Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bill has moved to the floor under an open spirit of bipartisan cooperation. The Committee on Education and Labor had a markup very much in that spirit. Members' views have been solicited and received from throughout the House, and this manager's amendment is very much in that same spirit. I want to briefly review the substance of the manager's amendment so that the Members may understand it. The amendment clarifies that the goal of reaching a quarter of a million volunteers is throughout all national service programs and not simply AmeriCorps. It promotes the use of interagency agreements between the Corporation For National and Community Service and other Federal agencies. Many of these agencies have innovative service projects they carry out through nonprofits, and this manager's amendment will allow these participants to earn education benefits. The amendment adds a new definition of ``severely economically distressed community,'' and allows the corporation to consider whether projects in the bill respond to the needs of economically distressed communities. The amendment includes language that will allow participants in the Opportunity Corps to conduct activities that would increase access to child nutrition programs. The amendment also ensures that programs and models currently authorized could be incorporated into the new corps created in the bill. The amendment is needed to make further technical clarifications in the bill, and we would ask for our colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. On behalf of the chairman and the ranking member, we would urge a ``yes'' vote from all Members. We proudly support this legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who has been a leader in the reconstruction efforts after the devastation in the gulf, and I am pleased to yield to him 1 minute.

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. On behalf of the committee, I just want to congratulate the author of the amendment and indicate my enthusiastic support for your amendment. In hearing the gentlelady tell the story of her neighbors volunteering to bring wind energy to her hometown, imagine how many hours of volunteer effort we will leverage by AmeriCorps and other participants being expanded under this bill. I think the gentlelady is not only directly addressing one of the great needs of rural America, which is energy diversification, but also opening the door for many more people to participate. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The majority strongly supports the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have left in general debate.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this bill answers the question, whose skills does America need? Every day in our districts and in our travels, we see heartrending examples of the needs of our country. There are men and women who are struggling to find a job who cannot read and write. They need a literacy coach. There are elderly people who don't see anyone come visit with them at all during the course of a week who may be sick or hungry or certainly are very lonely. They need geriatric care workers to come in, friends to come in and be with them. There are children who today after school will face a choice between the ravages of drugs and alcohol, the irresponsibility of bad personal behavior, the violence of gang warfare, and really nothing else. They need an afterschool program. They need a loving and supportive family or religious institution to help them out. Everywhere we look in this country, there are examples of great, unmet needs. Now, many of these needs require money to meet. And this President has proposed a budget, and this Congress just enacted, and the President signed, a stimulus bill that provides great new resources toward those needs. But money will never be enough, because in addition to financial resources, we also need the spirit, enthusiasm and integrity of our people. The answer to the question, whose skills does America need, is America needs everyone's skills, everyone's skills to move forward as a country. This legislation is supported by both the Republican and Democratic Parties and is supported by the President. We are very hopeful it will be supported by the other body in short order. This legislation provides powerful new ways for people to offer those skills that America needs. It will be open to very young Americans who want to gain the experience of helping their neighbors while helping to finance their own education. It will be open to vastly experienced Americans who have achieved success in the classroom or the lab or the military base who now want to use the lessons of that success to help their friends and neighbors. This is a bill that unlocks the door for opportunity, not just for those of our neighbors who are in need of these services, but also for those of us who will provide those services. There is very little in life that is more fulfilling than doing a job well whose benefits reach beyond your own personal interests and values. The power of this bill, which is so well put together, is not its scholarship programs, although they are very needed; it is not its broad reach among the American people, although it is very desirable; it is not the track record of success that national service has already provided, although it is very admirable. The power of this bill is it provides bold new pathways for people to do right by their communities and right by themselves. I would urge a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we would again respectfully request a ``no'' vote on this amendment. The fiscal concerns that the gentleman raises are quite valid. We believe that the procedure that's in place to address those fiscal concerns is the right one, and we actually believe that this bill in many ways is a partial answer to the country's fiscal crisis in three ways: First, it promotes many more people getting a higher education. A skilled workforce is one of the most important ways we can grow the economy. Second, it addresses some of the most pressing needs of the country that are precluding us from growth. Whether it's illiteracy, juvenile delinquency, gaps in our health care system, this underlying bill, we believe, addresses those needs, and this amendment artificially cuts off funding for some of those needs. And, finally, we think that the volunteer hours that are leveraged by this legislation accomplish so much more for the commonwealth at no cost to the public treasury. We believe that the amendment artificially cuts off those possibilities and we urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the time for the chairman of the committee.