved because of a liver transplant and about how he works tirelessly for full coverage for those individuals who receive transplants.

This bill is an important bill because the formula that was developed for organ transplants was developed in 1984. It is old and outdated. Since then, there have been countless new regulations that have increased the cost. In response, the marketplace has been shifting this cost on to private entities. Often, these entities are nonprofits that lack the funds to help in all they should be able to do or would like to do.

We need to help these patients with high-quality, low-cost health care and assure those who are needing transplants that they can rest easy in that they will receive the care they deserve. That is the advocacy of Senator Mario Gallegos.

This bill will create the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network public-private partnership that will greatly increase a patient's access to transplants. Additionally, it will take some of the burden off of the nonprofit entities that are already facing some of the toughest conditions in the sector.

This bill will also provide an updated reimbursement formula to these nonprofits to modernize the system. Most importantly, it will make a very important statement, Mr. Speaker--the need for organ donors and the great need of those needing organ transplants.

We know that we lost our very dear friend in August, a friend who championed health care, who championed her own health system in the State of Ohio. More importantly, she valued life because she lived it to the fullest. Yet she understood that, in death, you can also give life. This is a great tribute to Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. It reminds us again of the need of organ transplants and of donors in the African American population, which makes up about 12 percent of the Nation's population, about 12 percent of the patients who donate but 23 percent of the need.

So this is an important step forward, this legislation that is now being renewed. It is an important tribute to Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and to her family. Out of the joyful life that she had, she then gave life in death and reminded us of the importance of organ transplants and of the life they give to others.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for House Resolution 6469, The Organ Transplant Authorization Act of 2008. Whether in war or peace, the greatest gift one person can give to another is the gift of life.

When a loved one dies, it is never a happy moment; experiences like this always bring sadness and sorrow. When that loved one's death can serve as a beacon of hope for another, it does not lessen the sadness; it allows the family to have a good, if small, memory of the loss of their loved one.

Thankfully, there are a great number of cases of living donors sharing the gift of life instead of giving it. In this country, the need for kidneys grows every year as kidney disease increases. It is estimated that within the next decade, the rate of kidney disease will double. Currently there are over 60,000 people on the transplant list praying that someday they will receive a kidney and will be able to live a full life, free of dialysis three times a week. It is time to help patients, all across the country, in need of lifesaving transplants of not just the kidney, but also heart, liver, lung and other vital organs.

Currently, we are facing a crisis in this country with regards to transplanting organs. As costs and governmental regulations go up, so does the cost, and so must the funding. As of now we are using a formula that was developed in 1984. It is old and outdated. Since then, there have been countless new regulations that have increased the cost. In response, the marketplace has been shifting this cost on to private entities. Often these entities are nonprofits that lack the funds to help all they should be able to. We need to help these patients with high quality, low cost health care that will assure that even those needing transplants can rest easy that they will receive the care they deserve.

This bill will create the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. This public and private partnership will greatly increase patients' access to transplants. Additionally it will take some of the burden off of the nonprofit entities that are already facing some of the toughest conditions in the sector. This bill will also provide an updated reimbursement formula to these nonprofits to modernize the system.

Finally, this bill will honor an ardent supporter of transplantation, the Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Before her death, she ordered that when she passed away, her organs be donated, to any in need. Her death, while a great loss for myself, her state, and anyone who knew her and loved her, will hopefully serve as an example for her fellow Ohioans and beyond. Congresswoman Tubbs Jones knew, like all of us will, that there is a growing need among the African American community for transplantation. Currently, African Americans make up about 12 percent of the Nation's population and about 12 percent of the patients who donate. However, of all the patients requiring a transplant, 23 percent of them are African American. This disparity is a growing epidemic and must be resolved.

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Tubbs Jones served as a model for how we should live our lives and beyond. I hope that her memory will inspire millions around the Nation to take up the noble cause of saving those who have no other choice. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I stand for a commitment to making public healthcare a priority. I stand for universal healthcare as a universal right. I stand to support H. Res. 1381, ``expressing the sense of the House that there should be an increased Federal commitment prioritizing prevention and public health for all people in the United States.'' I thank my colleague, Representative Roybal-Allard for introducing this important resolution.

I would be remiss if I did not also thank my dear colleague from Michigan, Chairman of Judiciary, and Congressman John Conyers, for his tireless work on prioritizing healthcare in this Congress. His bimonthly meetings to bring together the healthcare community, congressional Members and staff, and other stakeholders; speaks to his commitment to making universal healthcare a priority.

