Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend and colleague from California for yielding me this time and for his incredible leadership on this important issue. Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, six Navy Reserve Seabees prepared to depart from Worcester, Massachusetts, and 10 Marine Corps Reservists based in Worcester received their activation notice. They are now waiting to learn when and where they will be deployed. These are all too familiar events to every Member of this Chamber. The citizen soldiers of the Guard and Reserves are fully integrated, vital components of our military force. They are essential to the success of any military operation, and they have fought and they have died wearing the uniform of this country. We are asking these brave men and women and their families, their employers and their communities to make tremendous sacrifices for us and our country. Many of them are now deployed for 12 or 18 months rather than the traditional 6 months. This amendment recognizes this reality. We know that for every Guardsman and Reservist serving abroad, there is a family at home also making sacrifices for their country. Many of these families face a loss of income when their military pay is significantly less than their civilian pay. This pay gap forces Guard and Reservist families to pinch pennies to make ends meet. It is unacceptable that families of activated Guard and Reservists have to worry about how to put food on the table or pay the mortgage. It is unacceptable to force those families to run up their credit cards, take on extra jobs, work overtime, use their savings, borrow money, go on welfare or rely on food banks. Our soldiers have enough to worry about when they are deployed overseas. They should not have to worry about their family finances. This amendment will help these families. It will reward those employers who are already doing the right thing by keeping their activated employees on payroll, and it will provide an incentive to other employers to join them in this patriotic service. It will also require the Federal Government to match the patriotism of the private sector by closing the pay gap for activated Federal employees. I am very proud to say that the State governments of Massachusetts and New Hampshire already make up the pay gap for State employees who have been activated by the Guard and Reserves. The Federal Government should follow their lead. By passing this amendment, Congress can provide hope to families and communities here at home. I also hope it will provide some peace of mind to our brave men and women now serving in harm's way.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). They have written a bill that seeks to address the needs of our troops and provide needed reconstruction funds to Iraq, Afghanistan and those nations devastated by the recent tsunami. I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) took special care in ensuring that this bill contains adequate vehicle and personal protection for our troops in Iraq, and to make sure that our military will be adequately equipped and supplied for upcoming troop rotations in Iraq. It is, therefore, difficult for me to rise and declare my opposition to this bill. My opposition is not meant as an affront to their hard work and care for the security of our troops. Every single Member of this House, including myself, shares their concerns and their commitment to the safety and well-being of our men and women in uniform who are serving so courageously under such difficult circumstances, nor do I object to the foreign aid of this bill. So why do I rise in opposition? It is quite simple. Once this supplemental is signed into law, Congress will have provided this administration with nearly $300 billion for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two years after we invaded Iraq President Bush still asked for these moneys under emergency authority. Tomorrow we are going to debate the President's budget. There are no funds in his budget or the Republican budget resolution for the continuing war in Iraq or security operations in Afghanistan. Why not? Is the President telling us that all our troops are coming home next year, or is he just saying that we can look forward to year after year of so-called emergency bills totaling hundreds of billions of dollars because his administration has no idea how long we are going to be engaged in Iraq and how much it is going to cost the American people in blood and treasure. I believe Congress must know the answers to those questions before we vote more money for this war. These funds should be in the budget, and the cost of these wars should be projected over the next 5 years just like every item in the budget. We know we are in Iraq. It is not a surprise. It is certainly not an unforeseen emergency. The President has told us we are going to be there next year, so why is there no money for these operations in the budget? How much do they project these wars will cost? How do they propose we pay for it? Right now we borrow money to pay for the war, nearly $300 billion worth. We do not pay for it, we simply go deeper and deeper into debt and pass the bill on to our children. Mr. Speaker, this is a profound failure of accountability, the failure to level with the American people. This week when Congress debates the budget resolution we will be asked to vote for a bill which cuts education, cuts health care, cuts veterans benefits, economic development for our cities and towns, and many other critical projects. But the war, it is not part of the budget or subject to cuts or reconciliation. It is all off the books. From the very first day when we were told the U.S. had to invade Iraq we have been lied to. We were lied to about the weapons of mass destruction. We were lied to about Saddam Hussein having ties to al Qaeda. We were lied to about how much the war would cost and how long it would take to bring stability to Iraq. We are here today debating a bill that is filled with armored Humvees and personal body armor for our troops. But, Mr. Speaker, we provided money for those items in 2002 before we went to war in Iraq, and we provided it again in the first supplemental on Iraq and in the second supplemental on Iraq and in the third supplemental on Iraq. So why are so many of our troops still lacking body armor and still driving unprotected vehicles? Congress sent that money specifically to meet those needs. So what happened to the money? Why were those needs not met? That is a deadly serious question of accountability. The Pentagon's own inspector general says that nearly $9 billion in reconstruction funds for Iraq cannot be accounted for. Another $15 million may have been subject to fraud by the very companies the Pentagon chooses to give contracts to for services in Iraq. That is taxpayer money provided by my constituents. Mr. Speaker, we need to have a real debate about our policy in Iraq. Every few months we get an emergency supplemental for the war on Iraq. We are told we have to vote for it in order to show our support for our troops, and I expect that this bill will probably pass overwhelmingly. But it is just more of the same. There comes a time when you just have to stop and say no more, not until we get real answers to hard questions, not until we know where we are going in Iraq and how much it is going to cost. