Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an opportunity for Members to help families who are about to lose their homes thanks to a terrible combination of job loss, spiraling health costs, declining home values, and predatory lending practices. It will, among other things, correct a 30-year-old anomaly in the bankruptcy code. If you're a family farmer, you're allowed to use bankruptcy to modify your mortgage. We enacted that law in 1986 during the farm foreclosure crisis. It was a success, and we made it permanent 3 years ago. If you're a real estate speculator or if you own 5 or 20 or 50 homes, you can modify your mortgage in bankruptcy. If you're a major corporation, you can modify all of your loans and contracts in bankruptcy. The only exception is the family home. Yet, while millions of middle class families are on the verge of losing their homes, much of the banking industry and some Members of this House are still opposed to providing the same relief to the middle class that is now enjoyed by farmers, speculators, the wealthy, and major corporations. Lenders warn that we can't save the family home because it will increase borrowing costs for everyone else. This is the same industry that in 2005 told us that making bankruptcy more onerous would reduce people's interest costs by $400 per year on their credit cards. Nothing of the sort happened, of course. The banks have received billions of dollars from the taxpayers to keep the industry afloat, but they scream at the thought of our helping a few thousand families. I have nothing against Wall Street. In fact, it's in my district, but it is time we did something for the middle class homeowner. We tried the voluntary modification route without success. Maybe the programs in this bill will all work this time, but families getting thrown out of their homes shouldn't have to wait for Congress to figure out how to get banks to save the middle class. The banks have failed to save troubled homeowners. We must not fail. For every day we delay, the crisis deepens. People's lives hang in the balance. It is time we put American families first. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support this legislation and to end this anomaly in the bankruptcy code that affects only homeowners. Let them enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Gerald Schoenfeld, who, as chairman of the Shubert Organization for more than 3 decades, was instrumental in revitalizing theater in New York and in making Broadway a national brand. The Shubert Organization owns and operates theaters in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. On Broadway, where it is preeminent in theatrical influence, the organization owns 17 theaters, most of which are in my Congressional District. Additionally, the Shubert Foundation provides major support to nonprofit theaters and dance companies across the country. Gerry Shoenfeld believed that the Shubert Organization was much more than a custodian of theaters. In fact, the organization invested in and produced many significant plays and musicals, winning numerous Tony Awards. With his friend and business partner Bernard Jacobs, Gerry Schoenfeld was involved in presenting or producing everything from popular blockbusters, like Cats and Phantom of the Opera, to critically acclaimed productions like The Life & Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby, Amadeus, Dreamgirls, Sunday in the Park With George, The Real Thing, and The Heidi Chronicles. Again with Jacobs, Schoenfeld was instrumental in moving A Chorus Line from the New York Shakespeare Festival to Broadway, where it ran for 15 years. Gerry Schoenfeld knew all the players, big and small, in the Broadway theatrical community and in the world beyond it. His dedication to Shubert employees was legendary. He knew everyone from the box office workers to the backstage crewmembers by name, and often spent his Saturdays making the rounds of the Shubert theaters, personally ensuring that things were running the way he wanted them to. Perhaps one of his most important contributions lay in his tireless efforts to demonstrate how powerful an economic engine the theater industry is, not only for New York, but also for the nation. Still another achievement was his success in spearheading the effort to make New York's theater district and the surrounding Times Square area family-friendly destinations. A native New Yorker, Schoenfeld attended local public schools, graduated from the University of Illinois, served in the Army during World War II, and earned a law degree from New York University's School of Law. He was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a faculty member of Columbia University's School of the Arts. American theater suffered a true loss with the death of Gerald Shoenfeld on November 25, 2008 at the age of 84. Madam Speaker, it is fitting that Gerald Schoenfeld, who left such an important legacy to Broadway and to America, be remembered and honored.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Richard D. Burns, Executive Director of New York City's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) Community Center. Mr. Burns proudly serves as the longest-serving Executive Director of any LGBT organization in the United States. A graduate of Hamilton College and the Northeastern University School of Law, Mr. Burns has built a long and distinguished career of public service, diligently leading a number of important service and advocacy organizations through the years. This year, while celebrating its 25th anniversary, the Center has grown to become the largest LGBT multi-service organization on the East Coast and the second-largest LGBT community center in the world. More than 6,000 people and 300 groups meet there every week. As a mark of his achievements, Mr. Burns was inducted into OMB Watch's Public Interest Hall of Fame at their 25th Anniversary celebration in September 2008. Before joining The LGBT Center in December of 1986, Mr. Burns acted as President of the Board of Directors and as Managing Editor of the Gay Community News in Massachusetts. Mr. Burns has served on the Board of Directors of the Non-Profit Coordinating Committee since 1987. In addition, he is an active member and past Co-Chair of CenterLink, an association of LGBT Community Centers which he co-founded in 1994. Today, CenterLink is the national voice for nearly 150 LGBT community centers across the country as a result of his dedication. Mr. Burns also serves on the Citizen's Advisory Committee of New York City's Human Resources Administration and is the founder of the New York State LGBT Health and Human Services Network. And Mr. Burns is a member of the Steering Committee of the National LGBT Executive Directors Leadership Institute, a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's National Policy Roundtable. Today I rise to recognize and congratulate Richard D. Burns for 22 years of outstanding and dedicated service to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population of New York, and for his groundbreaking work as Executive Director of The LGBT Center.