Sadly, the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. Some of the other disturbing healthcare statistics are that:

Health Insurance Statistics

In 2006, the percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.8 percent, or approximately 47 million uninsured people. Source: US Census Bureau.

Among the 84.2 percent with health insurance in 2006, coverage was provided through an employer 59.7 percent, purchased individually 9.1 percent, and 27.0 percent was Government funded (Medicare, Medicaid, Military). Source: US Census Bureau.

The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005 was cost (more than 50 percent), lost job or a change in employment (24 percent), Medicaid benefits stopped (10 percent), ineligibility for family insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (8 percent). Source: National Center for Health Statistics.

Medicare, a federally funded health insurance program that covers the health care of most individuals 65 years of age and over and disabled persons, accounted for 13.6 percent of health care coverage in 2006. Source: US Census Bureau.

Medicare operates with 3 percent overhead, non-profit insurance 16 percent overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26 percent overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007.

Health Care Expenditures

In 2005, personal health care expenditures were paid by private health insurance 36 percent, federal government 35 percent, state and local governments 11 percent, and out-of-pocket payments 15 percent. Source: National Center for Health Statistics.

The United States spends twice as much on health care per capita ($7,129) than any other country * * * and spending continues to increase. In 2005, the national health care expenditures totaled $2 trillion. Source: National Center for Health Statistics.

75 percent of all health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, many of which can be prevented, including diabetes, obesity, heart disease, lung disease, high blood pressure, and cancer. Source: Health Affairs.

From 2000 to 2006, overall inflation has increased 3.5 percent, wages have increased 3.8 percent, and health care premiums have increased 87 percent. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we make public health a priority for all Americans. Children cannot do well in school when they do not have proper healthcare. Parents are afraid to change jobs because of possible loss or reductions in healthcare coverage. Our elders, our seniors have to choose between groceries and prescriptions.

Healthcare will become a priority when we make it one. This body has the power to create a fundamental change in how our country views and manages its healthcare system. We have the power to make a change in the lives of everyday Americans for the better. For it does not matter how much money you have, how many languages you speak, or how many degrees you have earned--without your health, you have nothing. A healthier America--starts right here, right now. Let's make it a priority Today!

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting American families in their struggle to provide basic needs to their children, to their parents, and for themselves. I encourage my colleagues to remember that they hold the power of the pen and the vote, to make universal healthcare a priority.

Mr. Burgess. Having no other requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I speak today on a very close subject to my heart, House Resolution 6950, a bill to establish the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal for organ donors and the family of organ donors. Congresswoman Tubbs Jones was a rare breed of person who not only talked the talk, but walked the walk.

Tragedy struck Congress a few weeks ago when Congresswoman Tubbs Jones was taken from us. This brought attention to an issue of vital importance to her and the Nation. Organ transplantation is the greatest gift a person can give. While a majority of them happen while both the donor and the recipient are alive, a large number happen after death. Unfortunately these organs, such as the heart, lung, liver, and kidney, among others, are very hard to come by. In the Congresswoman's home State, only 53 percent of the population was a registered organ donor. This is a good start but we must go further.

When a loved one dies, it is never a happy moment; experiences like this always bring sadness and sorrow. When that loved one's death can serve as a beacon of hope for another, it does not lessen the sadness; it allows the family to have a good, if small, memory of the loss of their loved one. When Congresswoman Tubbs Jones passed away, we were all deeply saddened but I think I can speak for more than a few of my fellow Members of Congress when I express the joy and pride I felt when I learned that after years of advocating for organ transplantation, Congresswoman Tubbs Jones left all of her vital organs to those in need.

Organ transplantation needs to increase in this country. With currently over 100,000 people on the transplant list waiting for organs, we can not afford to wait to act any longer. Currently, African Americans make up about 12 percent of the Nation's population and about 12 percent of the patients who donate. However, of all the patients requiring a transplant, 23 percent of them are African American. This disparity is a growing epidemic and must be resolved.

This bill will do three wonderful things and help the cause that the Congresswoman fought for in all her years serving Ohio. One, it will honor the life of an unwavering advocate of transplant. Naming the medal after her will show all those who come later, that this was a woman deep with passion about this important issue. It will shine a light on a life that helped shine a light on others.

Second, this bill will honor those, who like the Congresswoman, have showed their true patriotism to their fellow man or woman and shared with them the greatest gift. These medals are a way that the Federal Government, on behalf of its people, to begin to thank Americans who commit themselves to being organ donors.

