Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act. This legislation, introduced by Representative John Sarbanes, would provide sorely needed assistance to States, elementary and secondary schools and others to help teach our children about the environment and instill within them an appreciation and sense of stewardship for our planet.

The case for extending and enhancing environmental education is quite clear. Several recent studies indicate that students perform better in science, reading, math and social studies, when environmental education is integrated into the core curricula. Indeed, Hollywood Elementary School, located in Maryland's 5th Congressional District, was part of an intensive study by the State Education and Environment Roundtable published in 1998 that documented how 40 schools in 12 States achieved remarkable results by implementing an environmental education program. The study also found that environmental education increased students' enthusiasm for learning and enhanced their creative thinking skills.

Getting kids outdoors to exercise, play and experience their natural world is also an important tool to prevent childhood obesity, reduce attention deficit disorder, and address other related health problems. Research shows that kids today are spending more than 6 hours a day inside plugged in to electronics--but only minutes a day outdoors. That could have serious consequences for our children's physical and mental development.

Just as important, environmental education prepares children to be responsible stewards and citizens. We face enormous environmental challenges including global warming and pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. To take on those challenges, the next generation needs a solid understanding of environmental Science.

But even though environmental education is desperately needed, for all of those reasons, our Nation has seen it go into decline. In recent years, the overall level of federal support for environmental education in both policy and funding has unfortunately been woefully inadequate.

The No Child Left Inside Act seeks to remedy this situation by providing new support and funding for environmental education in the Nation's public schools in three areas: teacher training, enhanced programs, and the development and implementation of State environmental literacy plans.

Specifically, this legislation reauthorizes the National Environmental Education Act of 1990 and authorizes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Education and Training Program. It also creates a new National Capacity Environmental Education Grant Program to be administered by the Department of Education, awarding matched grant funds to local and State educational agencies, colleges and universities, and nonprofit groups to develop curricula, disseminate information about model programs, and increase the number of environmental educators.

Our looming environmental problems demand a strong generation of scientists, researchers, public servants, and citizens. By passing this bill, we can help to build that generation and improve our children's health and quality of life at the same time.

I commend Representative Sarbanes for introducing this measure and I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for the No Child Left Inside Act.

I thank the whip for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of business tomorrow. We will also consider H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008; the fiscal year 2009 Department of Defense Authorization Act; and a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2009.

In addition, we will consider any bills we get back from the Senate, including an energy tax extender bill, the alternative minimum tax bill, and the mental health parity bill.

We're hopeful. As you know, the Senate has passed it but has not, as I understand it, agreed to go to conference. So we may have to just have an informal conference, as I call them, or others call it ping-ponging. In other words, I think Mr. Skelton and Mr. Levin and the ranking members are working to see whether they can agree on a form of the bill that would then pass from here again to them, and they would then pass it finally. It's effectively a conference, but the Senate has not gone to conference. So we can't very well have a conference report if the Senate doesn't go to conference. But both Mr. Skelton and Mr. Levin and I believe the ranking members as well want to get the reauthorization bill done.

I know you have time constraints that would dictate against that.

Will the gentleman yield?

I share his angst about not getting this bill done. As you know, I gave Mr. Skelton on May 18 of this year to do that bill. The committee brought the bill out on May 18. We passed the bill. It's been in the Senate ever since, and I think we both share a concern that that hasn't been done, but of course, as you know, the Senate just passed it a few days ago, yesterday as a matter of fact.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I expect it to be a continuing resolution as opposed to an omnibus, an omnibus, of course, being the cumulative bills put into a very large bill. I don't expect that to be the case. I expect it to be a CR, but I do expect to have additional items on that continuing resolution. The extent of that has not yet been determined. There's a lot of discussion, as I'm sure you're well aware

of discussion on your side as well, about things that people would like to have on the bill.

In addition, there are discussions between the White House and the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey and Mr. Nussle, the OMB director. I have had discussions with the White House about items, some are called anomalies, that is, things that otherwise would have been done if we had done the regular bills, that the White House believes need to be done. There are a number of things that are being discussed of that kind.

In addition, we're going to have discussions about anything that we may need to do in the short term with reference to the extraordinary calamity that has confronted our economy. Whether anything addressing that will be in the CR or not is unclear at this point in time, but that's a possibility.

So I tell the gentleman, it will not be an omnibus in the sense that you and I understand an omnibus and the body understands an omnibus. For the most part, we will probably be looking at spending being at last year's levels for most of the items that we're talking about.

It is possible, but I think given the time frame that there is some concern about the time it will take to consider more lengthy pieces of legislation would impede getting the CR done. So that there may not be full bills, as I indicated. Obviously we do want to ensure funding of the government. We want to continue further operations of the government, both on the national defense side and the national security side, homeland security side, as well as all other departments of government.

At this point in time, I really can't answer that question, but I can tell you that my belief is at this point in time that we would be largely dealing with bills at last year's level.

I think mid-November is obviously an option. There have been discussions, as you know, on timing with the White House. I don't know whether you know, but I've had discussions with the White House on timing. I think they're relatively flexible on timing. Nobody has said this time or that time. There is obviously a wide variety of dates being discussed, mid-November being one. The Speaker and I, and I think Senator Reid has also expressed himself on this issue, but the Speaker and I are hoping that we would do a February date or even a March 1 date, so there would be some clarity in where we're going, whoever is elected President.

The date, though, is still obviously not resolved. We will have to discuss that with the White House and see what we can get through the House and the Senate, but November is obviously a possibility.

I will tell the gentleman we will be back here. I hope my office has had these discussions with you. But we're looking at, as we usually do, the week before Thanksgiving, about a week-and-a-half, 10 days after the election, the week of the 17th as the date when we would come back and organize, which would also be a week available for session if it was needed.

I might also add, if I could, further, that we had discussions today and we're all very, very concerned, and you and I are going to be meeting on it later tonight, very concerned with the economic conditions that confront our Nation at this point in time. So we are going to be ready to come back in October, if necessary, depending upon what discussions we have and what, hopefully together, in a bipartisan way, we believe needs to be done to respond to the crisis.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We've had discussions about this. As I said at my press conference on Tuesday, there have been no discussions about including that moratoria in a CR. I want to make it clear; there haven't been discussions about it that we won't or we will. My expectation is, though, we passed a bill, we think it is a good bill, we think it opens up drilling. And there will be some discussions both on the Senate side--we don't know what the Senate side is going to do with it--and with the White House on that issue.

We've had pretty open discussions with the White House on this issue. I know there's been a letter signed by a large number on your side about that issue. The White House is obviously sensitive to that, but I don't think that's going to be a stumbling block.

Those are some of the items that, yes, as I said, could well be added to the CR. We're going to have discussions. I'm going to have discussions with your side--with you, in particular--on this issue.

Again, I think there's nobody who wants to shut down government. And there's nobody, frankly, that doesn't want to make sure--for instance, let me give you an example: Unemployment insurance. We're very concerned about people who are going to be running out of their unemployment insurance. If we're not here, we want to make sure that there is authorization for the dollars--that are available, obviously-- to be spent for extension benefits for people that run out because they can't find employment in the context in which we are now finding ourselves. So yes, that is possible.