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei). (Mr. MAFFEI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER of New York. That was less than 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 45 seconds to the distinguished chairman of the Highway and Transit Subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 10 seconds to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. NADLER of New York. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I appreciate the support of this amendment on a broad bipartisan basis, from Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, from Chairman Oberstar, and from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. I urge everyone to vote for it. This $3 billion will make a tremendous difference to mass transit, to new starts in every State in the Union.

Mr. NADLER of New York. I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases transit capital funding by $3 billion to $12 billion. $1.5 billion will go to the Transit Capital Formula Program, which goes to every State, including both urban and rural areas, and $1.5 billion to the New Starts program. The amendment is supported by numerous transportation, labor, and environmental organizations. I have been informed the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO will be scoring the amendment, and the League of Conservation Voters may be scoring it as well. This amendment has broad support because people all over the country recognize that investing in transit is one of the smartest things we can do to create jobs here in America, to reduce congestion and dependence on foreign oil, and spur economic growth. I urge support for the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is necessary to overturn the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. In that decision, this Supreme Court once again went out of its way to read our anti-discrimination laws as narrowly as possible, and refused to interpret the law as intended by Congress. In doing so, the Court said something astonishing: the only discriminatory act was the initial decision to pay Lilly Ledbetter less than her male coworkers. Once the employer had successfully concealed that fact from her for 180 days, she was out of luck, and Goodyear could go on paying her less--just because she is a woman--forever. The 180-day deadline to sue had passed. The decision to discriminate was illegal, but paying her less than her male colleagues from that moment forward was not. This is astonishing because it rewards employers who successfully conceal pay discrimination and makes it virtually impossible for employees to challenge such discrimination. It is also astonishing because--17 years ago when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991-- Congress rejected the reasoning that the Supreme Court relied upon in its Ledbetter decision. Through the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress rejected the Supreme Court's conclusion that a statute of limitations begins to run when an employer adopts a discriminatory seniority system and does not restart when the discriminatory effects of that system are felt. Congress made clear that it was rejecting this reasoning in the context of discriminatory seniority systems, which was the question presented by the Lorance case, and in all other contexts as well. Until its Ledbetter decision, the Supreme Court seemed to have gotten Congress's message. In Ledbetter, however, the Supreme Court relied upon the faulty reasoning in Lorance and ruled, once again, that a statute of limitations runs only from the time that a discriminatory decision is made. Now we're called upon to do it over again. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will hear us once and for all and interpret statute of limitation periods as we intend. Thus, while Ledbetter addresses discrimination in employment, our passage of this bill expresses broad disapproval of the Court's reasoning in any context where it might be applied. Within the specific context of pay discrimination, our use of the phrase ``discriminatory compensation decision or other practice'' should be read broadly, and to include any practice--including, for example, seniority or pension practices--that impact overall compensation. I urge adoption of The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution honoring the heroic actions of the pilot, crew and rescue teams with respect to US Airways Flight 1549. When that flight suffered catastrophic engine damage shortly after takeoff, Captain Chesley B. ``Sully'' Sullenberger, III, took prompt action. Faced with the very real prospect of losing the lives of all the passengers and crew, he maintained his calm and executed a textbook water landing. His flawless technique and quick judgment allowed him to bring the plane down in one piece and to avoid collisions with any of the countless vessels sailing the river. There is no doubt that his years of service as a decorated pilot in the U.S. Air Force helped prepare him for the difficult task that he confronted that day. His efforts were aided by the heroic actions of his crew, who quickly completed an orderly evacuation of the frightened passengers, and of the very many people from the local organizations, such as New York Waterways, the fire department, the police department, the Coast Guard and others who all rallied to the rescue. The bravery and the selflessness on the part of Captain Sullenberger and his crew were matched by the swift response from local police and fire departments. The first responders were able to reach the plane within 2 minutes and begin to rescue the stranded passengers. This rapid response was crucial to the survival of the passengers and the crew as the plane had landed in the middle of a busy waterway with air temperatures well below freezing. I would point out that since World War II, there are a number of cases of aircraft that had to land in the water, commercial aircraft, major commercial airlines that had landed in the water, and in every case except this one, at least half the passengers died. In this case, not one single passenger, not one single crew member died. There was not even a really serious injury because of the flawless performance of the pilot in bringing the plane down in one piece, even so it didn't tip over, making sure it missed the George Washington Bridge and still landed right next to the ferry terminals where there were ferry boats waiting.