Lastly this bill will help raise awareness for minority health issues. It was found that African Americans make up a disproportional number of patients requiring transplants and that they wait, on average, longer to receive an organ. When they do finally receive this opportunity, they are sicker and the success rate is not what it could be. We can, and must, do more.

Mr. Speaker, we can do something to help the millions of men and women around the world waiting for organ transplants. We should also move quickly to honor those who have already given the greatest gift there is. As Albert Einstein once said, ``Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile'' and no one exemplified this better than Stephanie Tubbs Jones. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill to honor her.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude to all the men and women who have served and are currently serving in our Armed Forces. It is there courage and sacrifice that has paved for the rights and freedoms we enjoy.

Since September 2001, more than 1,700,000 members of the Armed Forces have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and nearly 611,000 have been deployed more than once. Many of our men and women in the armed forces have given the ultimate sacrifice to secure the freedoms of others. As of May 3, 2008 over 4,500 died and over 32,000 wounded while deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan).

The members of our Armed Forces and their families deserve all the medical, financial, education, and moral support that our Nation can provide. The resolution we considered today provides an opportunity for each of us, regardless of political views, religion, ethnicity, gender, or background to come together, and to recognize and honor our nation's heroes and those that support them and their families.

Though we may be divided by our positions on the war in Iraq, we stand together to support our veterans. Our nation has a proud legacy of appreciation and commitment to the men and women who have worn the uniform in defense of this country. We must be united in seeing that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is welcomed back with all the care and compassion this grateful nation can bestow.

All too many of our veterans are left without the help and support they need to transition from the horrors they bravely face on the front lines of battle to successful civilian life. According to the Veteran's Affairs Department, as of 2006, on any given night, 196,000 veterans of all ages were homeless.

The V.A. also reports 400 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone have already become homeless, and this figure only takes into account those who have sought services from V.A.-sponsored programs. Experts have predicted that the trauma resulting from the extreme horrors of these modern wars could lead to a surge in homeless veterans in the coming years.

Though I have opposed the war in Iraq from its inception, I remain absolutely committed to ensuring that we recognize, celebrate, and honor the service of our sons and daughters in and returning from, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am proud to support S. 1315 by my colleague in the Senate, Senator Akaka. I firmly believe that we should celebrate and support our armed forces and their families, and I remain committed, as a Member of Congress, to both meeting the needs of veterans of previous wars, and to provide a fitting welcome home to those who are now serving. Current serving military personnel and veterans have kept their promise to serve our nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to them.

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5352, the ``Elder Abuse Victims Act of 2008''. This bills addresses health and safety issues for elders. This bill will protect the most vulnerable members of our society: the elderly.

I strongly support this bill and have authored an amendment that was accepted in Committee. I will discuss more about my amendment later. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Each year in the United States, between one-half million to five million elders are abused, neglected or exploited. Experts agree that most cases are never reported. Data collected on the problem is minimal, and there has been no comprehensive national approach to solving the many problems. In fact, the House has held only one hearing on elder abuse, over 16 years ago, in 1991. These problems likely will increase in the next 30 years, as 76 million baby boomers approach retirement.

H.R. 5352 establishes a national Elder Justice Coordinating Council and Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. Its purpose is to protect seniors in the United States from elder abuse by establishing specialized elder abuse prosecution and research programs and providing training for law enforcement and prosecutors.

My amendment, which was included at the Committee, allows a voluntary electronic monitoring pilot program to assist with the elderly when they are reported missing. Specifically, my amendment allows the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to issue grants to states and local government to carry out pilot programs to provide voluntary electronic monitoring services to elderly individuals to assist in the location of such individuals when they are reported missing. This amendment helps elderly people. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1356, Celebrating the 221st anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States of America and honoring the efforts of the 42 delegates who attended the majority of the Constitutional Convention meetings and the 39 signers, introduced by my distinguished colleague Representative Garrett. This legislation acknowledges the significance of the ideals established by the Constitution, including the principle of a limited federal government with a system of checks and balances, and recognizes the Constitution as the source responsible for our nation's ability to withstand calamity and preserve stability.

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That

must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our

liberties.--Abraham Lincoln

Background

The members of the Constitutional Convention signed the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Constitutional Convention convened in response to dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong centralized government. After 4 months of secret debate and many compromises, the proposed Constitution was submitted to the States for approval. Although the vote was close in some States, the Constitution was eventually ratified and the new Federal government came into existence in 1789. The Constitution established the U.S. government as it exists today.