That's correct.

That's correct. You would have to authorize the additional 13 weeks.

Yes, sir. We won't be here on that particular date, or week, and therefore, we might have to make accommodations for that.

There are other things, obviously, that we have talked about that we are having concerns about: creating jobs, providing for jobs in our economy. We're doing a lot of investing in, some would say ``bailing out'' companies that had a whole lot of assets, but now we have people who don't have a whole lot of assets, have lost their home and who are facing heating bills that are spiking up very seriously, facing a tough time buying groceries because grocery prices have spiked, and they may be out of a job.

There are a number of issues that we are concerned about. We have been faced with Lehman Brothers and AIG

and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But there are a lot of little people who are having equal problems for them, and we want to make sure that we address them, and I know you do as well.

Redefining, as much as both clarifying what is available, and funding.

As you know, we authorized, in the 2007 bill, $25 billion in guarantees for modernization to comply with more efficient automobiles, which we believe is a very important aspect of becoming energy independent, reducing the demand for petroleum products. And, yes, that may well be there as well. Hopefully we can get agreement with the administration, your side, and our side on what that ought to be.

It's possible. I'm smiling because----

I understand that, and I'm sure you would like that. I'm smiling because every time I walk on the floor I have at least 50 Members who ask me if it's possible that a suspension bill will be on the Suspension Calendar next week. We're working to try to get a workable list that both sides can agree with and we can facilitate the passing of policies that are not controversial, but just need time to get done. And so I say it's certainly possible.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Monday next for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to suspend the rules relating to the following measures be considered as adopted in the form considered by the House on Wednesday, September 17, 2008:

House Resolution 1432; H.R. 6681; H.R. 6229; H.R. 6338; S. 171; H.R. 6772; House Resolution 1356; House Concurrent Resolution 408; H.R. 3986; and Senate Joint 35.

I thank the chairman for his remarks. And I thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership and willingness to work together on a difficult issue.

I certainly want to acknowledge and thank my friend Jim Sensenbrenner, Congressman Sensenbrenner, who has been chairman of the committee, the Judiciary Committee, who has been a leader in this Congress, and his wife, Cheryl. Cheryl, like the young man we just saw speak, Congressman Jim Langevin, has shown great courage, but also has shown that disability is not disabling; that we ought to look at the ability people have, what they can do, not what they can't do. All of us can't do certain things. I urge people to look at what people can do. And that's what this bill was about in 1990. That's what this bill is about today.

And I am very pleased to be here to speak on behalf of this bill. I think this bill may well pass unanimously, and the public might conclude, therefore, that this was not contentious and difficult, it was both--not contentious in terms of enabling those with disabilities to be fully included in our society, but how to do that; how to do that in the context of making sure that the business community could live with this, that the disabilities community could live with this, and that we did, in fact, accomplish the objectives that we intended.

I want to thank as well the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups who came together with the disabilities community with a common objective. Randy Johnson worked on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. And Randy Johnson, at a press conference that was held when the Senate passed this bill just a few days ago, said that he was a staffer here in 1988 and '89 and '90 when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. And he made the observation that--he sat on the floor, he worked with the leadership on the Republican side and the Democratic side, worked particularly with my friend, Steve Bartlett, Congressman Steve Bartlett from Texas, who was intimately involved in fashioning and working out the compromises necessary to overwhelmingly pass the ADA in 1990. And he said it was clear then that the intent of Congress had been misconstrued by the Supreme Court--this is Randy Johnson, Republican staffer, leader now in the Chamber of Commerce of the United States who helped fashion this bill. And this bill really says, yes, we agree with that in a bipartisan way. The Supreme Court misinterpreted what our intent was. And our intent was to be inclusive.

Civil rights bills are intended to be interpreted broadly. Why? Because we want to make sure that every American has the benefits that America has to offer, the opportunities that America has to offer, and to empower them to help America be a better country, to bring their talents and their skills and their motivation to bear in the public and private sectors.

I want to thank as well Nancy Zirkin, Andy Imperato, my--as I call him my lawyer, Chai Feldblum, who has worked so hard on this for now 20-plus years. It's been 18 years since we passed the ADA, but as Mr. Miller knows, it's been 20-plus years--25 years really--that we've been working on getting to this point.

I also want to thank Mike Peterson of H.R. Policy and Jerry Gillespie of the National Association of Manufacturers.

There are so many people that I could spend the next 5 or 10 minutes mentioning just name after name after name who made this happen. I won't do that, not to diminish them in any way, but to say that this is the result of the efforts of many--not of me, but of many; not of Mr. Miller alone or the ranking member alone or Mr. Sensenbrenner, but many dedicated to this cause.

We are here to build on the accomplishments of the landmark Disabilities Act of 1990. We wouldn't be here at all, however, without the hard work, frankly, of a very close friend of mine, former Member of Congress, Tony Coelho. Tony Coelho had a vision. Tony Coelho suffers from epilepsy. There is nobody who knows Tony Coelho that thinks he is not able to do anything, everything, and all things. Tony Coelho empowered all of us to think larger, to understand how to bring about real change for those with disabilities.

Tony Coelho, an epileptic, was asked to leave the seminary because he had epilepsy because the church concluded he really couldn't do the job. It was the church's loss and our gain. He made a tremendous contribution to this institution. But much more importantly, in

the last some 20 years that he has not been a Member of this institution he continued to make an extraordinary contribution, not just to those with disabilities, but to our society, in expanding our consciousness and inclusion.

And I mention his name, but I also want to thank my friend, Steve Bartlett. Steve Bartlett, Congressman, then the Mayor of Dallas, now in the private sector, but engaged in the eighties and nineties and engaged in the passage of this bill today, was extraordinarily helpful to us. In 1990, the original ADA was the product of the vision of so many.

I also want to thank my former staffer, Melissa Schulman, who worked indefatigably as we passed the ADA in 1990.

When the first President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act 18 years ago, America became the world's leader on this central test of human rights. The ADA was a project in keeping with our oldest principles and founding ideals. As President Bush the first, as I call him, put it at the signing ceremony, and I quote, ``Today's legislation,'' he said, ``brings us closer to that day when no Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''

Thanks to the ADA, that day became closer on July 26, 1990. Thanks to the passage of this bill today and the signatures Mr. Miller indicated next week, and the expected signatures of the President, with hopefully the first President Bush present, tens of millions of Americans with disabilities will now enjoy even fuller rights, and the rights that we intended them to enjoy when we passed the ADA--the right to use the same streets, theaters, restrooms or offices, the right to prove themselves in the workplace, to succeed on their talent and drive alone.