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill; and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this rule, despite the fact that it does restrict the amendment process; and while an open rule is generally preferable, this rule does allow the House to consider and vote on some important amendments, especially the Pascrell-Menendez-LoBiondo anti-corruption amendment. The first rule provided for general debate on H.R. 3 and made in order nine Republican amendments, and one that was bipartisan. This rule makes in order 10 Republican amendments, including a manager's amendment by the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) that was drafted in consultation with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Democrats and is supported by the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar). I want to again applaud the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for working together in a truly bipartisan fashion in drafting our Nation's massive highway and transit authorization legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3 is an all-too-rare example of bipartisanship in this body. Negotiations were undertaken, compromises were made on both sides, and the diverse transportation needs of all regions of the Nation were carefully considered. The final product truly represented the priorities of all sides involved, regardless of political affiliation. The American people have been well-served by the process, and that is what they deserve. The rule also makes in order two of the five Democratic amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules. The first one is by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and would allow basic grant funds to be used for DWI courts seeking to change the behavior of alcohol or drug-dependent offenders arrested while driving or while impaired. I am particularly pleased that the second Democratic amendment, the anti-graft and anti-corruption amendment by the gentlemen from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), (Mr. Menendez) and (Mr. LoBiondo), is included in this rule. Their vital amendment will allow States to enact anti- corruption laws, curbing the practice of pay-to-play contracting, without losing their Federal aid highway dollars. These laws are critical to help stop the threat of real and apparent corruption resulting from large political contributions from contractors to influence the awarding of public contracts. As ludicrous as it seems, the Federal Highway Administration last year ruled that a State of New Jersey executive order limiting the size of political contributions from government contractors to State candidates violated Federal competitive bidding requirements. Had New Jersey not suspended this portion of the executive order, that State would have lost its Federal highway funding. So unless this amendment is adopted, States will not be able to stop contractors from contributing to the campaigns of those who may ultimately award these contracts. I cannot imagine why anyone in this House would want such seemingly unethical activity to continue. Ethics and integrity are among the most cherished of American values. We, the representatives of the people, have a responsibility to lead by example. I fully support the Pascrell- Menendez-LoBiondo amendment and challenge my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, to join with me in taking a stand for ethics. Highway contractors in America should not have to bribe their way to win Federal contracts. We have the power and the responsibility to end this today. Vote for this amendment. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I support H.R. 3 to reauthorize our Nation's transportation programs. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has put together a fair, bipartisan bill that will improve our Nation's highways and transit systems. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Chair of our Democratic Caucus. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and we have no further requests for time. So let me just again say that while I wish the funding level of this bill were higher, TEA-LU is a good bill. It is a tribute to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar). I urge my colleagues to support it. We also will support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment proposed by Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania. The Pitts amendment protects smaller transit systems' flexibility in utilizing Federal transit funds. Unlike current law, which punishes these transit systems and communities, the Pitts amendment extends flexibility by providing additional time to seek State and local solutions to the funding problems they face. Transit systems across the country are severely restricted by the current regulation. In my district in Massachusetts, the Southeast Regional Transit Authority is being constrained by this regulation, making it impossible for them to meet local needs of the city of Fall River. Current law punishes smaller transit systems and the communities they serve simply because they are thriving. These smaller transit systems rely on budget flexibility and cannot make major revisions overnight. On October 1, 2005, these systems will lose all flexibility. The Pitts amendment extends their flexibility by phasing out their funding options over a 5-year period. That's a good idea. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. TEA-LU extends Federal highway and transit programs guaranteeing nearly $284 billion over the next 6 years. This funding will provide for Federal highway aid, mass transit, and road safety programs. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules did not make a single Democratic amendment in order last night. I know that the committee will be meeting again on this issue, and I hope that we can have a more open and bipartisan process. Mr. Speaker, we need to reauthorize this funding for the sake of our crumbling infrastructure. Our transportation network requires technological improvements. Our road and bridges are in dire need of upgrades and maintenance. Our drivers and passengers deserve the best safety programs. The number of deficient highways and bridges in our country is staggering. Nearly 30 percent of highways are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; 600,000 bridges are considered deficient by the Federal Highway Administration standards. In my home State of Massachusetts more than half of the bridges rank below standards. Mr. Speaker, reauthorization of TEA-21 will provide repair and maintenance that our highways and bridges so desperately need. Our highways and bridges are severely damaged each year by increased truck sizes and weights, and I plan to introduce the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, better known as SHIPA. My bill would make our highways safer and prolong the life of our roads and bridges by extending the commonsense limits we already have on the interstate highways to the entire national highway system. I am concerned about an amendment made in order by the Committee on Rules last night that grants exemptions for the size and limits of longer combination vehicles, LCVs. The amendment would grant an exemption from the LCV freeze for trucks hauling custom harvesters in Nebraska during the harvest season for wheat and soybeans. I can appreciate the needs and concerns of these farmers; but, Mr. Speaker, this amendment sets a dangerous precedent, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it. The underlying bill also addresses the growing problem of traffic by proposing funding for alternative modes of transportation. It authorizes $52.3 billion for mass transit and public transportation programs. By strengthening public transportation, we are able to extend services to those who need it most like the elderly and the disabled. Allocating funding for public transportation programs is just the first step. We need to find ways to encourage people to use public transportation and mass transit. Congress needs to expand our public transportation network through increased ridership initiatives. The commuter benefit tax credit is one such initiative. Currently, employers can offer $200 per month in pretax benefits for parking, but only $105 per month for transit or van pool benefits. This inequity has created a financial incentive for employees to drive alone to work rather than utilize public transit for van pools. As a consequence, we have seen a decrease in ridership and corresponding increase in commuter rail and transit cars. Today I have sent to all my colleagues in the House a Dear Colleague letter that illustrates the need to equalize the commuter tax benefit with the parking benefit. This letter summarizes the costly commuter rail fares of our Nation's major transit systems, and I encourage all of my colleagues review this information, and emphasize the importance of the commuter tax benefit during debate this week. Along with creating incentives for people to use public transportation, we need to address the issue of traffic. I want to express my appreciation to the work of the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for including in this bill several initiatives to reduce congestion. For example, H.R. 3 requires States to obligate a portion of their annual highway formula funding to activities aimed