F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am out of time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, in 1990, a bipartisan Congress took significant steps to break down the physical and societal barriers that for far too long kept disabled Americans from fully participating in the American Dream. Today, the House takes the final step towards righting the wrongs that courts have made in their interpretation of this landmark law. It has been a long road to finally reach this point. As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee last Congress, I first introduced this bill with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Although the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill in 2006, it was too late in the legislative session to move it but that bill marked our intent and promise to tackle the issue in the 110th Congress. Last year on the ADA's anniversary, Leader Hoyer and I introduced the bill again. The purpose of this legislation is to resolve the intent of Congress to cover a broad group of individuals with disabilities under the ADA and to eliminate the problem of courts focusing too heavily on whether individuals are covered by the law rather than on whether discrimination occurred. We worked with advocates from the disability community and business interests over the past year to craft a balanced bill with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan once said, ``There is no limit to what you want to accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.'' That statement rings true about negotiations with this bill. Interest groups that did not see eye-to-eye at the outset worked diligently over many months. After intense discussions, they came to a compromise that both sides could support. The bill we pass today will restore the full meaning of equal protection under the law and all of the promises that our Nation has to offer. As Members are well aware by now, the Supreme Court has slowly chipped away at the broad protections of the ADA and has created a new set of barriers for disabled Americans. The Court's rulings currently exclude millions of disabled Americans from the ADA's protection--the very citizens that Congress expressly sought to include within the scope of the Act in 1990. The impact of these decisions is such that disabled Americans can be discriminated against by their employer because of their conditions but are not considered disabled enough by our Federal courts to invoke the protections of the ADA. This is unacceptable. Today's vote will enable disabled Americans utilizing the ADA to focus on the discrimination that they have experienced rather than having to first prove that they fall within the scope of the ADA's protection. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my wife, Cheryl. As the chairman of the board of the American Association of People With Disabilities, she has been dogged in her advocacy of this legislation and has presented real life situations on why this bill ought to pass. Without her efforts, a lot of the progress that has been made would not have occurred, and I salute her for that. The ADA has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the ADA Amendments Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with today.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, 18 years have passed since President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. While that bill struck down many barriers affecting disabled Americans, its potential has yet to be realized. This is due to a number of Supreme Court decisions that have restricted ADA coverage for people suffering from illnesses such as diabetes, epilepsy, and cancer, to name a few. Today, this House takes the first step to finally secure the full promise of the original bill. The bill that the House is voting on this afternoon has undergone a number of changes since I first introduced it in the 109th Congress. Today's ADA Amendments Act of 2008 is a compromise that has the support of a broad and balanced coalition. Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the HR Policy Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers all back this bill. In addition, advocates for the disability community, including the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Epilepsy Foundation, and the National Disability Rights Network, join in support. Majority Leader Hoyer and I introduced the ADA Restoration Act last summer. We did so to enable disabled Americans utilizing the ADA to focus on the discrimination that they have experienced rather than having to first prove that they fall within the scope of the ADA's protection. Today's bill makes it clear that Congress intended the ADA's coverage to be broad and to cover anyone who faces unfair discrimination because of a disability. To that end, we are submitting for the Record a statement outlining our legal intent and analysis of the new definition, as changed by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The ADA Amendments Act makes changes to the original ADA, the primary one being that it will be easier for people with disabilities to qualify for protection under the ADA. This is done by establishing that the definition of disability is to be interpreted broadly. Another important change clarifies that the ameliorative efforts of mitigating measures are not to be considered in determining whether a person has a disability. This provision eliminates the Catch-22 that currently exists, as described by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), where individuals subjected to discrimination