We've accomplished much in terms of public accommodations, in terms of reasonable accommodations. I was sitting there with Michele Stockwell, my policy director, as we watched Jim Langevin give his speech. What a wonderful accommodation he has in that chair that stands up. Weren't all of you impressed when he said, ``I rise to support this legislation?'' ``I rise.'' And he does rise. Why? Because he has a reasonable accommodation which, notwithstanding the failure of his legs to work the way he would like them to work, his chair reasonably accommodates and has him rise to speak to this body as a testimony to the consciousness of having been raised to make sure that a person like Jim Langevin--of great ability, of great ability, not disability, but of great ability--can come here, having been shot at the age of 16 inadvertently, by accident, disabled, graduated from high school, graduated from college, elected to the Rhode Island House, elected to Secretary of State of his State, and now a Member of this body. What a testimony to making sure that we made sure Jim Langevin could get through the door; we made sure Jim Langevin could get the kind of education he wanted and have access to that education. What a testimony to what this Congress has done, but more importantly, what so many courageous people with a disability have shown us all, that a disability is not disabling. It may rob us of a single or maybe even multiple ways that some people do things, but not of all things.

Sadly, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, we have yet to live up to our promise fully. That's what we're trying to do today. We've made progress on access, we've made progress on listening devices, a lot of progress. One of the places we haven't made the progress we wanted to was employment. So many people want to work, want to be self-sufficient, want to be enterprising, want to have the self- respect of earning their own way, but have been shut out. And the Supreme Court didn't help us. That's what this bill is about.

Over the last 18 years, the Court has chipped away at that promise and at Congress' clear original intent. We said we wanted broad coverage for people with disabilities and people regarded as disabled. Important phrase, ``regarded as disabled.'' What the Supreme Court really said, well, if you can make sure that your disability does not disable you. Tony Coelho takes medicine for his epilepsy, and so he functions. And if you saw him, you would say he's functioning fine. But if I said, but I won't hire you, Tony, because you have epilepsy, the Court said that was okay. Nobody on this floor believed that was the case. If he was discriminated against because he had a disability but could do the job, we said that's wrong. The Court did not agree with us, and we're now changing that and making sure that our intent will be lived out.

We never expected that the people with disabilities who work to mitigate their conditions would have their efforts held against them, but the courts did exactly that. Those narrow rulings, which will be changed by this legislation, have closed the door of opportunity for millions of Americans. We're here today to bring those millions of our fellow citizens back to where they belong--where we want them, where we need them, under the protection of the ADA.

By voting for final passage of the ADA Amendment Act, we ensure that the definition of disability will henceforth be construed broadly and fairly. We make it clear that those who manage to mitigate their disabilities can still be subject to discrimination; we know that intuitively and practically. This legislation says we know it legislatively. And we recognize that those regarded as having a disability are equally at risk and deserve to be equally protected.

This bill, which was approved by the Senate last week unanimously, has come so close to a signature thanks to the tireless work of the members of the disability community, leaders from both parties and business groups, a coalition as broad and deep as the one that created the original ADA.

I want to recognize the cosponsor of this bill, as I said earlier, Jim Sensenbrenner, tireless in his advocacy, and his wife, Cheryl. I want to thank my good friend Tony Coelho. As I said at a press conference last week, I have served in the Congress for 28 years. There will be a time when I will retire. And I will look back on my career. And one of the proudest achievements I will have is the work that I have done at Tony's insistence and request on behalf of the Americans with Disabilities Act and those who are challenged by being shut out of our society.

Finally, it is my honor to dedicate this bill to a pioneering disability advocate and an inspiration behind the ADA. He is listening to us. He died some years ago. His name was Justin Dart. Justin Dart, like Jim Langevin, was in a wheelchair. It didn't disable him. Indeed, it empowered him. It empowered him to educate all of us. It empowered him to educate those with disabilities as to what they could do and accomplish by their efforts to join together, to educate us and to educate the country. His bride, Yoshiko Dart, carries on that torch.

When Justin Dart spoke last that I heard him at the White House, he said I may not be with you for a long time. But I want you to keep on keeping on. Justin, that is what we do today.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Sensenbrenner and I submit the following regarding S. 3406:

For over a decade, courts have narrowed the scope of the

ADA and have thereby excluded many individuals whom Congress

intended to cover under the law. The unfortunate impact of

too narrow an interpretation has been to erode the promise of

the ADA.

With the passage of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) today,

we ensure that the ADA's promise for people with disabilities

will be finally fulfilled. Our expectation is that this law

will afford people with disabilities the freedom to

participate in our community, free from discrimination and

its segregating effects, that we sought to achieve with the

original ADA.

The House of Representatives passed the ADA Amendments Act,

H.R. 3195, on June 25, 2008, by an overwhelming vote of 402-

17. The purpose of this legislation was to restore the intent

of Congress to cover a broad group of individuals with

disabilities under the ADA and to eliminate the problem of

courts focusing too heavily on whether individuals were

covered by the law rather than on whether discrimination

occurred.

That commitment has now been echoed by passage in the

Senate of the ADA Amendments Act, S. 3406, by unanimous

consent. We welcome the opportunity to pass today the version

of the ADA Amendments Act passed by the Senate, here in the

chamber where it began its journey on July 26th, 2007.

We are particularly pleased with the alliance of business

and disability representatives who came together to work with

us on this bill and support its passage throughout both

houses of Congress. Last January, we personally encouraged

these groups to work together to reach an agreement that

would work well for both people with disabilities and for

entities covered under the law. We are pleased that they have

been able to do so throughout this bill's legislative

process.

H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act passed by the House, and

S. 3406, the ADA Amendments Act passed by the Senate, are

identical in most important respects.

Both H.R. 3195 and S. 3406 contain identical language

concerning mitigating measures, episodic conditions, major

life activities including major bodily functions, treatment

of claims under the ``regarded as'' prong, ensuring

regulatory authority over the definition of disability, and

conforming Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to be

consistent with the changes made by the ADAAA.

Hence, the Report of the House Committee on Education and

Labor and the Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary,

as well as our Joint Statement introduced into the

Congressional Record on June 25, 2008, continue to accurately

convey our intent with regard to the bill we are passing

today.

While the intent is the same, as discussed more fully

below, S. 3406 takes a slightly different approach than H.R.

3195. Consequently, we want to make it clear that where the

House Committee Reports and our joint statement used the term

``materially restricts'' to establish points in various

examples, those examples should be read to convey the same

points, and the term ``materially restricts'' should be

understood to refer to the less demanding standard for the

term ``substantially limits'' prescribed by both H.R. 3195

and S. 3406. For example, the statement in the House

Education and Labor Report that ``the Committee expects that

a plaintiff such as Littleton could provide evidence of

material restriction in the major life activities of

thinking, learning, communicating and interacting with

others'' should be understood to mean that the Committee

expects that a plaintiff such as Littleton could provide

evidence of substantial limitation in thinking, communicating

and interacting with others. (See Littleton v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc., 231 Fed. Appx. 874 (11th Cir. 2007)).

The key difference between the two bills is that S. 3406

uses a different means to achieve

the same goal that we achieved with H.R. 3195. As we explain

below, we are comfortable accepting this approach.

In H.R. 3195, we achieved this goal by redefining the term

``substantially limits'' to mean ``materially restricts'' in

order to indicate to the courts that they had incorrectly

interpreted the term ``substantially limits'' in Toyota Motor

Mfg. of Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, and to convey to the

courts our expectation that they would apply a less demanding

standard of severity than had been applied by the Supreme

Court.