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. We will support this amendment because we certainly want whatever analytical tools the Office of Management and Budget or whomever uses to rigorously look at all aspects of this bill and this program. We believe that it's a very sound program, but we certainly invite rigorous scrutiny of the expenditures of the program when it's adopted. I do want to address some of the remarks by my dear friend from North Carolina. I notice she's left the floor. She asked the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman, ``When is the right time to discuss the bonuses paid by some of the recipients of the financial recovery legislation of last fall?'' The answer is: Probably within the next 24 hours. It's the intention of the House leadership, my understanding, to bring to the floor a bill which does not make a political point but actually solves the problem. So I think the short answer to the gentlelady's rhetorical question is: The right time is when you know what you're doing, when you have found the mechanism that will actually solve the problem, and you can bring the bill to the floor when it's the issue on the floor, and not make it into an ancillary diversion, which is what happened here. This bill is about improving and strengthening national service. We believe this amendment is consistent with the bill, and we will support the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, although we do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 1388 pursuant to House Resolution 250, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Adam Taliaferro, who grew up in Voorhees, NJ, for receiving the 2009 Humanitarian Award given by the Philadelphia Sports Writers Association. Mr. Taliaferro received this award in recognition of his work in creating the Adam Taliaferro Foundation, which helps athletes who, like Adam, have suffered spinal cord injuries. His foundation offers financial, emotional and educational support to student-athletes who experience head or spinal injuries. While making a tackle in the fourth quarter of a game at Ohio State on September 23, 2000, Mr. Taliaferro suffered a severe neck injury. His fifth cervical vertebra, located at the base of his neck, was fractured and doctors warned Adam and his family that he likely would never be able to walk again. Despite this dire prognosis, Adam regained the ability to walk only five months after the injury. Mr. Taliaferro has used his experience to touch the lives of others who have suffered similar injuries. He spends time personally responding to e-mail and phone calls from individuals who have life-altering disabilities. His encouraging words, from someone who knows from personal experience what it feels like to be seriously injured, mean the world to those on the other end of the line. Madam Speaker, since the injury Mr. Taliaferro has received his undergraduate degree from Penn State and his JD from Rutgers School of Law-Camden. He has also created the Adam Taliaferro Foundation which plays a vital role in the community, helping those with serious injuries. Mr. Taliaferro is an excellent role-model for every American. His ability to use adversity as the impetus for such a positive contribution is an example for us all. I congratulate Mr. Taliaferro for receiving the Humanitarian Award and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Specialist Timothy R. Long for his service in Iraq. In 1996, when Tim was eleven years old, I sat with him in his middle school classroom and prepared Valentine's Day cards for U.S. troops serving in Bosnia. Thirteen years later, as this Valentine's Day approaches, Tim is stationed in Iraq serving in the National Guard. On behalf of New Jersey's First Congressional District and the entire Nation, I would like to thank Tim for his service and dedication.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate her for stewarding through in her first effort as a member of the Rules Committee this very historic piece of legislation. I think it is fitting that the gentlelady from Maine, who has excelled as a businessperson, as a State legislator, and now as a legislator here, has left her very considerable imprint on this process and I congratulate her. The process has afforded under the rules of the House, both in committee and here on this floor, the opportunity for competing views to be heard about this idea. I know, Mr. Speaker, we will hear frequently this afternoon that no one in the House supports discrimination on the basis of gender, and I believe that is true. The issue is not what we say, though, it is what we do. And we have a chance to take a step against discrimination on the basis of gender, but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there will be those who say this is the wrong time and the wrong step. I respectfully disagree. There are those who say this is the wrong time to take this step because there will not be any statute of limitations; that is to say, people can sue forever if they have been the victim of employment discrimination. That is not accurate. You have 180 days in most States and a few more days in other States to file a claim once an act of discrimination has occurred. If a plaintiff does not file his or her claim by that time, the claim expires. This has been the law in a majority of circuits for a very long time. The U.S. Supreme Court disrupted that law. We are restoring it. We expect to hear that there will be a flood of litigation, that the courthouses will be filled with people filing discrimination claims once this bill becomes law. That is not the case. Again, this bill restores the law as was understood by a majority of the circuits until the Supreme Court gave its ill-founded decision in the