at alleviating congestion. These initiatives will result in a reduction of automobile emissions and a corresponding increase in the efficiency of our highway system. A significant amount of funding in H.R. 3 is dedicated to supporting transportation safety programs. Over $6 billion is authorized for programs carried out by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. This funding would provide for occupant protection grants, seatbelt incentive programs, motorcycle safety, driver fatigue, child booster seat initiatives, and alcohol impairment programs. Another major problem that this bill targets is the transportation planning process. H.R. 3 consolidates the planning process for highways and public transportation projects for metropolitan areas and States. It designates the lead agency, the Transportation Department, to conduct reviews, set deadlines for public comment on projects, and resolve disputes among agencies. The reauthorization of transportation funding needs to happen, Mr. Speaker. Reauthorization is not only necessary for our infrastructure, but also essential to our economic growth, international competitiveness, quality of life, and national security. Our transportation infrastructure is aging and the only way to keep up with the growing demand is to reauthorize our transportation systems and to make sure this bill gets completed and to the desk of the President in this Congress.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just reiterate that what we believe is that taxpayer money should not be used by faith-based organizations to discriminate against people based on religion. What we feel is that this provision in this bill is offensive and it turns the clock backwards on civil rights. Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Record a letter opposing this bill signed by 67 religious organizations and civil rights organizations that have great concerns not only with the provision on religious-based employment discrimination but on a whole series of other provisions. February 28, 2005. Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations are writing to urge you to vote against H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act, unless it is modified to address the concerns outlined in this letter; and to oppose any effort to expand the block grant authority in the bill along the lines of the Administration's ``WIA Plus'' proposal. H.R. 27 fails to make meaningful improvements to the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) that would enhance the training and career opportunities of unemployed workers. Instead, the legislation would eliminate the dislocated worker training program, undermine state rapid response systems, end the federal-state labor exchange system, roll back protections against religious discrimination in hiring by job training providers, and potentially undermine the stability of other important programs. In particular, we are concerned about the following provisions in H.R. 27: New Block Grant H.R. 27 consolidates into a single block grant the WIA adult and dislocated worker programs with the Wagner-Peyser employment service program and reemployment services for unemployment insurance recipients. In doing so, it will eliminate job training assistance specifically targeted to workers dislocated by off shoring and other economic changes, pit different types of workers against each other, and lead to future funding reductions. The block grant also eliminates the statewide job service, which provides a uniform statewide system for matching employers and jobseekers, replacing it with a multiplicity of localized programs that would have no incentive or ability to cooperate and function as a comprehensive labor exchange system. Eliminating the employment service, which is financed with revenue from the unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund, breaks the connection between the unemployment insurance program and undermines the UI ``work test,'' which ensures that UI recipients return to work as quickly as possible. Infrastructure and Core Services Funding A principal criticism of WIA has been the substantial decline in actual training compared to its predecessor, the Job Training Partnership Act. While there are various reasons for the reduction in training, including the sequence of services requirement in current law, the use of WIA resources by local boards and operators to build new one-stop facilities and bureaucracies, without any limitation, has contributed substantially to the decline in training. This is despite the fact that many WIA partner programs also contribute operating funds to one-stop operations. H.R. 27 gives governors even broader discretion to transfer additional resources from the WIA partner programs to pay for WIA infrastructure and core services costs--without any assurance that more training would result. These programs include the vocational rehabilitation program, veterans employment programs, adult education, the Perkins post secondary career and technical education programs, unemployment insurance, trade adjustment assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and, if they are partners, employment and training programs under the food stamp and housing programs, programs for individuals with disabilities carried out by state agencies, including state Medicaid agencies, and even child support enforcement. By relying on funding transfers from these programs to guarantee resources for WIA infrastructure and core services, H.R. 27 will disrupt and weaken services provided by these non-WIA programs, which also will face substantial pressures for funding reductions in the next few years. The infrastructure and related provisions start the commingling of funds from these non-WIA programs. In doing so, they transform the original one-stop idea of a better- coordinated workforce system into a mechanism for reducing resources for and block granting these programs in the future. A more effective and simple solution to ensuring adequate training services would be to require that a certain percentage of WIA funds be used for training as provided in previous job training programs and to create a separate WIA funding stream for one-stop operations, if necessary. Personal Reemployment Accounts H.R. 27 includes permanent and unlimited authority for the Secretary to conduct ``personal reemployment account'' (PRA) demonstratious even though the Department of Labor recently initiated a PRA demonstration without strong interest among the states. Although nine states could have participated, only seven are doing so. Since this demonstration already is in process, we see no justification for this provision and can only surmise that it is an attempt to implement PRAs more broadly, despite a lack of Congressional support for a full-scale program in the past. Unlike current WIA training programs, the PRAs would limit the cost of training that an unemployment insurance recipient can receive and would bar that individual from WIA training services for a year after the PRA account is established. This is the wrong way to go. With long-term unemployment at historically high levels, there is a much greater need for continued unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed who have found it so difficult to become reemployed. Religious-Based Employment Discrimination H.R. 27 repeals longstanding civil rights protections that prohibit religious-based employment discrimination by job training providers. These protections have been included in job training programs, which received bipartisan support, since 1982. At no time have the civil rights provisions prohibited religious organizations from effective participation in federal job training programs. This rollback of civil rights protections is especially incongruous in a program designed to provide employment and career opportunities in an evenhanded manner and should be rejected. WIA Plus Proposal The Administration has proposed giving Governors authority to merge five additional programs into the WIA block grant. The proposal would eliminate specialized assistance to unemployed, disabled and homeless veterans, critical job training services for workers under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act whose jobs have been outsourced or lost to foreign competition, and specialized counseling and customized help for people with disabilities through state vocational rehabilitation agencies. These individuals would have to compete with each other for a declining share of resources without the protections and requirements under current law. Furthermore, the proposal abrogates accountability for the expenditure of federal taxpayer dollars by eliminating program reporting requirements. We strongly urge you to oppose any effort to adopt this misguided plan. In summary, H.R. 27 strays far from the appropriate mission for federal job training programs of enhancing training opportunities for workers and providing skilled workers for employers. We strongly urge you to oppose this legislation unless amendments are adopted to delete the block grant, PRA demonstration and religious-based discrimination provisions and to modify the infrastructure provisions as recommended. American Association of People with Disabilities. American Civil Liberties Union. American Counseling Association. American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). American Federation of Teachers (AFT). American Humanist Association. American Jewish Congress. American Psychological Association. American RehabACTion Network. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). Americans for Religious Liberty. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). Association for Career and Technical Education. Baptist Joint Committee. Brain Injury Association of America. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Training. Campaign for America's Future. Center for Community Change. Communications Workers of America (CWA). Council of State Administrators for Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR). Easter Seals. Equal Partners in Faith. Goodwill Industries. Institute for America's Future. Interfaith Alliance. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd. National Alliance For Partnerships in Equity. National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium. National Association of State Head Injury Administrators. National Council of Jewish Women. National Education Association. National Employment Law Project. National Head Start Association. National Immigration Law Center. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. National League of Cities. National Organization for Women. National Rehabilitation Association (NRA). National WIC Association. National Women's Law Center. NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. OMB Watch. Paralyzed Veterans of America. Patient Alliance for Neuroendocrineimmune Disorders; Organization for Research and Advocacy. Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Union. Professional Employees Department, AFL-CIO. Protestants for the Common Good. Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Arc of the U.S.. United Cerebral Palsy. Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. United Auto Workers (UAW). United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries. United Mineworkers of America. United Steelworkers of America. USAction. Welfare Law Center. Wider Opportunities for Women. Women Employed. Women Work! The National Network for Women's Employment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to the gentleman who just spoke that we believe that there are many religious organizations, many faith-based organizations that do incredible work, and they will still be able to do incredible work. What we object to, quite frankly, is the use of taxpayers' money to basically subsidize discrimination. It is not just a concern that those of us who are speaking here have; I submitted a list of close to 70 civil rights and religious organizations that have objections to this provision, including the African American Ministers in Action; American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; Americans for Religious Liberty; the Anti-Defamation League; the Baptist Joint Committee; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Episcopal Church, USA; the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church; the National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Jewish Women; NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice lobby; Presbyterian Church USA; Protestants For the Common Good; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Texas Faith Network; the Interfaith Alliance; Union for Reform Judaism; United Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries. They go on and on and on. This is a concern that many of the faith-based organizations all across this country share with us. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The 109th Congress convened 2 months ago. The Committee on Rules has reported eight rules, including the one we are considering today. None of these rules, not a single one, has been open. The Republican majority is zero for eight on open rules. It is an abysmal record and just continues to prove how out of touch with America, and with the democratic process, this leadership really is. I oppose this rule and I oppose this bill. The Republican leadership seems to think that the job picture in this country is rosy, but they could not be more wrong. They seem to think jobs are popping out of the woodwork, but it is clear our workers need job training assistance in order to compete in the 21st century workplace. When we think that the Republican leadership cannot be any more out of touch with the challenges facing working Americans, they bring the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005 to the floor today. Let us look at the facts. Every day over 85,000 people in this country lose their jobs. Under this administration's watch, the Nation has lost 2.8 million jobs, and 4.3 million formerly middle class Americans have been pushed into poverty. President Bush's failed economic policies have produced a 5.2 percent unemployment rate. Let us be clear. This slightly lower unemployment rate does not signal a rebounding labor market. In addition to the 8 million Americans who are currently unemployed, there are 5 million unemployed workers who want to work but have given up looking for jobs simply because there are no jobs out there for them. Beyond that, there are 4.5 million people who have accepted low-wage, part-time work simply because they cannot find full-time employment in this weak economy. The real unemployment rate would skyrocket to 9.3 percent by merely including these workers. And not only are millions of American workers looking for jobs, but the long-term unemployment rate, workers who have been jobless for 6 months or more, is the highest in more than 20 years. Despite these startling statistics, this administration has continued to resist efforts to extend unemployment benefits for the 3.5 million workers who have exhausted their coverage. The Republicans have mismanaged this economy, and American workers are paying the price through lower pay, reduced benefits, and in too many cases job loss. As if this were not enough, the Republican leadership is trying to enact broad, sweeping changes to the Workforce Investment Act. This bill will do nothing to create new jobs, reduce the number of unemployed people in this country, or sufficiently training workers for jobs. Frankly, this bill is a slap in the face to American workers. Contrary to what we will hear from the Republican leadership, the Job Training Improvement Act will actually make it harder for the unemployed to obtain employment and reemployment training. Specifically, H.R. 27 would eliminate the employment services system, a program which provides critical job assistance to those unemployed workers hardest hit with the job loss of recent years. In my home State of Massachusetts, this program provides services to nearly 165,000 jobseekers each year, and it has successfully helped 75 percent of them retain employment in less than 6 months. In addition, this bill block grants adult and dislocated worker funding streams. It allows States to use funds from the Disability and Veteran Employment and Adult Learning Programs to fund expenses at the Workforce Investment Act's centers. The result of this provision will be more bureaucracy and less training for the disabled and veterans. Given all of the rhetoric that we hear about supporting our troops and providing for our veterans, we should find this provision particularly disturbing. We should be doing everything we can to