Our colleagues in the Senate, however, were uncomfortable

with creating a new term in the statute. Hence, they achieved

the same goal through a different means.

Instead of redefining the term ``substantially limits,'' S.

3406 states that such term ``shall be interpreted

consistently with the findings and purposes'' of the ADA

Amendments Act. This is a textual provision that will legally

guide the agencies and courts in properly interpreting the

term ``substantially limits.'' With regard to the findings

and purposes that the textual provision requires the agencies

and court to use, S. 3406 incorporates all of the findings

and purposes of H.R. 3195, including statements that Congress

intended for the ADA to provide broad coverage and that this

legislation rejects the Supreme Court's decisions in Sutton

and Williams that inappropriately narrowed the scope of

protection of the ADA.

In order to explain how it intended the definition of

``substantially limits'' to be interpreted, the Senate added

findings which highlighted the fact that the Williams

decision placed a too high threshold on the definition of

substantially limits and that the EEOC's interpretative

regulations were similarly drafted or interpreted to create a

burden not contemplated by the Congress. Consistent with

these findings, the Senate added two purposes which directed

the EEOC to amend its regulations to reflect the purposes of

the ADA as amended by the ADAAA and which noted that the

thrust of ADA inquiry should be directed to the compliance

obligations of the covered entities rather than the scope of

the disability experienced by the individual asserting

coverage under the Act.

While we believe that the approach we adopted in H.R. 3195

would have been workable for the courts--i.e., providing a

new definition of ``substantially limits'' in order to convey

to courts our intention that they should apply a lower

standard of severity than they previously had--we accept the

considered judgment of our colleagues in the Senate that

their approach achieves the same end, but in a manner more

suitable to their interests.

S. 3406 also modifies the rule of construction that we had

placed in H.R. 3195. Under the Senate's construction, the

definition of disability ``shall be construed in favor of

broad coverage of individuals under this Act, to the maximum

extent permitted by the terms of this Act.'' We understand

that this provision will have the same meaning as the rule of

construction that we had included in H.R. 3195, but with a

clarification that the courts may not interpret the

definition of disability in a manner inconsistent with the

terms of the ADA. That, of course, is true.

In addition, the changes made by S. 3406 will send an

important signal to the courts. We expect that courts

interpreting the ADA after these amendments are enacted will

not demand such an extensive analysis over whether a person's

physical or mental impairment constitutes a disability. Our

goal throughout this process has been to simplify that

analysis.

With the passage of the ADA Amendments Act today, we

finally fulfill our promise to tear down the barriers of

ignorance and misinterpretation that make up an unpardonable

``wall of exclusion'' against people with disabilities. See

George H. W. Bush, Remarks on Signing the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (July 26, 1990).

We are grateful to the individuals and advocates who have

worked tirelessly to ensure the civil rights and inclusion of

people with disabilities in every aspect of life. This

includes work during various stages of the bill to bring it

to a successful conclusion.

A large group of individuals worked closely with us as we

developed the second ADA Restoration Act that was introduced

on July 26, 2007:

Tony Coelho, Immediate Past Board Chair of the Epilepsy

Foundation and Former U.S. Representative; Cheryl

Sensenbrenner, Board Chair of the American Association of

People with Disabilities (AAPD); Andy Imparato, AAPD; Sandy

Finucane, Epilepsy Foundation and her lawyers at the

Georgetown Federal Legislation and Administrative Clinic:

Heather Sawyer, Kevin Barry and Chai Feldblum; Jennifer

Mathis, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Abby Bownas and

Shereen Arent, American Diabetes Association (ADA); Curt

Decker and Ken Shiotani, National Disability Rights Network

(NDRN); Arlene Mayerson and Marilyn Golden, Disability Rights

Education and Defense Fund (DREDF); Claudia Center, Legal Aid

Society of CA; Janna Starr, Paul Marchand and Erika Hagensen

of The Arc/UCP Public Policy Collaboration; Denise Rozell,

Easter Seals; Lee Page, Paralyzed Veterans Association; Bobby

Silverstein, Center for the Study and Advancement of

Disability Policy, and John Lancaster, National Council on

Independent Living (NCIL).

In January 2008, we urged representatives from both

communities to sit down with each other and to understand

each other's needs and concerns. We appreciate the leadership

role displayed in these conversations by the following

individuals on behalf of the disability community: Sandy

Finucane, Epilepsy Foundation; Professor Chai Feldblum,

Georgetown Law; Andy Imparato, AAPD; Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon

Center for Mental Health Law; Curt Decker, NDRN; John

Lancaster, NCIL.

We appreciate the leadership role displayed in these

conversations by the following individuals on behalf of the

business community: Randy Johnson and Michael Eastman, U.S.

Chamber of Commerce; Mike Peterson, HR Policy Association;

Jeri Gillespie, National Association of Manufacturers; Mike

Aitken and Mike Layman, Society for Human Resource

Management.

We appreciate the intensive work done by the core legal

team in these discussions, led by Professor Chai Feldblum and

Jennifer Mathis for the disability negotiators, ably assisted

by Kevin Barry, Jim Flug, John Muller and Emily Benfer, and

led by Mike Eastman, Lawrence Lorber, Proskauer Rose, LLP,

and Mike Peterson. We know that this group greatly

appreciated the wise counsel of lawyers from each of their

respective communities as they went through this process,

including Camille A. Olson, Seyfarth Shaw; HR Policy

Association's Employment Rights Committee, chaired by Susan

Lueger of Northwestern Mutual; Kevin McGuiness; and David

Fram, who provided wise counsel for the business community

and Professor Sam Bagenstos; Brian East, Advocacy, Inc.;

Claudia Center, Legal Aid of CA; Shereen Arent, ADA, Arlene

Mayerson, DREDF and JoAnne Simon, who provided wise counsel

for the disability community.

We benefited greatly from the fact that former colleagues

in both Congress and the Administration lent their support to

this effort, including former U.S. Representative Steve

Bartlett, former U.S. Representative Tony Coelho, former

Senator Robert Dole, and former Attorney General Richard

Thornburgh.

We appreciate the personal leadership role taken by Nancy

Zirkin and Lisa Bornstein of the Leadership Conference in

Civil Rights in making this a priority for the civil rights

community.