Mr. NADLER of New York. There could have been no better expertise and display of heroism and skill than that shown by the pilot and his crew and by passengers, too. And finally the staff of the many hospitals that cared for the injured passengers deserve our praise as well. We thank the staff at St. Vincent's Hospital, New York Downtown Hospital, St. Luke's Hospital, Jersey City Medical Center and Meadowlands Hospital. So, Madam Speaker, I'm proud that we have convened here today to honor all those involved in the safe return of 155 people. Acting with no small measure of heroism, these ordinary citizens lived up to the highest ideals of their professions and deserve the most sincere admiration and respect of this Congress.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, it's been 46 years since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Yet women still earn on average only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man, and the promise of pay equity remains unfulfilled. And the Supreme Court's Lilly Ledbetter decision makes it almost impossible to challenge Federal discrimination. This bill will overturn that decision. Last year, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, which I chair, held a hearing on the Ledbetter case and heard directly from Lilly Ledbetter who eloquently described the terrible injustice of the Court's decision. The Court held that although Ms. Ledbetter had lost thousands of dollars of pay because of intentional sex discrimination, she could not sue because the employer had successfully hidden its own misconduct and discrimination for more than 6 months. This decision makes it almost impossible to enforce the right to be paid the same regardless of race or sex, et cetera. This must be changed, and this bill changes that. The need for the Paycheck Fairness Act is equally clear. Unfair pay disparities require workers and their families to live on less than they rightfully deserve and reduce retirement earnings. I urge adoption of both bills.

Mr. NADLER of New York

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 8, a few minutes ago, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate The Sons of the Revolution in the State of New York as they commemorate the 225th anniversary of Evacuation Day. The Sons of the Revolution in New York is an organization which keeps alive the memory of the men who achieved American independence through military, naval, or civil service. They also promote and assist in celebrating the anniversaries of events which relate to the War of the Revolution. November 25th is the anniversary of Evacuation Day, which signaled the end of the Revolutionary War when the last British troops departed Manhattan. Though the importance of this day is sometimes forgotten, the Sons of the Revolution have kept its memory alive. This year they are hosting a parade on November 22nd to commemorate the 225th anniversary of the British evacuation of New York. Once again, I offer my heart-felt congratulations to the Sons of the Revolution at the time of this celebration. As representative of the 8th Congressional District of New York, I am honored to have such distinguished citizens working in my district to keep the history of America alive.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I voted against the Iraq war resolution, the PATRIOT Act, the FISA Act amendments; and I led the opposition to the bankruptcy bill just a few years ago, in each case because I thought we were being railroaded into unwise actions through the use of fear tactics. But I do not believe that to be the case now. Now we face a very real crisis. The credit markets are shutting down. People will not be able to get car loans, loans for store inventories. There will be thousands of bank failures, millions of job losses. I believe we stand now literally on the brink of the abyss, and that we haven't seen such a situation since 1931. This is in many ways a weak bill. There should have been far more help for people facing foreclosures. There should have been bankruptcy reforms. There should have been real revenues to pay for it. There should have been a real stimulus to the economy. But this is the only bill that could be agreed upon now. We are not sure this bill will solve the crisis, but it might. It will buy us time for a better solution. As between a certainty of catastrophe and a possibility of averting that catastrophe, I will vote for the possibility of averting the catastrophe. I urge everyone else to do so.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly in support of this rescue package. I have great reservations about this legislation, but after looking at the situation carefully, reviewing the facts, and speaking with economists whose views and expertise I value, I believe that the threat to our credit markets is both real and urgent. Is the danger severe enough to warrant supporting a bill about which I have strenuous reservations? I believe so. In the past, I have been very skeptical of proposals brought to us by this administration with the warning that the situation was dire, that we could not afford to be more deliberate, and that we must give the administration broad new powers. I opposed the USA PATRIOT Act, the recent FISA legislation, and the vote to authorize the war in Iraq. In each instance, we were told that the danger was great and imminent. The administration went so far as to warn of a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. Unfortunately, these tactics worked, and Congress was stampeded into doing the wrong thing. In each case, it was not easy to stand in the way of the stampede, but, in my judgment, after examining all the known facts, it was the right and necessary thing to do. In this case, the administration should have seen this crisis coming years ago. Many of us warned that the administration's deregulation