help veterans find employment instead of slashing the disability and veteran employment and adult learning programs. Additionally, the bill eliminates existing protections and safeguards against low quality and potentially fraudulent job training providers and permits States to allow these providers to receive Federal funding. It caps at 30 percent the use of funds for services targeting low- income youth, those considered most likely to drop out of school. If that were not bad enough, this bill also abandons a core principle of our Constitution by repealing civil rights protections written into current law. Twenty-one years ago, then-Senator Dan Quayle sponsored legislation that provided civil rights protections against religious-based employment discrimination in programs that receive Federal funding. These protections were extended to secular as well as religious organizations. President Reagan signed that bill into law. It is not every day that I praise Dan Quayle, but the nondiscrimination provision he offered is good policy which has served us well. This provision received strong bipartisan support when the Workforce Reinvestment Act was reauthorized in 1998. However, the Job Training Investment Act shreds these protections by allowing religious organizations to receive Federal funding for job- training activities and social services while also employing religious- based discriminatory practices. In other words, this bill would allow a religious organization that discriminates based on religion, like a Bob Jones University, to get taxpayer money and use that Federal funding to legally discriminate on religious grounds when hiring staff to carry out the job training programs and services in this bill. But let me be clear, the right of churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations to remain free from government intervention has long been protected under the law, and I am sure my colleagues join me in support of this protection. Congress has always exempted faith-based organizations from antidiscrimination provisions in programs funded by their own money, and we are not proposing that a church or synagogue or mosque be forbidden from using religious criteria in deciding who to hire as a minister or rabbi or imam. However, that same church, synagogue or mosque should not be permitted to apply for and receive Federal funding for job training and then, as written in this bill, be exempted from Federal civil rights protections. Faith-based institutions should be required, like all other recipients of Federal funds, to adhere to basic civil rights laws, and I cannot even begin to count the number of institutions that have contacted my office in the last few days asking to be held to those same standards. Last night in the Committee on Rules, I heard my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) talk about a return to discrimination practices that forced these men and millions of other African Americans to drink from separate drinking fountains and eat at separate lunch counters from white Americans. How can anyone justify abandoning one of our Nation's most fundamental principles? How can Members believe this is the right position for Congress to advocate? How can Members believe this provision is moral? I certainly cannot find it in myself to do so. This provision is offensive, it is ugly, it is wrong, it is unacceptable. But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unconstitutional and unAmerican. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) will offer an amendment to strike this offensive provision from the bill. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for the Scott amendment. It is important that we oppose discrimination at every turn, and this is an important vote. Mr. Speaker, many Democrats offered several high-quality amendments in the Committee on Rules yesterday. Unfortunately, the majority has continued to stifle the democratic process by denying common sense amendments to this bill. Just because the Republican leadership allowed the Scott amendment to be considered on the floor today does not make this a good rule. Once again, let me remind my colleagues and the American people watching at home that the Republicans have not reported one single open rule this year. Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule, poor policy-making and a bad bill. It is truly a tragedy when a Nation that prides itself on democracy and equality considers and will most likely pass a bill that would permit employment discrimination in federally-funded programs. It is a slippery slope from here on out, and I fear this may just be the beginning. I urge this House to defeat the rule and vote against the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall votes 42 and 43. If I were present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 42 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 43.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a couple of cases here. Mrs. Higgins of Tennessee was a 39-year-old woman who died of a sudden heart attack after taking Vioxx. She was the mother of a 9-year- old son. When she was diagnosed with the early onset of rheumatoid arthritis, Vioxx was prescribed. She had no former cardiac problems or family history. According to her medical records, Mrs. Higgins was in otherwise excellent health; but on September 25, 2004, she died of a sudden heart attack, less than a month after she started taking Vioxx. She was buried on the very day in September that Merck took Vioxx off the market. On October 28, 2004, her husband, Monty, filed a claim against Merck in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic City Division. Why New Jersey? This couple is from Tennessee. Because that is the State where Merck is headquartered. In an interview on ``60 Minutes,'' Mr. Higgins said, ``I believe my wife would be here if Merck had decided to take Vioxx off the market just 1 month earlier.'' Then there is Richard ``Dickie'' Irvin of Florida who was a 53-year- old former football coach and president of the Athletic Booster Association. He had received his college football scholarship and was inducted into the school's football hall of fame. He went on to play in Canadian league football until suffering a career-ending injury. In addition to coaching, he worked at a family-owned seafood shop where he was constantly moving crates of seafood. He rarely went to see a doctor and had no major medical problems. In April of 2001, Mr. Irvin was prescribed Vioxx for his football knee injury from years ago. Approximately 23 days after he began taking Vioxx, Mr. Irvin died from a sudden, unexpected heart attack. An autopsy revealed that his heart attack was caused by a sudden blood clot. This is the exact type of injury that has been associated with Vioxx use. Mr. Irvin and his wife of 31 years had four children and three grandchildren. I could read more cases involving Vioxx, but most people in this House, Mr. Speaker, probably agree with me that Merck should be held accountable if they knew about the harmful effects of Vioxx. The class action section of this bill, however, would allow Merck and other corporate defendants to delay their day of reckoning for years and years and years; and justice for these individuals' families would be delayed; and justice delayed is justice denied. Again, this bill should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, for years the Republican majority proposed so-called ``reforms'' to class action lawsuits. Time after time, the House would pass legislation limiting class action plaintiffs only to see their attempts to dismantle the class action system die either with Senate inaction or in conference. Mr. Speaker, it looks as though the Republican leadership has finally gamed the system to the point where it appears that they will succeed in severely limiting the rights of many of the most vulnerable citizens in this country. Dismantling the class action lawsuit system has long been a big priority for big business groups. Last year, for instance, the Chamber spent $50 million in lobbying. Now they are getting what they paid for, because this bill obliterating the class action system is one of the first bills to be considered in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that despite the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, we still have a