Finally, at the risk of leaving out some individuals, we

want to recognize some of the additional countless

individuals who helped with educating Members of Congress,

doing important coalition and media work, and providing legal

input on the bill as it progressed through Congress, from its

first stages through the final vote today: Anne Sommers,

AAPD; Angela Ostrom, Donna Meltzer, Hans Friedhoff, Ken

Lowenberg, Kimberli Meadows, and Lisa Boylan, Epilepsy

Foundation; Day Al Mohamed, American Psychological

Association; Deb Cotter, NCIL; Joan Magagna and Ron Hager,

NDRN; Mistique Cano, Maggie Kao and Robyn Kurland, Leadership

Conference for Civil Rights; Peggy Hathaway and Jim Wiseman,

United Spinal Association; Annie Acosta, The Arc/UCP

Disability Policy Collaboration; Lewis Bossing, Bazelon

Center for Mental Health Law; John Kemp, U.S. International

Council on Disabilities; Bebe Anderson, Lambda Legal Defense

Fund; Robert Burgdorf, UDC law professor; Rosaline Crawford,

National Association of the Deaf (NAD); Mark Richert,

American Foundation for the Blind; Eric Bridges, American

Council for the Blind; Jessica Butler, Council of Parent

Attorneys and Advocates; Michael Collins, Julie Carroll and

Jeff Rosen, NCD; Steve Bennett, UCP, Lise Hamlin, Hard of

Hearing Association of America; Laura Kaloi, National Center

for Learning Disabilities; Donna Lenhoff and Gary Phelan,

National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA); Darrin Brown

and Evelyn Morton, AARP; Dan Kohrman, AARP Foundation and

NELA; Katy Beh Neas, Easter Seals; Andrew Sperling, National

Alliance on Mental Illness; Toby Olson, Washington State

Governor's Committee on Disability Issues and Employment;

Myrna Mandlawitz, Learning Disabilities Association; Ari

Ne'eman, Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Shawn O'Neail,

National Multiple Sclerosis Society; Laura Owens; APSE: The

Network on Employment; Cindy Smith, CHADD; Jim Ward, ADA

Watch/National Council on Disability Rights; Nathan Vafaie,

National Health Council; David Webbert, Johnson & Webbert;

Joanne Lin, Michelle Richardson, and Deborah Vagins, ACLU

Washington Legislative Office; Lynne Landsberg and Kate

Bigam, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Amy Rosen,

United Jewish Communities; Elissa Froman, National Council of

Jewish Women; Jayne Mardock, National Kidney Foundation; Jack

Clark and Mark Freedman, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Tim Bartl,

HR Policy Association; Recardo Gibson, SHRM; Bo Bryant,

McDonald's; Keith Smith, Ryan Modlin and Bob Shepler,

National Association of Manufacturers; Ty Kelley, Food

Marketing Institute; and Jason Straczewski, International

Franchise Association.

Regardless of the work done by advocates, however, it is

ultimately we in Congress who must get the job done. We

applaud the commitment of Congressman George Miller, Chair,

and Congressman Buck McKeon, Ranking Member, Committee on

Education and Labor; Congressman John Conyers, Chair, and

Congressman Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on

Judiciary; Congressman Jerry Nadler, Chair, and Congressman

Trent Franks, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties; Congressman

John Dingell, Chair, and Congressman Joe

Barton, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce;

Congressman James Oberstar, Chair, and Congressman John Mica,

Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure for bringing this bill successfully through

their committees. We applaud our 400 colleagues who voted

with us to pass the ADA Amendments Act this past June and

we applaud the Senate that unanimously passed the ADA

Amendments Act last week.

And, of course, there is no way we could have done all the

work that we did on this bill without the dedicated

assistance of our staff and the staff of the committees. So,

we would particularly like to thank Michele Stockwell, Keith

Abouchar, Michael Lenn, Sharon Lewis, Heather Sawyer, Mark

Zuckerman, Jim Paretti, Ed Gilroy, Brian Kennedy, Paul

Taylor, David Lachmann, Alex, Nock, Thomas Webb, Jody

Calemine, Tico Almeida, Chris Brown, and Ken Serafin.

What really matters, when all is said and done, is the work

done by people with disabilities every day across this great

nation. The passage of the ADA Amendments Act today is

intended to ensure that they receive the simple, basic

opportunity to participate fully in all aspects of society.

We are grateful to have played a role in helping to make that

happen,

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a serious issue, and there are a lot of related issues.

The gentleman who spoke before me, and I have a great deal of respect and affection for him, we treat one another with respect. We put a price-gouging bill on the floor because we were concerned about the spikes in pricing. Indeed, we saw, as Ike was coming and bearing down on Texas, before it ever got to the shoreline, there were $5 per gallon prices, before it ever got to the shoreline, before it ever destroyed anything.

My friend voted against the price-gouging bill.

These are serious pieces of legislation. The Republicans were in charge of the House for 6 years. In 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, they controlled the White House.

I have in my hand the eight pages that the administration, Mr. Bush, has submitted to us, President Bush submitted to us, over the last 8 years. Six of those years they were included in the appropriations bills passed by the Republican Congress and Republican Senate and signed by a Republican President.

In each of those bills, the administration asked to continue the moratoria on drilling, every one of them, passed for 6 years by your Congress. We didn't have the votes to pass anything.

Then we took over the control, because the Congress was fed up, frankly, with a complacent, do-nothing Congress, complicit in moving in the wrong direction, which 82 percent of America thinks we are now on, the wrong direction.

This Congress has mightily tried to change direction, and, in fact, we have in many areas, including a comprehensive energy bill last year that the President signed. Sam Bodman said it was a great bill, the Secretary of Energy. It passed in a bipartisan fashion in both the Senate and the House.

President Bush, in last year, fiscal year 2008, submitted a budget document, he submitted it, which said, the moratoria should continue. This year, the President submitted a bill, for the 2009 fiscal year, which said the moratoria should continue.

So these crocodile tears about how Democrats have taken over and all of a sudden gas prices have spiked, you give us far more credit than we deserve in light of not being able to override the President's veto on almost anything that he didn't want. He signed some things that he didn't want like the minimum wage. He signed some things he said he wasn't going to sign, like the GI Bill. He signed some things that we passed through the House and Senate.

But these crocodile tears are unwarranted by your record, and by the submissions of the budgets, by your President, for 8 years running. Now, a couple of months ago, the moratoria which was put on by George Bush, his father, was lifted. Why? Because our constituents are hurting. Why? Because we are being held up by those who are selling oil. Why? Because the market is being manipulated and speculators are impacting on price.

You think that's not the case, or do you think all of a sudden demand went down by a third, so it went from $146 down to $92 today, within just a few months. Who believes the free market operates in a way that demand spikes for oil that much in a 90-day period? Nobody on this floor who is rational believes that.

Something is rotten in my home of Denmark. And, actually, it's not rotten in Denmark; it's rotten someplace, though. Mr. Abercrombie is going to speak on behalf of this bill, as he met with Mr. Peterson and tried to come together.

Originally this bill, the gang of 20 in the Senate, which apparently you don't like, because they are undermining the drill, drill, drill political advantage that you have sought, the 20 said let's deal with four States. We are saying let's deal with every State. We do say with sensitivity, as the previous speaker said about his State, States are going to have the opportunity to make a determination as to whether they want to proceed.

Now, you could argue that that shouldn't be the case, because, after all, that's Federal. It's not State property, you get that far out.

We have done a lot of work. We have done a lot of work in trying to work across this spectrum. I want to congratulate Mr. Rahall and Mr. Green and others who have worked so hard to try to bring us together.

I will tell my friend, we do deal with oil shale in this bill. In your bill, you repeal a section which had caused a problem. We repealed that as well, so your bill and our bill did the same thing on that. Furthermore, we said three States that have substantial oil shale ought to have the same opportunity that the coastal States have to opt in to develop that.