policies were leading us toward disaster, but so long as unprecedented profits were rolling in, the voices of caution were ignored. The near-religious belief that unrestrained markets would bring nothing but good times, that real estate prices would spiral upward forever, that financial instruments that even the directors of the firms selling them did not understand, would always bring prosperity, permeated thinking in government and out. History should have taught us otherwise. Our current situation proves otherwise. When the final accounting came, the boom was revealed for what it was: history's largest and most costly ponzi scheme. Finally, the administration acted--belatedly and arrogantly. Only a week ago, they told us that the situation was dire, that they needed $700 billion--more even than the President's Iraq adventure has cost so far--and presented us with a three page proposal that said essentially, ``Give the Treasury Secretary a free hand with nearly a trillion dollars, make sure no one can go to court to stop him if he gets out of hand, forget any oversight or transparency, don't worry about paying for it, don't do anything to help the middle class, then buzz off.'' In defense of that request, they said we should just trust them--the same people who got us into this crisis--with power even the Vice President only dreams of. As the old joke goes: how do you say ``drop dead'' in Washington? ``Trust me.'' Only this time, it's not funny. The legislation before us today is not very attractive, but it is greatly improved from the President's proposal. The bill has increased transparency. It leaves available court remedies, although not as many as I would want. It partially repays the taxpayers by providing for acquiring an equity stake in participating firms. It does have real oversight. I am deeply disappointed that some very important provisions for which I fought were not included. The package should have been paid for with a repeal of tax breaks on the wealthy, and of giveaway tax benefits for oil companies and other big corporations and for the industry that caused this mess. The shareholders should have borne more of the cost of this package. They are the ones who profited, and they are the ones who should pay. I do not believe in privatizing profits while socializing risk. That's not capitalism, that's lemon socialism--the people get only the lemons. It is clear that the taxpayers will not be on the hook for the full $700 billion authorized, because the securities that will be acquired are not as worthless as the market now assumes, although we do not know how much they are really worth. I believe that the Bankruptcy Code should have been fixed so that families with predatory or subprime mortgages could restructure their mortgages. Mortgages are the only secured debts in bankruptcy that cannot be restructured. Investors can do it with their properties; The Senator from Arizona [Senator McCain] can do it with six of his seven houses; you can do it with airplanes, yachts, steel plants, or anything else. The only exception is the family home. That's wrong, and we should have fixed it in this bill. We need comprehensive regulatory reform in order to stave off the next financial catastrophe, and we need a President and regulators willing to enforce the laws we have on the books. The bill does not do that, but the next Congress must enact comprehensive regulatory reform. We need to take away from this experience the lesson I had thought the nation learned in 1929. Sound regulation in markets is necessary to maintain stability. So, as I said, I am angry that we are in a situation we could and should have avoided, and I am disappointed with the bill we are voting on today. I am especially angry that we are now at a point where, as unpopular as this is--and my constituents have told me that they do not like this any more than I do--we must act. The crisis is real and immediate. If the credit markets freeze, as they started to do last week, and as we are warned by almost all credible economists they will if we do not act, we will face a calamity. All economic activity dependent on credit will cease. Businesses will not get loans to expand or to meet their payrolls. Thousands of banks will fail, ATM machines will dispense no funds, credit cards will be worthless, millions will be thrown out of work, and we could face a repeat of the Great Depression of the 1930s. We cannot be certain this bill will stave off this calamity, but it might. When faced with a choice between a certainty of catastrophe and a possibility of averting a catastrophe, the choice is clear. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, due to official business in New York related to the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I was unable to travel to Washington, DC. As a result, I missed votes on September 11, 2008. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 585 approving the Journal; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 586 commemorating the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 587 restoring the Highway Trust Fund balance; and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 588 motion to adjourn.