The Constitution represents the founding of our government as we know it today. For 221 years, the United States has fought to maintain a democracy that equally represents everyone that resides within the boundaries our Nation. Without this sacred document, the rules that govern our Nation would be obsolete. The concrete separation that ensures the stability of our government and thus, our Nation is due to the Constitution Convention that we recognize today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in today in support of the H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008, introduced by Congressman Peterson of Minnesota.

Background on H.R. 6604

This legislation will bring greater transparency to commodity and futures markets. It will improve price discovery and risk mitigation functions working to benefit producers, processors and consumers. This bill toughens position limits on oil and other futures markets as a way to prevent potential price distortions caused by excessive speculative trading. H.R. 6604 extends Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, oversight to previously exempt over-the-counter markets, and it calls for new full-time CFTC staff to improve enforcement, to prevent manipulation, and to prosecute fraud.

Closes the ``London Loophole''--Foreign boards of trade that offer electronic access to U.S. traders for energy or agricultural commodities settled by physical delivery in the U.S. are not currently subjected by statute to the same speculative position limits traders are subject to on domestic exchanges.

H.R. 6604 requires foreign boards of trade to adopt speculative position limits on these contracts similar to exchanges under U.S. regulation and to share large trader reporting data with the CFTC.

Foreign boards of trade must have the authority to require traders to limit, reduce, or liquidate a position in order to prevent excessive speculation or price distortion.

Increases Transparency in Dark Markets--H.R. 6604 requires the CFTC to get a complete picture of the swaps markets by defining and classifying index traders and swap dealers, and subjecting them to strict reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Position reporting will become mandatory for over-the-counter trading in agricultural and energy contracts, similar to on-exchange contracts.

The commission will also disaggregate and publicly provide data to examine the true extent of index and other passive fund participation in futures markets for energy and agricultural products.

Speculative Position Limits--Currently, speculative position limits are set by regulated exchanges for energy contracts and the CFTC for some agricultural futures contracts. H.R. 6604 requires the CFTC to set position limits for all energy and agricultural futures markets. This bill will limit traders' ability to amass huge positions that would otherwise allow them to distort the market.

Restrict Hedge Exemptions to Bona Fide Hedgers--H.R. 6604 will reform the process for granting hedge exemptions from position limits. Exemptions would be available only for bona fide market participants who actually engage in the commercial use, production, or distribution of the physical commodity. While position limits are currently granted to bona-fide hedgers, who are using the futures markets to offset their price risk, the CFTC has also granted hedge exemptions to swaps dealers who are not taking delivery of the physical commodity. This loophole has allowed institutional investors to take, through a series of trades, larger positions, than they would be able to take if they traded on the exchanges directly.

Strengthens CFTC Enforcement Resources--The CFTC was created in 1974 as the chief regulator of futures and options markets. It does this with a full-time enforcement staff that monitors large trader positions, prevents scams, and prosecutes and prevents market manipulation. Trading volume has increased 8,000 percent since the CFTC was created, but the agency is operating at its lowest staffing levels since 1974. H.R. 6604 calls for a minimum of 100 full-time CFTC employees to enforce manipulation and fraud in the commodities markets.

Conclusion

Mr. Speaker I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 6604. I fully support Representative Peterson and the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. R. 6855, a bill to extend the authority for the United States Supreme Court Police to protect Court officials off the Supreme Court grounds. This important bill is sponsored by my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith. In order to get unbiased, thoughtful rulings on important cases, it is necessary the officials who preside over these cases can walk the streets unburdened with the fear that their interpretations and decisions will lead to them facing harm on their way home. It is time to protect our court officials so they can carry out their important work.

This bill will protect the Members of the Court. Currently, Justices do not receive any protection when they are off the Court grounds. Unlike cabinet secretaries and governors who receive protection from the Marshall Service, Justices are forced to remain unprotected. They are open up to being attacked and injured or worse. We must protect them as they are just as important to our democracy as our President and Members of Congress.

Four years ago, Supreme Court Justice David Souter, while jogging near his home in Southwest Washington DC, was assaulted by two young men. He was taken to the hospital with minor injuries and thankfully was released a few hours later. While this attack was deemed by the police as only a random assault, and that robbery was not the motive, this should serve as a wake up call for us all. The Supreme Court, like the Office of the President, is more important than the person serving in the position. Protecting these people, is not just about protecting the person, it is about protecting the sanctity of the Court and the decisions they render. This legislation will assure the choices that the Justices make comes from a place of righteousness and not intimidation.