Whether the technology is available now, I don't know. In part, I believe the arguments used on this floor, which I will say as an aside, I think was a misuse of this floor. But notwithstanding that, arguments that were made day after day after day were not

accurate, and you knew they were not accurate, which is why it made it so difficult to respond to.

None of you ever mentioned the fact that the President of the United States, George Bush, submitted, months ago and 7 years prior to that, and you passed 6 years in a row, on your watch, the moratoria, of which you now wring your hands.

All of us are concerned. All through the summer and into the fall Americans have been filling up their cars at record prices in my district and every district, $60, $80, $100 a tank and looking for Washington to help, to see what we could do about it. We are trying to do something about it.

Now, you passed an energy bill in 2005. Your Speaker, Mr. Hastert, your majority leader or now minority leader, Mr. Boehner, and my good friend, your whip, said to us, and I won't quote them all at length but I will quote your Speaker, Americans need this bill--your energy bill passed in 2005--to lower their energy prices, to drive economic growth and job creation, and to promote greater energy independence. That's what you said your bill was going to do.

You also said, of course, in 2001, that we were going to have the greatest economy we would ever have seen if we passed your economic improvement program. I doubt that any American believes that you accomplished that objective. You passed your bill, the President signed it. Just a short number of months later prices went from $1.46, when you took over, to over $4.20.

If it was a successful energy program, it was a successful energy program in driving up the price of gasoline for all of our consumers. To see what we could do about this we met, we talked to Mr. Abercrombie, we talked to Mr. Peterson to try to bring our caucus together. It was a diverse caucus. A lot of people felt President Bush was right, those 8 years that he submitted those bills and that you passed 6 years you were in charge.

To relieve the strain on their budgets and their families, not 10 years from now but now, today, I am sure you are wondering whether we will throw up our hands on the work of compromise and retreat into finger pointing. I think we can do better than that on both sides.

Both of us want to make sure that we bring prices down, and both sides of the aisle want to see energy independence. We can pass this bill, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. You say it's not perfect. Many Members on our side say it is not perfect, but it is a very significant step and a very significant expansion of where oil could be found.

I would reiterate, there are 68 million acres right now, right now, as I stand here, that could be drilled upon right now without any further legislation, regulation or administrative action.

This legislation, this bold step towards a comprehensive energy policy, is worthy of the 21st century. Lower gas prices today, American oil and natural gas for the years to come, that's what this bill promises and will provide, and serious investment in a new generation of energy technologies for a cleaner, more secure energy future. It's all here, and we are all going on record this evening.

Here is what the energy package is going to accomplish. First, we are going to drill for more oil and gas here at home. That's what Americans have said. Use our resources. Don't rely on the Middle East. Don't rely on Venezuela. Don't rely on Russia. Certainly, don't rely on Iran. Drill here.

We have both said all along, we put a bill on the floor, drill responsibly in presently leased land, that Mr. Rahall led. Most of you, many of you voted against it. For many of my colleagues, I know that drilling is the most contentious part of this compromise, but we have worked hard to find common ground.

Drilling will come with strong, new environmental protections. Americans want that. They want resources, but they want them safely gotten. It will take place well offshore, as opposed to the 3-mile zone that will go up for grabs in 15 days if we vote this bill down and do nothing.

I don't know how many of you are for that. Maybe all of you are for it on that side. I don't think our citizens are for it. In the areas closer to shore, we are letting the States themselves make the final call. To my colleagues on the Republican side who argue that States won't opt in without revenue sharing, I reply this, if the ground swell for drilling is as strong as you have said it is, and I believe it is, surely our State leaders will listen.

Do not ascribe to us the only ones who will respond to the public's desire to find more resources. Certainly our State leaders will respond as well. They will feel comfort that their State has made that determination.

That's not to mention the job creation that will occur in States, what a motivation that is. We are also including diligent development provisions, which, by the way, you included in your 2005 bill. We thought it was a good provision. We called it ``use it or lose it.'' You voted against it because it wasn't your bill. You voted for it when it was development in your bill. When we put it on the floor, you voted against it.

Second, we are going to take immediate action to lower the price of oil by releasing 10 percent of the oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We proposed that; the President said ``no.'' We said don't buy any more. The President said ``no.'' Both of those policies are now being pursued by the administration.

Tax incentives for plug-in hybrid cars, solar and wind power, biofuels and energy efficient homes. Why? Because we can't drill ourselves out of this. We need to drill, we want to drill, we are providing for drilling, but that's not the solution.

It is part of the solution. We all understand, you say, all of the above. We say, yes, let's invest in alternative research, for cutting- edge energy research, support for mass transit and renewable energy.

We need all of those steps if we are going to be energy independent.

Some day soon I think we will look back on these investments as the beginning of the end of our oil addiction. We are going to fund them by recovering the royalties the oil companies owe the American people. Who here believes you need to incentivize a company to produce a product that is getting the highest price it has ever gotten in history. I don't find that premise in my free market concept. The free market operates that if people are buying your product and they are paying you a very good price, by golly, you try to provide more product for them.

Refineries were operating at less than 90 percent, or about 91 percent this summer, the lowest point they have been at refining capacity in a number of years, not because they didn't have supply. They have got supply. There are no shortages, there are no lines. They are just charging a high price.

We are going to fund that research, as I said, by asking the oil companies to pay their fair share. They are making good money and our citizens shouldn't have to pay more to run their government because some oil companies are not paying their fair share. It simply doesn't make economic sense to do billions of dollars of tax cuts to oil companies while our citizens are paying high taxes.

All of that is our energy solution. We have not left a stone unturned or a remedy untried. To my Democratic colleagues, I don't think a single one of us is happy with every single provision in this bill. I know I am not. There would have been some additional things I would have liked in this bill. But I also know that is the price of a good compromise, and making good compromises is our business. To my Republican colleagues, you have told us loud and long, and I want to congratulate Mr. Peterson for the work he has done in bringing this issue to the fore and talking about it, not just this year because I have known him for a long time. We served on the Appropriations Committee, and he has been consistent and constant in his focus on this issue.

Your Presidential candidate is running for office under the motto ``Country First.'' We would all run on that platform.

I am for Mr. Obama, as all of you know. He wants to see change and a new direction. But certainly all of us agree that our country comes first, perhaps not before God, perhaps we would say our family is critical, but certainly country is our consideration.

Democrats and Republicans, we are all being watched today and they can see partisan differences, partisan divide, and sending a partisan bill to the Senate. We can perhaps do that, and maybe we will. Our public will not be pleased. This bill is not perfect. It is not everything you wanted; it is not everything I wanted. But it is a substantial expansion on drilling, a substantial investment on renewables, a substantial investment on conservation. We ought to pass this bill.

I would yield briefly to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, that provision, of course, was added under your leadership to manufacturing. It wasn't in manufacturing, as you probably know, when it was originally adopted because it was not perceived that the oil companies were in manufacturing as the bill contemplated to be.

Then you thought the oil companies weren't doing well enough, and so you wanted to add that provision and you added it under Republican leadership. Very frankly, we thought that was not a wise move at that time, and we don't think it is a wise move now. And very frankly, I don't think the American public thinks that the oil companies will go out of business if we don't give them this tax incentive.