on the basis of their disabilities are unable to invoke the ADA's protections because they are not considered people with disabilities when the effects of their medication or other interventions are considered. It is important to note that this bill is not one-sided. It is a fair product that is workable for employers and businesses. The bill contains the requirement that an impairment be defined as one that substantially limits a major life activity in order to be considered a disability. There is also an exception in the mitigating measures provision for ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses. Further, the bill excludes from coverage impairments that are transitory and minor. The ADA has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. Its continued effectiveness is paramount to ensuring that the transformation that our Nation has undergone and continues in the future and that the guarantees and promises on which this country was established continue to be recognized on behalf of all of its citizens. I appreciate Majority Leader Hoyer's efforts to bring the ADA Amendments Act to the floor, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Finally, I'd like to pay tribute to my wife, Cheryl, who is the national chairman of the board of the American Association for People with Disabilities. Her tireless efforts have really spread the word amongst many Members of this House and a few of the other body that this legislation is necessary so that people like her do not have barriers in terms of seeking employment. And I appreciate, also, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle listening to her, even when they didn't have a choice. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I think that we have seen in the last hour how the framers of the Constitution intended this Congress to work. There was a problem. There was a problem that was created by court decisions misinterpreting the original intent of Congress when it passed the ADA almost 18 years ago. And people who came from diverse viewpoints, whether they were in the private sector, citizens with disabilities and their advocacy groups, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have proven in this legislation that they can work together and come up with something that is acceptable and beneficial to all of the stakeholders. I wish we could do more of that here, and maybe this will set a good example to show that the system does work. I am going to ask for a rollcall on this legislation, and I hope that if this is not a unanimous vote in favor of the bill, it will be so overwhelming that people not only on the other side of this Capitol building but around the country and around the world will see that American democracy and the American legislative process worked for the benefit of people.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2008, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the 29 preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets--Real Property Single family residence at 609 Ft. Williams Parkway, City of Alexandria, Virginia, at assessed valuation. (Assessed at $1,502,816). Ratio of assessed to market value: 100% (Unencumbered)--$1,502,816.00. Condominium at N76 W14726 North Point Drive, Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at assessor's estimated market value. (Unencumbered)--$153,700.00. Undivided 25/44ths interest in single family residence at N52 W32654 Maple Lane, Village of Chenequa, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at 25/44ths of assessor's estimated market value of $1,760,300.00--$1,000,170.04 Total Real Property--$2,656,686.40. 2008 DISCLOSURE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ $ per Common & preferred stock # of shares share Value ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Abbott Laboratories, Inc...... 12200 55.15 672,830.00 Alcatel-Lucent................ 135 5.76 777.60 Allstate Corporation.......... 370 48.06 17,782.20 AT&T.......................... 5335.8322 38.30 204,362.37 JP Morgan Chase............... 4539 42.95 194,950.05 Benton County Mining Company.. 333 0.00 0.00 BP PLC........................ 3604 60.65 218,582.60 Centerpoint Energy............ 300 14.27 4,281.00 Chenequa Country Club Realty 1 0.00 0.00 Co........................... Comcast....................... 634 19.34 12,261.56 Darden Restaurants, Inc....... 1440 32.55 46,872.00 Delphi Automotive............. 212 0.09 19.08 Discover Financial Services... 156 16.37 2,553.72 Dunn & Bradstreet, Inc........ 2500 81.38 203,450.00 E.I. DuPont de Nemours Corp... 1200 46.76 56,112.00 Eastman Chemical Co........... 270 62.45 16,861.50 Eastman Kodak................. 1080 17.67 19,083.60 EI Paso Energy................ 150 16.64 2,496.00 Exxon Mobil Corp.............. 9728 84.58 822,794.24 Fairpoint Communications, Inc. 26 9.02 234.52 Gartner Group................. 651 19.34 12,590.34 General Electric Co........... 15600 37.01 577,356.00 General Mills, Inc............ 2280 59.88 136,526.40 General Motors Corp........... 304 19.05 5,791.20 Hospira....................... 1220 42.77 52,179.40 Idearc........................ 67 3.64 243.88 Imation Corp.................. 99 22.74 2,251.26 IMS Health.................... 5000 21.01 105,050.00 Kellogg Corp.................. 3200 52.56 168,192.00 Kimberly-Clark Corp........... 1740 64.55 112,317.00 Merck & Co., Inc.............. 34078 37.95 1,293,260.10 3M Company.................... 2000 79.15 158,300.00 Medco Health.................. 8218 43.79 359,866.22 Monsanto Corporation.......... 2852.315 111.50 318,033.12 Moody's....................... 2500 34.83 87,075.00 Morgan Stanley/Dean Whitter... 