pay-to-play system. The other body considered this bill first. The plan was that the House take up the Senate bill if the other body could pass a clean bill without any amendments. The Senate succeeded in passing a bad bill and the House is now following suit. Let me be clear. Despite the rhetoric on the other side, this is still a bad bill. Today, the other side will tell scary stories about greedy trial lawyers and how awful and unfair their practices are, but the Republican leadership will not talk about how this bill limits the rights of low-wage workers to seek justice from employers who have cheated them out of their wages or have discriminated against them. They will not talk about how they are limiting workers' rights and, with the passage of this bill, are encouraging the bad apples in the big business community to continue cheating their employees out of their hard-earned wages and rights. In most cases, State laws provide greater civil rights protections than Federal law. Every State has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. Some States have laws that go beyond the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. The same is true with age discrimination. There are also States that provide protections that are not covered by Federal law. These Federal laws are intended to be floors, not ceilings. We should commend States that extend further rights to their citizens, not punish them. This bill federalizes class action and mass torts, moving these cases from State to Federal courts. If the bill is signed into law, hard- working Americans will be denied the right to use their own State courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate laws that are unique to their State. Consider, for example, a class action lawsuit brought against a national corporation by employees of a store in Massachusetts because that store discriminates on the basis of ancestry, place of birth, or citizenship status. Massachusetts provides protections afforded by State law, but not by Federal law. Under this bill, except in very rare instances, that case would be sent to a Federal court instead of State court, even though the case is based on a violation of State law. A class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart was recently filed in Massachusetts. The suit alleges that Wal-Mart failed to pay employees for the time worked and did not give them proper meal and rest breaks. These are serious charges. If the Class Action Fairness Act is signed into law, future cases like this would not be tried in Massachusetts court, but instead would be transferred to Federal court. Mr. Speaker, we know that the Federal courts are already over burdened, but we also know that the Federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of State law. In effect, this bill is rigging the system on behalf of the corporations and against the interests of workers. We often hear a lot of lofty rhetoric on the other side about States rights. Apparently the other side only supports the rights of States if they agree with the laws of those States. Mr. Speaker, this bill is opposed by the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights; the Alliance for Justice; the National Conference of State Legislatures; 14 State Attorneys General; AFSCME; and environmental groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the National Environmental Trust. These are just a few of the groups who oppose this bill, and none of them represent the trial lawyers. They oppose this bill because it will limit fairness, it will limit justice, and it will ultimately hurt everyday Americans. Mr. Speaker, this is not about trial lawyers; it is about average citizens. The opponents of this bill are committed to fairness. We are committed to justice. And this bill robs the American people of their rights to fairness and justice in the judicial system. It closes the courthouse door in the face of people who need and deserve help. I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers substitute. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter signed by 14 Attorneys General, including Darrell McGraw, the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia, in opposition to this bill. State of New York, Office of the Attorney General, Albany, NY, February 7, 2005. Hon. Bill Frist, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Harry Reid, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Majority Leader and Mr. Minority Leader: On behalf of the Attorneys General of California, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont and West Virginia, we are writing in opposition to S. 5, the so- called ``Class Action Fairness Act,'' which will be debated today and is scheduled to be voted on this week. Despite improvements over similar legislation considered in prior years, we believe S. 5 still unduly limits the right of individuals to seek redress for corporate wrongdoing in their state courts. We therefore strongly recommend that this legislation not be enacted in its present form. As you know, under S. 5, almost all class actions brought by private individuals in state court based on state law claims would be removed to federal court, and, as explained below, many of these cases may not be able to continue as class actions. We are concerned with such a limitation on the availability of the class action device because, particularly in these times of tightening state budgets, class actions provide an important ``private attorney general'' supplement to the efforts of state Attorneys General to prosecute violations of state consumer protection, civil rights, labor, public health and environmental laws. We recognize that some class action lawsuits in both state and federal courts have resulted in only minimal benefits to class members, despite the award of substantial attorneys' fees. While we support targeted efforts to prevent such abuses and preserve the integrity of the class action mechanism, we believe S. 5 goes too far. By fundamentally altering the basic principles of federalism, S. 5, if enacted in its present form, would result in far greater harm than good. It therefore is not surprising that organizations such as AARP, AFL-CIO, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, NAACP and Public Citizen all oppose this legislation in its present form. 1. class actions should not be ``federalized'' S. 5 would vastly expand federal diversity jurisdiction, and thereby would result in most class actions being filed in or removed to federal court. This transfer of jurisdiction in cases raising questions of state law will inappropriately usurp the primary role of state courts in developing their own state tort and contract laws, and will impair their ability to establish consistent interpretations of those laws. There is no compelling need or empirical support for such a sweeping change in our long-established system for adjudicating state law issues. In fact, by transferring most state court class actions to an already overburdened federal court system, this bill will delay (if not deny) justice to substantial numbers of injured citizens. Moreover, S. 5 is fundamentally flawed because under this legislation, most class actions brought against a defendant who is not a ``citizen'' of the state will be removed to federal court, no matter how substantial a presence the defendant has in the state or how much harm the defendant has caused in the state. 2. clarification is needed that s. 5 does not apply to state attorney general actions State Attorneys General frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens, usually pursuant to the Attorney General's parens patriae authority under our respective state consumer protection and antitrust statutes. In some instances, such actions have been brought with the Attorney General acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S. 5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the Attorneys General to bring such actions, thereby interfering with one means of protecting our citizens from unlawful activity and its resulting harm. That Attorney General enforcement actions should proceed unimpeded is important to all our constituents, but most significantly to our senior citizens living on fixed incomes and the working poor. S. 5 therefore should be amended to clarify that it does not apply to actions brought by any State Attorney General on behalf of his or her respective state or its citizens. We understand that Senator Pryor will be offering an amendment on this issue, and we urge that it be adopted. 