I will yield one more time, and then I will conclude.

Reclaiming my time, they go no place in the world, my friend, where they pay less than they do in the United States to those nationalized countries that allow them to drill. No place in the world do they pay less. If they went to Venezuela, they pay 93 percent. If they went to Norway, they pay 78 percent. Nowhere in the world, my friend, do they pay less than they pay here, and the difference is made up by your taxpayers and my taxpayers.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill. But it is a good-faith effort to move this issue forward, to make us independent, to bring prices down, to invest in the future which renewables are clearly the harbinger of, and to make sure that we take the action our public wants.

I thank Mr. Rahall for his leadership, and I urge every Member of this body on both sides, vote for this piece of legislation. Move us toward energy independence, not just today but tomorrow and tomorrow.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, after consultation with the minority, we have agreed that we will take the debate on the District of Columbia bill tonight. We will conclude debate, but we will roll votes until tomorrow so that we will not have to keep Members here. I've discussed this with, as I say, the minority. I've also discussed it with the Members of our side. Those who will want to participate in the debate, obviously, will remain, but there has been agreement that there will be no further votes tonight.

I thank the gentleman and thank him for his leadership, and I rise in strong support of the bill and strong opposition to the amendment that will be offered.

Ladies and gentlemen, put this bill in context. I am not sure whether there were 435 of us, I don't know the total vote, but let's say 430. 430 of us this night, this night, voted either to give the States the option to opt out of one of the most important issues confronting us, and that is using American resources for our energy needs, or the other half voted to let the States opt in. So hear me. Everybody on this House floor voted to allow the States either to opt in or to opt out. Pick your bill. But the premise was the same, that States had the authority to act themselves.

The amendment to be offered rejects that and imposes, not on Detroit that the gentleman mentioned, there is no legislation on the floor about Detroit, Michigan. There is no legislation on this floor about Indianapolis, Indiana. I don't know what their gun law is. And, very frankly, there is none about Hartford, Connecticut, or Baltimore, Maryland. But the District of Columbia comes here, unfortunately defenseless, from the perspective of some on this floor. Their defense is us.

But let me speak to this. 220 years before this Capitol had been imagined and when this city was a swamp, our Founders were asking a question we still hear echoed in the District to this day: How could they establish a Federal city, cut it out from its home State and put it under the rule of Congress without violating the principles they had just fought a war to secure? That was their question. Government comes from the consent of the governed. That is a principle we hold dear, asterisk, except for the 600,000 people who happen to live in Washington, D.C.

In the 43rd Federalist Paper published in 1788, James Madison answered the question that was posed, that our authority over the District would be legitimate only if some basic guarantees were in place. The Government, and I quote, ``will no doubt provide for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it.''

In other words, James Madison thought we would surely secure the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia. And when we refer to the citizens of the District of Columbia, let us, my friends, be more expansive: Citizens of America who happen to live in the District of Columbia, and, but for Maryland's generosity, would live in Maryland. They are citizens of America who happen to live in the District of Columbia. But should they be disenfranchised because they happen to live in this square that we call the District of Columbia?

He went on to say, and ``a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.'' That is the options to make their policy.

Now, listen to the confidence with which Madison wrote. His words suggested that ``no doubt,'' ``no doubt,'' Madison said, that surely the Congress of the United States and the Founding Fathers who had expressed the rights of our citizens would respect those rights, wherever those citizens might reside. And that ``of course'' they will be citizens, not subjects, unlike apparently those in Indianapolis or in other cities.

I think his confidence would be shaken if he could hear this debate, if he could see what a congressionally imposed gun policy would do to the District's right to govern itself.

We can argue back and forth the gun policy. What we cannot argue back and forth is that the District of Columbia citizens have the right and should have that right to govern themselves. That is the principle that is at stake here.

I will leave the argument over gun rights and gun control to other Members. We have a gun law in Maryland. It works well. I don't get any complaints about it. If I did, I would have to address it. I wouldn't expect you to address it, unless you wanted to pass a Federal statute. This is not a Federal statute. This is a statute for one area.

Whatever conclusion this House comes to, we are really confronted with a much more fundamental question, as I said: Do we impose that decision on those who have had no say in it, or do we pass the Norton bill as introduced, which I am in favor of, and require the people of the District of Columbia to comply with the Supreme Court's decision through local legislation, as all of us have to do? No more, no less.

The people of Maryland need to comply with the Constitution, as do the people of the District of Columbia. But you don't interpose your judgment. In fact, somebody repairs to the courts and the courts decide. The courts decided in this case, and the District of Columbia is moving to comply with the Court's decision.

You may disagree with their compliance, and indeed somebody may take it to court and the court will say, no, District of Columbia, you didn't do it right. That happens to us all. But we should not interpose our own judgment. Madison believed that would not be consistent with our principles.

If Congress imposes a gun policy on the people of D.C., are we meeting any of those conditions? Are we providing for their rights and consent? No. They do not have the right to consent to anything that goes on here.

Do they have a ``voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them''? Well, yes, in a way they do. They elect Ms. Norton. We don't give her a vote. That is wrong. They elect their council. They elect their mayor. But, oh, by the way, if we don't like your policies, we will overturn them. Not because a court has found them to be unconstitutional, but because we interpose our judgment. Madison would have thought that was wrong.

Where is their equal vote in this Congress? Are they allowed a ``municipal legislature for local purposes''? Well, yes, sort of, but subject to our interposing our own judgment for theirs. We are not elected to be local city council persons. Well, the City Council still meets. But on this supremely local and sensitive issue, we are preparing to silence it.

The principle of federalism, which so many of my colleagues profess, say that local problems are best tackled locally. That is why I suggest 435 of us, there weren't 435 that voted, but unanimously voted, either to allow individual States to opt out of an important policy, or to opt in to an important policy. But we gave those States that right. Both sides gave it to them. Every one of us voted for that option, and we turn around and say, oh, but we are not going to give that option to the District of Columbia.

The closer you get to the problem, the more direct knowledge and direct accountability you find. While we in Congress may be close physically, we are still a world away from the gun violence the D.C. Council is struggling to confront, all the while upholding the Court's decision.

They know they have to do that. They know the Court will oversee it. Let the law operate as it was intended to do, and if they do not comply with the Supreme Court decision, the Court will say so.

I ask my colleagues candidly, who is better equipped to make these difficult decisions, Congress or the people of this community? The people of our communities believe that they are best qualified to make their local decisions.

I don't know how you can call yourself a Federalist and answer Congress. A conservative columnist put it well a few years ago. ``You can't favor federalism for only ideas you like.''

Federalism is about allowing local and State governments to make decisions you don't like. So the ultimate issue here is not guns, it is a question of who here is prepared to be consistent in their principles, and of who here is prepared to respect the District's right of self-government, as was referred to by James Madison, which he said, the founders, which I am saying, the founders, took for granted.

I urge my colleagues to support this base bill. Whatever position you have on guns, this is an issue of federalism and principle and local option, local government.

You voted that way for the States on energy. Vote that way for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I rise in memory of a Maryland native who died last month in our country's service: SGT Ryan Baumann of Great Mills. I know how small a difference any words of mine can make for those who loved and lost him; but still, he deserves all the honor we can give.