The noted philosopher and English Parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, said, ``Good order is the foundation of all things.'' Members of the Court have an important responsibility to maintain order in government. They were chosen to provide clarity when questions arose on the rights that were promised to us by the Founding Fathers.

This bill does something fundamental for the American way of life, it protects it. The legacy of all those who came before us depends on making sure that those who come after can do the job duty requires. Nothing is more fundamentally American than protecting those who protect our rights. It is in this function, that we know when it is our turn to serve; we can do so without undue fear.

Without the venerable work of the members of the Court and the myriad of landmark cases that they decided, the country would have a markedly different look, far from what we see today.

Police officers could walk around searching anyone they choose; personal privacy would be a dream and not a reality. Miranda v Arizona would have never given us the right to remain silent, or the right to talk to a lawyer.

But for the case of Brown v. the Board of Education, many Americans would not be able to take part in integrated schools and would face lower quality of education.

But for the Court, many African American voters would not be able to take part in a historic vote this November.

To be sure, our Nation would look very different if it was not for the Court. Since its creation in the Constitution, they have been a vital partner in the fight for civil rights, women's rights and the rights of all people across the country.

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for introducing this resolution. I rise today to show support for House Resolution 1425, honoring the life and music of the late Isaac Hayes.

Mr. Hayes's absence will be felt by millions around the world. A prolific hall of fame songwriter, a fighter for civil rights and an entertainer to millions throughout his life, I ask that Congress now honor his life and his achievements.

Isaac Hayes's life should serve as an example to us all. Being orphaned shortly after his birth, Mr. Hayes started a lifelong trend of overcoming adversity. His grandfather, who was taking care of him, died when Isaac was only 11 years old. Wanting to contribute to his family, he took odd jobs around town to help his grandmother out.

His love of music started when he was only 5 years old. Turned on to music by singing at his church, he taught himself to play multiple instruments. Soon, he was singing backup to bands and it wasn't long before he would be out on his own singing and producing other young aspiring artists.

His civil rights credentials weren't too shabby either. In 1972, he helped stage a concert in Los Angeles that focused on social and economic issues. Never forgetting his roots, this concert also brought attention to his hometown Memphis sound.

Isaac Hayes was the best among us. His strength and character are a beacon of light for us all. This legislation will honor the life of one of the great ones of our time.

Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I think it is imperative that we understand that the security and safety of our Nation's capitol should be of vital importance to all Americans, not simply the residents of the District of Columbia.

My dear colleague and District of Columbia Representative, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton along with Congressman Henry Waxman of California, drafted comprehensive and sensible firearm legislation which the Childers/Souder amendment not only eviscerates but allows residents and federal officials to places in immense danger.

Childers/Souder Amendment

The Childers/Souder Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute completely destroys the sensible Norton/Waxman Home Rule bill.

The dangerous consequences include:

No gun registration to let the police know who has guns and to trace guns used in crimes.

No regulation of guns, only a bare federal statute resulting in one of the most permissive gun laws in the Nation--post 9/11.

No age limit for possession of guns, including military-style weapons.

Permits a person who is voluntarily committed to a mental institution to own a gun the day after he gets out.

Federal law forbids a person to cross State lines to purchase a gun and bring it back, but this makes an exception uniquely for District residents to cross State lines to purchase guns and bring them back from Maryland and Virginia.

Requires a ``gun show loophole,'' which avoids background checks in the nation's capital, i.e., District of Columbia residents can purchase weapons from private individuals and at gun shows without background checks.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia (the District) is a local self-governing jurisdiction and the seat of the United States Government, with unique Federal responsibilities. It is here that the President, the Vice President, and many cabinet and other Federal officials reside.

Unregulated firearms in the capital would preclude the ability of the District Metropolitan Police Department to track guns through registration and otherwise help ensure that guns do not endanger Federal officials and employees, visiting dignitaries, and other individuals.

Revision of District of Columbia Firearms Laws and District of Columbia

v. Heller

The revised firearm legislation requires the District within 6 months after enactment, to revise its laws governing the possession and use of firearms as necessary to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. It also amends the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 by adding a new section requiring the Mayor and the Council of the District to ensure that the District's firearms laws are consistent with Heller.

In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, irrespective of service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

The decision in Heller affirmed the holding in Parker v. District of Columbia, wherein the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared three provisions of the District's Firearms Control Regulation Act to be unconstitutional: D.C. Code Sec. 7-2502.02, which generally barred the registration of handguns; Sec. 22-4504, which prohibited carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as that provision would prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his or her home; and Sec. 7-2507.02, which required that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Addressing the holding in Parker, the Supreme Court noted that the District's approach ``totally bans handgun possession in the home.'' The Court then declared that the inherent right of self-defense is central to the Second Amendment right, and that the District's handgun ban amounted to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that has been overwhelmingly utilized by American society for that purpose.