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. I thank the distinguished majority leader and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). Under their leadership, the House passed the ADA Amendments Act in June by an overwhelming vote of 402-17. The Senate, under the leadership of Senators Harkin and Hatch, has taken up our bipartisan call to restore the promise of the ADA and has passed a nearly identical bill, S. 3406. Like the House bill, S. 3406 overturns Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the scope of protection under the ADA. These decisions have created a catch-22, in which an individual who is able to lessen the adverse impact of an impairment by use of a mitigating measure like medicine or a hearing aid can be fired from a job or otherwise face discrimination on the basis of that impairment and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected by the ADA. Congress never intended such an absurd result. Like the House bill, S. 3406 cures this problem by prohibiting courts from considering ``mitigating measures''--things like medicine, prosthetic devices, hearing aids, or the body's own compensation and ability to adapt--when determining whether an individual is disabled. On this important point, S. 3406 retains the exact same language as H.R. 3195. S. 3406 also retains the House language on the treatment of episodic conditions, major life activities, claims brought under the ``regarded as'' prong of the definition, regulatory authority, and conforming the definition contained in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act so that entities covered by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act operate under a consistent standard. While the approach taken in the two bills is somewhat different, congressional intent and the result achieved by both bills is the same. Both bills make clear that the courts and Federal agencies have set the standard for qualifying as disabled under the ADA too high. Both bills reject court and agency interpretation of the term ``substantially limits'' as ``preventing'' or ``significantly restricting'' the ability to perform a major life activity. Both bills require the courts and Federal agencies to set a less demanding standard by interpreting the term ``substantially limits'' more generously to ensure broad coverage for the wide range of individuals with disabilities. For that reason, I support and urge all of you to join me in supporting S. 3406. These changes are long overdue. Countless Americans with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life. It is our sincere hope that, with less fighting over who is or is not disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions: Is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy? Our Nation simply cannot afford to squander the talents and contributions of our people based on antiquated misconceptions about people with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of S. 3406 and restoring the ADA to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws. I thank the gentleman again. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3406, the ``ADA Amendments Act of 2008.'' I thank the distinguished Majority Leader, the gentleman from Maryland, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Under their leadership, the House passed the ADA Amendments Act (H.R. 3195) in June by an overwhelming vote of 402-17. The Senate, under the leadership of Senators Harkin and Hatch, has taken up our bipartisan call to restore the promise of the ADA and has passed a nearly identical bill, S. 3406. Like the House bill, S. 3406 overturns Supreme Court decisions that have narrowed the scope of protection under the ADA. These decisions have created a Catch-22, in which an individual who is able to lessen the adverse impact of an impairment by use of a mitigating measure like medicine or a hearing aid can be fired from a job or otherwise face discrimination on the basis of that impairment and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected by the ADA. Congress never intended such an absurd result. Like the House bill, S. 3406 cures this problem by prohibiting courts from considering ``mitigating measures''--things like medicine, prosthetic devices, hearings aids, or the body's own compensation and ability to adapt--when determining whether an individual is disabled. On this important point, S. 3406 retains the exact same language as H.R. 3195. S. 3406 also retains the House language on the treatment of episodic conditions, major life activities, claims brought under the ``regarded as'' prong of the definition, regulatory authority, and conforming the definition contained in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act so that entities covered by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act operate under a consistent standard. Over the past two Congresses, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Committee on the Judiciary has studied these issues extensively, holding multiple hearings and meetings with stakeholders in the disability and business communities. Our colleagues in the House Committee on Education and Labor have done the same. The findings and insights that we presented in the committee reports accompanying H.R. 3195 reflect our understanding and intent regarding the language shared by H.R. 3195 and S. 3406 and should guide courts and Federal agencies when interpreting and applying these aspects of the amended definition of disability. While the language of the House and Senate bills is identical in most respects, the bills differ in how they address the term ``substantially limits'' in the ADA's definition of disability. But while the approach taken in the bills is different, congressional intent and the result achieved by both bills is the same. Both bills make clear that the courts and Federal agencies have set the standard for qualifying as disabled under the ADA too high. Both bills reject court and agency interpretation of the term ``substantially limits'' as ``preventing'' or ``significantly restricting'' the ability to perform a major life activity. Both bills require the courts and federal agencies to set a less demanding standard by interpreting the term ``substantially limits'' more generously to ensure broad coverage for the wide range of individuals with disabilities. In H.R. 3195, we achieved these goals by redefining the term ``substantially limits'' to mean ``materially restricts.'' Thus, to show a ``substantial''--meaning ``material'' rather than ``significant'' limitation--an individual need show only an important or noticeable limit on the ability to perform a major life activity. This is not an onerous burden. As explained in the Senate statement of managers, they chose an alternate route to achieve the same result. Rather than redefining the term ``substantially limits,'' the Senate left this language intact but, through findings and purposes and a statutory rule of construction, rejected court and agency interpretation of this term as meaning ``prevents'' or ``significantly restricts.'' Like our bill, S. 3406 directs the courts and Federal agencies to set a lower standard that provides broad coverage. As explained in the Senate Statement of Managers, their bill--like ours--ensures that the burden of showing that an impairment limits one's ability to perform common activities is not onerous. Thus, while the approach taken is different, the intent--and the standard established by both bills--is identical. As such, the guidance provided in House reports regarding application of this less burdensome standard for showing a ``substantial'' limitation remains valid and relevant, with the exception of our use of a ``spectrum'' of severity to describe a relative level of limitation. With regard to the ``spectrum,'' we accept concerns expressed by Senator Kennedy that this could be construed as keeping the standard inappropriately high, and reject the usefulness of this approach. Like H.R. 3195, the lower standard demanded by S. 3406 will provide broad coverage, consistent with how courts had approached cases under the Rehabilitation Act prior to enactment of the ADA, where individuals with a wide range of physical and mental impairments such as epilepsy, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and intellectual and developmental disabilities qualified for protection, even where a mitigating measure might lessen the impact of their impairment. In most of these cases, defendants and the courts simply accepted that a plaintiff was a member of the protected class and moved on to the merits of the case. Congress expected and intended the same thing when it passed the ADA in 1990, and we are again attempting to make this crystal clear. As stated in S. 3406, the focus should be on whether discrimination has occurred and ``the question of whether an individual's impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.'' Under the lower standard for qualifying as disabled, for example, an individual who is disqualified from his or her job of choice because of an impairment should be considered substantially limited in the major life activity of working. Previously, in providing guidance on what the term ``substantially limits'' means with respect to the major life activity of working, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicated that ``the inability to perform a single, particular job'' was not a ``substantial'' (i.e., ``significant'') enough limitation. S. 3406 states that interpreting ``substantial'' to require a ``significant'' limitation sets too high a standard and that we expect the EEOC to redefine this portion of its regulations. Naturally, this change will require reconsideration of the meaning of ``substantial'' limitation in the major life activity of working, as well as other major life activities. The courts and Federal agencies also will be called upon to interpret our changes to the third, ``regarded as'' prong of the definition. These changes are identical in S. 3406 and H.R. 3195. As we made clear in our committee reports, an individual meets the requirement of being ``regarded as having such an impairment'' if the individual shows that a prohibited action was taken based on an actual or perceived impairment, regardless of whether this impairment limits (or is perceived to limit) performance of a major life activity. Thus, an individual with an actual or perceived impairment who is disqualified from a job, program, or service and who alleges that the disqualification was based on the actual or perceived impairment is a member of the protected class and then entitled to prove that the adverse action violated the ADA. In clarifying the scope of protection under the third, ``regarded as'' prong of the definition, we also clarified that reasonable accommodation need not be provided for those individuals who qualify for coverage only because they have been ``regarded as'' disabled. We, and the Senate, expressed our confidence that individuals who need accommodations will receive them because, with reduction in the burden of showing a ``substantial limitation,'' those individuals also qualify for coverage under prongs 1 or 2 (where accommodation still is required). Of course, our clarification here does not shield qualification standards, tests, or other selection criteria from challenge by an individual who is disqualified based on such standard, test, or criteria. As is currently required under the ADA, any standard, test, or other selection criteria that results in disqualification of an individual because of an impairment can be challenged by that individual and must be shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity or necessary for the program or service in question. The changes made by S. 3406 are long overdue. Countless Americans with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life. Like our bill, S. 3406 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental--a mother and nurse who died from breast cancer a few months after the courts told her that her cancer was too temporary and short- lived to qualify her for protection from job discrimination under the ADA--are covered by the law when they need it. S. 3406 also ensures vital protections for our returning veterans. Thousands of our brave men and women in uniform are returning home with serious injuries, including the loss of limbs, head trauma, and