3. many multi-state class actions cannot be brought in federal court Another significant problem with S. 5 is that many federal courts have refused to certify multi-state class actions because the court would be required to apply the laws of different jurisdictions to different plaintiffs--even if the laws of those jurisdictions are very similar. Thus, cases commenced as state class actions and then removed to federal court may not be able to be continued as class actions in federal court. In theory, injured plaintiffs in each state could bring a separate class action lawsuit in federal court, but that defeats one of the main purposes of class actions, which is to conserve judicial resources. Moreover, while the population of some states may be large enough to warrant a separate class action involving only residents of those states, it is very unlikely tbat similar lawsuits will be brought on behalf of the residents of many smaller states. This problem should be addressed by allowing federal courts to certify nationwide class actions to the full extent of their constitutional power--either by applying one state's law with sufficient ties to the underlying claims in the case, or by ensuring that a federal judge does not deny certification on the sole ground that the laws of more than one state would apply to the action. We understand that Senator Jeff Bingaman will be proposing an amendment to address this problem, and that amendment should be adopted. 4. civil rights and labor cases should be exempted Proponents of S. 5 point to allegedly ``collusive'' consumer class action settlements in which plaintiffs' attorneys received substantial fee awards, while the class members merely received ``coupons'' towards the purchase of other goods sold by defendants. Accordingly, this ``reform'' should apply only to consumer class actions. Class action treatment provides a particularly important mechanism for adjudicating the claims of low-wage workers and victims of discrimination, and there is no apparent need to place limitations on these types of actions. Senator Kennedy reportedly will offer an amendment on this issue, which also should be adopted. 5. the notification provisions are misguided S. 5 requires that federal and state regulators, and in many cases state Attorneys General, be notified of proposed class action settlements, and be provided with copies of the complaint, class notice, proposed settlement and other materials. Apparently this provision is intended to protect against ``collusive'' settlements between defendants and plaintiffs' counsel, but those materials would be unlikely to reveal evidence of collusion, and thus would provide little or no basis for objecting to the settlement. Without clear authority in the legislation to more closely examine defendants on issues bearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement (particularly out-of-state defendants over whom subpoena authority may in some circumstances be limited), the notification provision lacks meaning. Class members could be misled into believing that their interests are being protected by their government representatives, simply because the notice was sent to the Attorney General of the United States, State Attorneys General and other federal and state regulators. Equal access to the American system of justice is a foundation of our democracy. S. 5 would effect a sweeping reordering of our nation's system of justice that will disenfranchise individual citizens from obtaining redress for harm, and thereby impede efforts against egregious corporate wrongdoing. Although we ful1y support the goal of preventing abusive class action settlements, and would be willing to provide assistance in your effort to implement necessary reforms, we are likewise committed to maintaining our federal system of justice and safeguarding the interests of the public. For these reasons, we oppose S. 5 in its present form. Sincerely, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York; W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California; Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of the State of Illinois; Tom Miller, Attorney General of the State of Iowa; Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General of the State of Kentucky; G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General of the State of Maine; J. Joseph Curran, Attorney General of the State of Maryland; Tom Reilly, Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts; Mike Hatch, Attorney General of the State of Minnesota; Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General of the State of New Mexico; Hardy Myers, Attorney General of the State of Oregon; William H. Sorrell, Attorney General of the State of Vermont; Darrell McGraw, Attorney General of the State of West Virginia.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the dean of our delegation.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia had kind of quoted from a study implying that most of these class-action cases would remain in States, that the whole purpose of this bill is to try to move them to Federal courts. Let me quote from a CBO cost estimate which says that under this bill, most class-action lawsuits would be heard in Federal District Court, rather than in the State court. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is politically popular to attack lawyers and judges, but what I am concerned about is what this bill will do to average people who are seeking remedies for being mistreated. I want to read an excerpt from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, AFL/CIO, and the Alliance for Justice statement. One of things they point out is that nowhere has a case been made that abuses exist in anti-discrimination and wage and hour class action litigation. They point out by allowing dozens of employees to bring one lawsuit together, the class action device is frequently the only means for low- wage workers who have been denied mere dollars a day to recover their lost wages. Moreover, class actions are also often the only means to effectively change a policy of discrimination. Wage and hour class actions are most often brought in States under the law of the State in which the claim arises. The reason is that State wage and hour laws typically provide more complete remedies for victims of wage and hour violations than the Federal wage and hour statute. For instance, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act offers no protection, no protection for a worker who works 30 hours and is paid for 20, so long as the worker's total pay for the 30 hours worked exceeds the Federal minimum wage. However, many States have payment of wage laws that would require that the workers be fully paid for those additional 10 hours of work. Also, Federal law provides no remedy for part-time workers who often work 10- to 16-hour days, yet earn no overtime because they work less than 40 hours per week. At least six States and territories, however, including California and Alaska, require payment of overtime after a prescribed number of hours of work in a single day. Likewise, State laws increasingly provide greater civil rights protections than Federal laws. For example, every State has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. Some of these State statutes provide a broader definition of disability and a greater range of protection in comparison to the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, including California, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia. In addition, every State has enacted a law prohibiting age discrimination in employment. Some of these State laws, including those in California, Michigan, Ohio and the District of Columbia, contain provisions affording greater protection to older workers than comparable provisions of the Federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act. In addition, many State laws provide protections to classifications not covered by Federal law. For example, many States provide expanded benefits based on marital status, and I could go on and on and on. The point of the matter here is that this legislation is basically denying people the rights and the protections that many of them have fought so hard to earn in their States, and it leads to more injustice and more unfairness. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, February 2, 2005. Exempt Civil Rights and Wage and Hour Cases From S. 5 Dear Senators, On behalf of the undersigned civil rights and labor organizations, we write to urge you to support an amendment being offered by Senators Kennedy and Cantwell to the Class Action Fairness Act (S. 5), which would exempt civil rights and wage and hour state law cases. The amendment is necessary in order to ensure that S. 5 does not adversely impact the workplace and civil rights of ordinary Americans by making it extremely difficult to enforce civil rights and labor rights. During Congress' extensive examination of the merits of class action lawsuits, nowhere has a case been made that abuses exist in anti-discrimination and wage and hour class- action litigation. By allowing dozens of employees to bring one lawsuit together, the class-action device is frequently the only means for low wage workers who have been denied mere dollars a day to recover their lost wages. Moreover, class actions also are often the only means to effectively change a policy of discrimination. These suits level the playing field between individuals and those with more power and resources, and permit courts to decide cases more efficiently. Wage and hour class actions are most often brought in state courts under the law of the state in which the claims arise. The reason is that state wage and hour laws typically provide more complete remedies for victims of wage and hour violations than the federal wage and hour statute. For instance, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) offers no protection for a worker who works 30 hours and is paid for 20, so long as the worker's total pay for the 30 hours worked exceeds the federal minimum wage. However, many states have ``payment of wage'' laws that would require that the worker be fully paid for those additional 10 hours of work. Also, federal law provides no remedy for part-time workers who often work 10-16 hour days, yet earn no overtime because they work less than 40 hours per week. At least six states and territories, however, including California and Alaska, require payment of overtime after a prescribed number of hours are worked in a single day. Likewise, state laws increasingly provide greater civil rights protection than federal law. For example, every state has passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. Some of these states statutes provide a broader definition of disability and a greater range of protection in comparison to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, including California, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia. In addition, every state has enacted a law prohibiting age discrimination in employment, and some of these state laws--including those of California, Michigan, Ohio and the District of Columbia-- contain provisions affording greater protection to older workers than comparable provisions of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In addition, many state laws provide protections to classifications not covered by federal law. For example, the following states provide protection for marital status: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Moreover, several states have expanded Title VII's ban on national origin discrimination to prohibit discrimination on the basis of ancestry, or place of birth, or citizenship status. These states include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the Virgin Islands. Finally, 31 states have enacted legislation prohibiting genetic discrimination in the workplace--an important protection given the rapid increase in the ability to gather this type of information. The 31 states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. In addition, Florida and Illinois have enacted more limited protections against genetic discrimination. Under S. 5, citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law. In light of the lack of any compelling need to sweep state wage and hour and civil rights claims into the scope of the bill, we urge you to support an amendment to exempt these claims from the provisions of S. 5. If you have any questions, or need further information, please call Nancy Zirkin, Deputy Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (202-263-2880); Sandy Brantley, Legislative Counsel, Alliance for Justice (202-822-6070); or Bill Samuel, Legislative Director, AFL-CIO (202-637-5320). Sincerely,

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me close by saying, this bill is not about lawyers. It is about people, and it is about State governments and attorney generals being able to pass laws in their own States to better protect their people. And it is ironic and it is almost kind of laughable that the majority, which has made it a point to argue on behalf of States right, is basically turning its back on what States have done to protect their people. The previous speaker talked about making sure that the plaintiffs got what they deserved. Well, we are concerned about making sure that the plaintiffs get their day in court. And under this bill it makes it more difficult, especially for low-wage workers, for people who are battling discrimination to be able to have their day in court. The system clearly can be improved. Nobody is arguing that. What I am saying here is that the bill before us does not provide the justice and the fairness that I think is appropriate. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. National Conference of State Legislatures, February 2, 2005. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), I am urging you to oppose passage of S. 5, the ``Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.'' This legislation will federalize class actions involving only state law claims. S. 5 undermines our system of federalism, disrespects our state court system, and clearly preempts carefully crafted state judicial processes which have been in place for decades regarding the treatment of class action lawsuits. The overall tenor of S. 5 sends a disturbing message to the American people that state court systems are somehow inferior or untrustworthy. S. 5 amends the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to grant federal district courts original diversity jurisdiction over any class action lawsuit where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 or where any plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than any defendant, or in other words, any class action lawsuit. The effect of S. 5 on state legislatures is that state laws in the areas of consumer protection and antitrust which were passed to protect the citizens of a particular state against fraudulent or illegal activities will almost never be heard in state courts. Ironically, state courts, whose sole purpose is to interpret state laws, will be bypassed and the federal judiciary will be asked to render judgment in these cases. The impact of S. 5 is that state processes will be preempted by federal ones which aren't necessarily better. NCSL opposes the passage of federal legislation, such as S. 5 which preempts established state authority. State courts have traditionally and correcdy been the repository for most class action lawsuits because state laws, not federal ones, are at issue. Congress should proceed cautiously before permitting the federal government to interfere with the authority of states to set their own laws and procedures in their own courts. NCSL urges Congress to remember that state policy choices should not be overridden without a showing of compelling national need. We should await evidence demonstrating that states have broadly overreached or are unable to address the problems themselves. There must be evidence of harm to interests of national scope that require a federal response, and even with such evidence, federal preemption should be limited to remedying specific problems with tailored solutions, something that S. 5 does not do. I urge you to oppose this legislation. Please contact Susan Parnas Frederick at the National Conference of State Legislatures at 202-624-3566 or susan.frederick@ncsl.org for further information. Sincerely, Michael Blaboni, New York State Senator; and Chair, NCSL Law and Criminal Justice Committee.