The Court also struck down as unconstitutional the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, as such a requirement ``makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.''

Firearms and Youth

Right here in America according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health approximately 2,500 black youth (aged 15-24) die annually from gun homicide, 950 Hispanic youths and 600 white youth. For gun suicides, it's about 1,600 white youths annually, 300 black youths and 200 Hispanic youths.

Between 20 percent and 50 percent of children in the United States are touched by violence, either as victims or, even more commonly, as witnesses. And sadly for every child killed by a gun, four are injured according to the national estimates of nonfatal firearm-related injuries by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Texas

In the U.S., the leading cause of death for African-Americans ages 15-24 and 25-34 is homicide, with the overwhelming majority (90 percent and 87 percent, respectively) committed with firearms. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for African-Americans ages 10-14, with firearm-related deaths accounting for 70 percent of these deaths.

Every day in Texas someone dies or is severely injured as a result of gun violence. Texans die from suicide, accidents, and crime. In 2004, 2,342 people died from firearm-related injuries in Texas. We hear about these deaths every day: depressed teenagers and spouses taking their own lives, children finding a loaded gun at a friend's house, gun related crime, etc. We hear about it so often; we have become numb to it and feel nothing can be done.

Firearms

While we speak of dignitaries, members of Congress, and the executive--the fact is that it is our children that are most at risk. We cannot allow a vague interpretation of the Second Amendment to put our children at risk and move guns on our streets.

It is our young African-American and Hispanic men who are frequently caught up in this system. Among youth ages 15-24, firearms rank as the leading cause of death for African-Americans and the second leading cause of death for whites and Hispanic youth. With over 5,049 federally licensed firearms dealers and pawnbrokers in Texas alone, how many more guns on our streets do we need?

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman I urge my colleagues to think about the safe of our children. Is there not already enough violence? For all the firearms in Afghanistan and Iraq is it helping them? Do more guns on our streets make them safer? I think we all know the answer is a resounding ``no.'' I am not asking that we remove all firearms from the hands of every responsible and

law-abiding American, but I ask that we support sensible and comprehensive firearm legislation such as the Norton/Waxman approach.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3406, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' I wholeheartedly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The changes embodied by this Act, that restore the with Disabilities Act of 1990 (``ADA'') to its original purpose, are long overdue.

S. 3406, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007,'' amends the definition of ``disability'' in the ADA in response to the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of the definition, which has made it extremely difficult for individuals with serious health conditions--epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and severe intellectual impairments--to prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA. The Supreme Court has narrowed the definition in two ways: (1) by ruling that mitigating measures that help control an impairment like medicine, hearing aids, or any other treatment must be considered in determining whether an impairment is disabling enough to qualify as a disability; and (2) by ruling that the elements of the definition must be interpreted ``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court's treatment of the ADA is at odds with judicial treatment of other civil rights statutes, which usually are interpreted broadly to achieve their remedial purposes. It is also inconsistent with Congress's intent.

The Committee will consider a substitute that represents the consensus view of disability rights groups and the business community. That substitute restores Congressional intent by, among other things:

Disallowing consideration of mitigating measures other than corrective lenses (ordinary eyeglasses or contacts) when determining whether an impairment is sufficiently limiting to qualify as a disability;

Maintaining the requirement that an individual qualifying as disabled under the first of the three-prong definition of ``disability'' show that an impairment ``substantially limits'' a major life activity but defining ``substantially limits'' as a less burdensome ``materially restricts'';

Clarifying that anyone who is discriminated against because of an impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any major life activities, has been ``regarded as'' disabled and is entitled to the ADA's protection.

Background on Legislation

Eighteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush, with overwhelming bipartisan support from the Congress, signed into law the ADA. The Act was intended to provide a ``clear and comprehensive mandate,'' with ``strong, consistent, enforceable standards,'' for eliminating disability-based discrimination. Through this broad mandate, Congress sought to protect anyone who is treated less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived disability. Congress did not intend for the courts to seize on the definition of disability as a means of excluding individuals with serious health conditions from protection, yet this is exactly what has happened. A legislative action is now needed to restore congressional intent and ensure broad protection against disability-based discrimination.