Ryan Baumann grew up in Great Mills, Maryland, where he excelled in sports and was an award-winning photographer. He met his fiance, Lauren Smith, soon after graduating from high school; tragically, he was killed in action before they could marry.

Sergeant Baumann was a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, a highly decorated soldier. His awards included the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, two awards, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Ribbon. He was also posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.

Sergeant Baumann's death typified his outstanding service. Traveling on Route Alaska in

Khost Province, Afghanistan, Sergeant Baumann spotted an improvised explosive device from his Humvee. As his fiance explained, ``They were going downhill and he saw the land mine and he was telling them to stop, and you can't stop a Humvee going downhill, and he told them to veer to the left, which made him take the brunt of the explosion. He wouldn't have had it any other way.'' Sgt. Baumann died of his injuries; every other serviceman in the Humvee survived.

In the wake of his death, we honor his commitment to our country, his tremendous sacrifice, and his devotion to his comrades-in-arms. As they mourn their great loss, our thoughts are with his family: his father Robert; his mother Cindy; his stepfather Gary Lohman; his sister Christina; and his fiance, Lauren Smith. I pledge to them all the support a grateful nation can give.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to suspend the rules relating to the following measures be considered as adopted in the form considered by the House on Tuesday, September 9, 2008: House Resolution 1207, H.R. 6169, and H.R. 6513.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1420) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the terrorist attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 20 minutes accorded to me be managed by Mr. Ackerman of New York.

I thank the gentleman from New York, and I thank Ms. Ros- Lehtinen, for bringing this to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this resolution not as a Democrat but as an American.

September 11 is seared into my memory just as December 7 was for an earlier generation. Indeed, I know it is seared in the memory of every American.

It was a day of horror and of heroism, and each year it will be a day for us to renew our devotion to the ideals that make our Nation what it is, ideals of liberty, tolerance, equality, and the rule of law.

On this seventh anniversary, this resolution introduced by myself and the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, recognizes September 11 as a day of remembrance and resolve. We mourn nearly 3,000 men, women, and children murdered. We pledge to keep their names alive and their memories fresh, and we pledge ourselves, once again, to those who loved and lost them.

And we recall the heroism of this day, the light of courage that shines brightest in the darkest hours. We remember the service and sacrifice of our first responders, firemen, policemen, medical personnel, average citizens; 343 firefighters, 37 Port Authority officers, 23 police officers. They served us unto death and they died in service.

We remember the heroic passengers of United Flight 93, ordinary Americans who found in themselves unthinkable reserves of heroism and saved the building in which we stand at the cost of their lives.

The Capitol's dome rises on this hill as a symbol of freedom and liberty and democracy. Surely that was the target of those terrorists, and they would have succeeded save for the extraordinary courage of the passengers of that flight.

We send our thoughts far away as well from this Chamber where our servicemen and women are serving and fighting in harm's way as we speak.

Inspired by each and every one of those sacrifices, let us renew our resolve. We commit ourselves to defending our people against any and all future threats. We remain steadfast in our commitment to disrupt, dismantle, defeat, and destroy terrorist networks that endanger all that we hold dear. We will devote to that cause all of our military might, all of our diplomatic skill, and all our moral force.

Americans have worked tirelessly to make our Nation safer. This Congress has passed, and the President signed, numerous laws to assist victims, combat terrorism, protect our homeland, and to support the members of our Armed Forces who defend our interests at home and around the world.

Most importantly of all, we adopted last year all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. And now we must implement them.

We must keep working to keep America secure. We can always do more. And, as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission pointed out, we are not yet strong enough. Today is a reminder that in this uncertain century, even the most powerful Nation on Earth is vulnerable.

So let us add humility and watchfulness to our mourning because we are defending something greater and more powerful than our own lives. We are defending the same ideals to which our founders pledged more than two centuries ago, their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

We are defending the American ideals that stretch through our history and animate our spirit even today. And no attack, no attack, can break them.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with Mr. Boehner and me in unanimously supporting this resolution of remembrance and resolve.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Madam Speaker, this year marks the 350th anniversary of the founding of Charles County, Maryland, one of the five counties I have the privilege of representing in the United States Congress. I rise today to congratulate the county on this milestone and to pay tribute to its citizens--individuals who have made it such an inviting place to live, work, and visit.

One of Maryland's oldest counties, Charles County was chartered in 1658 and named in honor of Charles Calvert, the 3rd Lord of Baltimore and a royal proprietor of the Colony of Maryland. Since its establishment, the county and its residents have played an important role in shaping the development of our State and the history of our Nation.

From its earliest days, Charles County served as a center of commerce for the region. Port Tobacco, one of the oldest English settlements in North America, was the home of Maryland's second largest port and seat of the Charles County government prior to its move to La Plata.

Charles County was the birthplace of several of our Nation's Founding Fathers. Thomas Stone, a member of the Continental Congress and one of Maryland's four signers of the Declaration of Independence, was born in Charles County. His home, Habre de Venture, still stands and is a unit of the National Park Service. His uncle, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, was a Delegate to the Constitutional Convention. John Hanson, a long serving member of the Maryland assembly and the first President of the United States in Congress Assembled under a fully ratified Articles of Confederation, was born at Port Tobacco.

Residents of Charles County witnessed the landing of British troops in Benedict during the War of 1812. During the Civil War, Camp Stanton was established in Benedict for the purpose of recruiting and training African-American men for the Union Army. Following the war, John Wilkes Booth, assassin of President Lincoln, traveled through Charles County stopping at the home of Dr. Samuel Mudd to have his broken leg set--on his escape from Washington, DC.

Charles County was also the birthplace of Josiah Henson who was born a slave, escaped to Canada and later wrote his autobiography which is believed to have inspired Harriet Beecher Stowe's ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' Matthew Henson, who accompanied Admiral Robert Peary on several Arctic expeditions, including the discovery of the North Pole, was also a native of Charles County. Henson, who was likely the first man to reach the spot, planted the American flag at the North Pole.

Today, Charles County continues to make history. It is home to important Federal agencies, including the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division which was established in 1890 and is the international leader in energetic research and development. Recently, scientists and researchers at Indian Head developed, in short order, the thermobaric ``cave busting'' bomb to combat terrorists abroad.

Charles County offers its residents scenic rural areas, wildlife habitats, and waterfront views with convenient access to the Washington metropolitan area and the Federal Government which helps it live up to its motto of ``Where Eagles Fly.'' With a vibrant and robust business climate, coupled with its hardworking and dedicated residents, Charles County has strong appeal and has become one of the most diverse communities in Maryland and one of the wealthiest for its size in the Nation.

I am proud to represent Charles County in the U.S. Congress and congratulate its current County Commissioners--Commissioner Wayne Cooper, President; Commissioner Edith Patterson, Vice President; Commissioner Rueben Collins, Commissioner Gary Hodge, and Commissioner Samuel Graves as they celebrate this great milestone. Congratulations Charles County on your 350th anniversary and may your citizens have continued prosperity for years to come.