Ledbetter case. There was no flood of litigation under the prior understanding of the statute, and I do not believe there will be a flood of litigation now. We will hear that this should apply only to intentional discrimination against women or others on the basis of gender. You know, if you are hit by a truck, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter if the truck driver intended to hit you or simply did so carelessly; if you are injured, you are injured. And if a person can show discrimination on the basis of any of the suspect categories under title VII under the law, they should be compensated, whether or not they can prove the discrimination was intentional. If there is a pattern and practice of discrimination because an employee is a woman, it should be remedied, and limiting this to intentional discrimination makes no sense. We expect to hear that employees will sit on their rights; that they will have an opportunity to sue and wait for a very long time to do so. There is simply no evidence that people did that under the prior law as understood by the circuits. And, frankly, it would be a very ill- founded plaintiff who would do such a thing since it would cost them money to do so, reminding you that the burden of proof would fall upon the plaintiff to come up with the evidence of discrimination that took place a long time ago. So she or he has no incentive to sit on their rights and have to bear that burden of proof. Finally, we will hear that employees will sit on their rights because somehow it makes economic sense to do so. Mr. Speaker, it simply doesn't. The statute limits someone to go back 2 years backwards, for back pay, from the point at which discrimination took place. It would be a very irrational plaintiff who would wait a very long time to wait and go back those 2 years. The longer you wait, the more it costs you as a plaintiff. So these arguments have been fully aired. I respectfully would argue they are all wrong. The time is right for us to stand up and not simply say we are against discrimination, but vote against discrimination, and pass this bill this afternoon.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for yielding. Lilly Ledbetter went to work in a factory in Alabama. She was one of the best at her job as a supervisor. She routinely won awards for being best at what she did. Late in her career, when she retired, she found out that she was systemically paid about 30 percent less than the men next to whom she worked. She filed suit in Federal court. The company said she wasn't underpaid because she was a woman, she was underpaid for other reasons. A jury of her peers heard her case and the employer's case, and she won unanimously. The case went up through the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court, in the case that now bears her name, unfortunately, said that because she didn't file suit when she didn't know that she had been discriminated against, she couldn't recover. So because the employer was successful at hiding the discrimination for a period of time, she couldn't recover. Lilly Ledbetter could be any one of our mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, or neighbors. What was done to her is an affront not only to her, but to the law. Women should not confront this law as a trap to deny them their rights. The law should not be a vessel of injustice. And we should not wait to pass this bill, put it on President Obama's desk, and make it the law of the land today.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would be pleased to recognize for 1 minute a gentlelady who once chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who is the House's leading expert on this statute, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time. I want to thank my friend and colleague, Rosa DeLauro, for her hard work on this. And this is the bill that is for the women who are office managers who are being underpaid for the men who are being called executive vice presidents. This is the bill for the women who do the work, make the decisions, shoulder the responsibility but don't get the pay. Now, that's been illegal for 46 years, but that remedy has been wholly ineffective until this bill came along. You couldn't get represented by a lawyer, under the present law, because your damages couldn't be enough because of the cap that were put on damages. We live in a world where women do the work, take the responsibility, shoulder the burden, but do not get the compensation. This makes the promise of the Equal Pay Act a reality for working women around this country. I'm proud that in the 19 years she's served in this body, the author of this bill has fought for this bill; and I say to her, to you, Mr. Speaker, and Americans all over this country, it will become law because of what we're about to do here today.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The only remaining speaker is our chairman.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a strong advocate for his constituents.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. If the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil suit against one of the people accused in the Wall Street wrongdoing, and there was a proposal on this floor that said the SEC can spend as much money as it wants to on its side of the case, but the Wall Street defendants accused of the wrongdoing are capped on how much they can spend on their legal defenses, I think the Members in the minority would say that's unfair. It is. So is this. To interfere in how much lawyers are paid is a matter the judges should take a look at under this law. It's not something this Congress should interfere with. And it frankly, I believe, is a diversionary tactic to take us away from the real purpose of this law, and that's a woman that is selling real estate or teaching school or sweeping floors should make, penny for penny, dollar for dollar, everything a man makes to do the same job. That is the issue before the House. Let's defeat this diversionary amendment. Let's pass the underlying bill and bring long-awaited justice to American women.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very principled and articulate gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).