Court Rulings Have Narrowed ADA Protection, Resulting in the Exclusion

of Individuals that Congress Clearly Intended to Protect.

Through a series of decisions interpreting the ADA's definition of ``disability,'' however, the Supreme Court has narrowed the ADA in ways never intended by Congress. First, in three cases decided on the same day, the Supreme Court ruled that the determination of ``disability'' under the first prong of the definition--i.e., whether an individual has a substantially limiting impairment--should be made after considering whether mitigating measures had reduced the impact of the impairment. In all three cases, the undisputed reason for the adverse action was the employee's medical condition, yet all three employers argued--and the Supreme Court agreed--that the plaintiffs were not protected by the ADA because their impairments, when considered in a mitigated state, were not limiting enough to qualify as disabilities under the ADA.

Three years later, the Supreme Court revisited the definition of ``disability'' in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that

her employer discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities, which included carpal tunnel syndrome, myotendonitis, and thoracic outlet compression. While her employer previously had adjusted her job duties, making it possible for her to perform well despite these conditions, Williams was not able to resume certain job duties when requested by Toyota and ultimately lost her job. She challenged the termination, also alleging that Toyota's refusal to continue accommodating her violated the ADA. Looking to the definition of ``disability,'' the Court noted that an individual ``must initially prove that he or she has a physical or mental impairment,'' and then demonstrate that the impairment ``substantially limits'' a ``major life activity.'' Identifying the critical questions to be whether a limitation is ``substantial'' and whether a life activity is ``major,'' the court stated that ``these terms need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court then concluded that ``substantial'' requires a showing that an individual has an impairment ``that prevents or severely restricts the individual, and `major' life activities requires a showing that the individual is restricted from performing tasks that are `of central importance to most people's daily lives.' ''

In the wake of these rulings, disabilities that had been covered under the Rehabilitation Act and that Congress intended to include under the ADA--serious health conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis--have been excluded. Either, the courts say, the person is not impaired enough to substantially limit a major life activity, or the impairment substantially limits something--like liver function--that the courts do not consider a major life activity. Courts even deny protection when the employer admits that it took adverse action based on the individual's impairment, allowing employers to take the position that an employee is too disabled to do a job but not disabled enough to be protected by the law.

On October 4, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a legislative hearing on S. 3406, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' Witnesses at the hearing included Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD); Cheryl Sensenbrenner, Chair, American Association of People with Disabilities; Stephen C. Orr, pharmacist and plaintiff in Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Michael C. Collins, Executive Director, National Council on Disability; Lawrence Z. Lorber, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Chai R. Feldblum, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center.

The hearing provided an opportunity for the Constitution Subcommittee to examine how the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the definition of ``disability'' have affected ADA protection for individuals with disabilities and to consider the need for legislative action. Representative Hoyer, one of the lead sponsors of the original act and, along with Representative Sensenbrenner, lead House co-sponsor of the ADA Restoration Act, explained the need to respond to court decisions ``that have sharply restricted the class of people who can invoke protection under the law and [reinstate] the original congressional intent when the ADA passed.'' Explaining Congress's choice to adopt the definition of ``disability'' from the Rehabilitation Act because it had been interpreted generously by the courts, Representative Hoyer testified that Congress had never anticipated or intended that the courts would interpret that definition so narrowly:

[W]e could not have fathomed that people with diabetes,

epilepsy, heart conditions, cancer, mental illnesses and

other disabilities would have their ADA claims denied because

they would be considered too functional to meet the

definition of disabled. Nor could we have fathomed a

situation where the individual may be considered too disabled

by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the

courts to be protected by the ADA from discrimination. What a

contradictory position that would have been for Congress to

take.

Representative Hoyer, joined by all of the witnesses except Mr. Lorber, urged Congress to respond by passing H.R. 3195, the House companion, to amend the definition of ``disability.'' Mr. Lorber, appearing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed H.R. 3195 as an overly broad response to court decisions that accurately reflected statutory language and congressional intent.

Since the subcommittee's hearing, several changes have been made to the bill, which are reflected in the substitute that will likely be considered by the committee. The substitute, described section-by- section below, represents the consensus of the disability rights and business groups and is supported by, among others, the Chamber of Commerce.