a variety of other life- altering injuries. These veterans have faced great risk and sacrificed much in service of their country and should return home knowing that they are protected from discrimination. It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions-- is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy? Our Nation simply cannot afford to squander the talents and contributions of our people based on antiquated misconceptions about people with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of S. 3406 and restoring the ADA to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, on September 11, 2001, America and the world watched in horror as our Nation came under ruthless attack. At the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon, thousands were killed by the cowardly deeds of terrorists. We heard the stories of those heroic passengers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 who gave their lives so that they might save the lives of others by thwarting an attack on the United States Capitol. In lower Manhattan, part of my congressional district, New York's finest and bravest rushed to the disaster site. In the days and weeks after, countless Americans would also come to New York to offer their assistance. Nearly 3,000 people were killed at the World Trade Center, and countless others were wounded. Since then, we have made tremendous progress in rebuilding. But we still have work left to do. One of our greatest national responsibilities right now is to aid those people who are still suffering from 9/11--our first responders and rescue workers, local area workers, residents, students, and others who have become sick from the environmental aftermath of 9/11. When the buildings of the World Trade Center came crumbling down, nearly half a million pounds of lead, asbestos, glass fibers, steel, and concrete formed a massive cloud of toxic dust and smoke that blanketed parts of New York City and New Jersey. Fires burned for months, emitting a whole host of deadly substances. Scientists have said that this dust was as caustic as Drain-o, and that the air quality was worse than during the Kuwaiti oil fires. From the beginning, we warned that the air wasn't safe and that our courageous first responders were not being afforded the proper protection from dangerous toxins as they were toiling on the pile to rebuild. We spent years working to try to convince public officials that the asbestos, fiberglass and other toxins had travelled far and settled into the interiors of residences, workplaces and schools, and that a proper testing and cleanup program was required to eliminate the health risks to area residents, workers and students. We demanded that the Federal Government acknowledge the fact, supported by a mountain of peer-reviewed research, that thousands of our Nation's citizens are today sick from 9/11 and that many more could become sick in the future. We explained to whoever would listen that our 9/11 heroes were struggling to pay health care costs because they could no longer work and no longer had health insurance, and we have argued vigorously that the Federal response to date has been dangerously limited, piecemeal and unstable. Thankfully, we have achieved a much more widespread recognition of many of these problems. Now, 7 years after the attacks, it is imperative that Congress do what is right for our heroes and our living victims by passing H.R. 6594, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Though the devastating 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center occurred within the bounds of my congressional district, we know that these were really attacks on our Nation as a whole--figuratively and literally. Every member in New York's downstate delegation represents hundreds, if not thousands, of people who live, work, attend school, or were otherwise present in the affected areas, and were exposed to a toxic brew of contamination. Indeed, every member in this House represents a State that has people in the World Trade Center Health Registry who were exposed and are concerned about their health. And as this is unquestionably a national problem, it has always required a national response. But despite our sustained efforts to get the Administration to develop a comprehensive plan to deal with this growing public health problem that they themselves now finally acknowledge, the New York delegation has instead found itself, year after year, coming to Congress with its ``hat in hand'' to test its luck at the annual appropriations process. Thankfully, with the outstanding bipartisan support of my colleagues for that funding, we have had some key successes. But this is simply no longer a tenable course of action. Passage of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act would mark an end to this unpredictable approach and ensure that a consistent source of funding is available to monitor, and if necessary, treat, the thousands of first responders, community members, and others already affected by WTC-related illnesses as well as those who are most likely to become sick in the future. And it would make sure that no matter where an affected individual were to live in the future, he or she could get care. Building on the expertise of the existing Centers of Excellence, the bill would fill key gaps in how we are currently providing treatment and monitoring. And finally, this legislation would provide an opportunity for compensation for economic damages and losses by reopening the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. On this anniversary of one of the most devastating days in our national consciousness, I thank members of Congress and the American people for coming to our aid after September 11th and in the years that followed. And once again, I implore you to pass the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.