Importantly, Section 4 of the bill amends the definition of ``disability'' and provides standards for applying the amended definition. While retaining the requirement that a disability ``substantially limits'' a ``major'' life activity under prongs 1 and 2 of the definition of disability, section 4 redefines ``substantially limits'' as ``materially restricts'' to indicate a less stringent standard. Thus, while the limitation imposed by an impairment must be important, it need not rise to the level of preventing or severely restricting the performance of major life activities in order to qualify as a disability. Section 4 provides an illustrative list of life activities that should be considered ``major,'' and clarifies that an individual has been ``regarded as'' disabled and is entitled to protection under the ADA if discriminated against because of an impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any major life activities. Section 4 requires broad construction of the definition and prohibits consideration of mitigating measures (with the exception of ordinary glasses or contact lenses) in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it also.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6893, The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative McDermott. This important legislation encourage a safe and successful adoptions which will strengthen our social system and provide quality foster homes for orphaned children across the United States.

quote

``Investing in children is not a national luxury or a national choice. It's a national necessity. If the foundation of your house is crumbling, you don't say you can't afford to fix it while you're building astronomically expensive fences to protect it from outside enemies. The issue is not are we going to pay--it's are we going to pay now, up front, or are we going to pay a whole lot more later on.'' Marian Wright Edelman

Madam Speaker, I stand here today in support of H.R. 1432, ``Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month by Promoting National Awareness of Adoption and the Children in Foster Care Awaiting Families, Celebrating Children and Families Involved in Adoption, Recognizing Current Programs and Efforts Designed to Promote Adoption, and Encouraging People in the United States to Seek Improved Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being for All Children'' introduced by Congressman Porter.

The fundamental purpose of adoption is to serve the best interests of children. It does so by providing loving, responsible, and legally permanent parents when their biological parents cannot or will not parent them. Serving the best interests of children should be paramount in deciding all issues of adoption policy and practice.

Adoption is healthy, satisfying, and good for children, not an enduring challenge to identity and wholeness. The children may have additional questions and curiosities to sort out, but adoption is not a psychological burden or pathology as some theorists treat it. Adoption is the way one joined one's family, not a defining characteristic or lifelong process. Persons adopted as infants grow up as healthy and productive as people raised in their biological families. To the extent there can be a greater risk of emotional or behavioral problems for children adopted out of foster care at later ages, the correlation is not the result of being adopted, but rather of difficulties experienced prior to adoption, such as neglect or abuse. The vast majority of foster children make the transition into their adoptive families and grow up very successfully.

Today, in the United States there are 500,000 children in the foster care system and of those children, there are 129,000 waiting for families to adopt them. The number of youth who ``age out'' of the foster care system by reaching adulthood without being placed in a permanent home has increased by more than 58 percent since 1998, as nearly 27,000 foster youth ``aged out'' of foster care during 2007 which is appalling and unacceptable. In addition, 3 in 10 people in the United States have considered adoption; a majority of them have misconceptions about the process of adopting children from foster care. Many Americans, approximately 45 percent believe that children enter the foster care system because of juvenile delinquency. The reality of the matter is that the vast majority of children in the foster care system were victims of neglect, abandonment, or abuse. Furthermore, almost half of the American population believes that foster care adoption is expensive and are not aware of the fact that there is no substantial cost for adopting children from foster care. Moreover, financial support in the form of an adoption assistance subsidy is available to adoptive families of eligible children adopted from foster care and continues after the adoption is finalized until the child is 18, so that income will not be a barrier to becoming a parent to a foster child who needs to belong to a family.

Passing H.R. 1432 is essential for Congress to demonstrate their support for placing children in safe and positive family environments. The first National Adoption Day was in the year 2000; since then, 20,000 children have joined families during National Adoption Day, and in 2006, adoptions were finalized for over 3,300 children through more than 250 National Adoption Day events in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

We must continue to take stride to reach out and do our best to encourage safe, positive environment for the children of the United States. This resolution will enhance the support for successful adoptions and their support for National Adoption Month in November. When orphaned children are placed in a positive, encouraging, and permanent family environment, they are in a situation where they can grow and experience life in a non-threatening way. Adoption is something that benefits the entire Nation as our children are given places where they can feel secure.

I firmly believe that we must pass this legislation to demonstrate our support for Adoption and National Adoption month. This legislation will enable us to promote healthy and safe adoptions and celebrate the successful adoptions that ensure the well-being of children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1356, Celebrating the 221st anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States of America and honoring the efforts of the 42 delegates who attended the majority of the Constitutional Convention meetings and the 39 signers, introduced by my distinguished colleague Representative Garrett. This legislation acknowledges the significance of the ideals established by the Constitution, including the principle of a limited Federal Government with a system of checks and balances, and recognizes the Constitution as the source responsible for our Nation's ability to withstand calamity and preserve stability.