312 45.70 14,258.40 NCR Corp...................... 68 22.83 1,552.44 Newell Rubbermaid............. 1676 22.87 38,330.12 JP Morgan Liquid Assets Money 718.76 1.00 718.76 Mkt.......................... Pactiv Corp................... 200 26.21 5,242.00 PG&E Corp..................... 175 36.82 6,443.50 Pfizer........................ 22211 20.93 464,876.23 Qwest......................... 571 4.53 2,586.63 Reliant Energy................ 300 23.65 7,095.00 RH Donnelly Corp.............. 500 30.31 15,155.00 Sandusky Voting Trust......... 26 1.00 26.00 Solutia....................... 82 14.00 1,148.00 Tenneco Automotive............ 182 27.94 5,085.08 Teradata...................... 68 22.06 1,500.08 Unisys, Inc................... 167 4.43 739.81 US Bank Corp.................. 3081 32.36 99,701.16 Verizon....................... 1430.6338 36.45 52,146.60 Vodaphone..................... 323 29.51 9,531.73 Weenergies (Wisconsin Energy). 1022 43.99 44,957.78

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and in solidarity with the Tibetan people in this trying time. The recent events in Tibet have captured the attention of this body and the American people. We as Americans are both saddened and outraged by the Chinese Government's crackdown on peaceful protests in Tibet. This body must be clear in its support of fundamental human rights. Tibetans deserve the right to preserve their culture, heritage, language, and religion. The Chinese Government has argued that this crackdown was in response to violent protest by the Tibetan people. However, the government dismissed outside journalists from the region and has restricted their ability to accurately report on the situation. Meanwhile, Americans traveling in China in recent weeks have revealed that their televisions went black when the international media reported on Tibet. This restriction of freedom is consistent with China's historically abysmal human rights record. While it would be simpler to believe that the Chinese Government's assertion that its crackdown was a just response to violent protest, the very fact that China has gone to such great lengths to control the flow of information on the protests makes such an assertion a great stretch of credulity. I had the honor of meeting with Tibet's spiritual leader and historic head of state, the Dalai Lama, last month shortly after the protests began. His Holiness made very clear his opposition to the acts of violence taking place in Tibet. Since his exile 49 years ago, the Dalai Lama has consistently advocated for a peaceful resolution to the tension between Tibet and China. If there is to be a real solution to the problem, the Chinese Government must engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama with the intention of finding a lasting resolution for both parties. In the coming months, China will open its doors to the world and show its best face. We've heard a lot in this country recently about transparency, and this body responded by implementing greater transparency in our government. Now is the time for China to take responsibility for its actions and implement heightened transparency to the world community on the situation in Tibet and on the conduct of its own government. The stage is set for China to demonstrate a newfound commitment to human rights and peace. This institution and the world are watching expectantly. Let us hope that the Chinese Government receives the message loud and clear that all pressures remain on the table in protecting the rights of the Tibetan people. Madam Speaker, the Tibetan people have waited 49 years for their freedom. Their patience is wearing thin. If China wishes to be considered an equal among the leaders of the world, it must act like one by standing for basic human rights in Tibet.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as an original cosponsor of H.R. 5464, the A Child is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Yesterday, the Democratic leadership tried to sweep a bipartisan FISA bill under the rug, and today they're trying to throw the President's Chief of Staff in jail. I am curious to know what happened to the pledge of partnership with Republicans in Congress, and with the President, and not partisanship. The vote we are going to take this afternoon has been festering since July, when the House Judiciary Committee decided to vote on holding White House officials in contempt. This pandering to the left reflected a political and unnecessary escalation on the part of the Democratic majority. The contempt resolution was approved on a straight party line vote in the committee, and today's vote will be the same. The threat of losing in court should be enough for this institution to back down from this escalation. My concern with the Democratic leadership's course of action is that it will likely weaken Congress' position in situations where we disagree with the President on matters of executive privilege. If the Speaker and the House Judiciary Committee chairman really cared about getting to the bottom of this matter, they could have taken the nonpolitical route, such as directing the House Office of General Counsel to file a civil lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This proposal, which I suggested last summer, would be a legitimate effort to resolve our issues with the President in an arena where the Congress would have equal footing. So, what's next? How will we rehabilitate our image to give the public confidence in the Congress? I don't think throwing the President's Chief of Staff in jail will do the trick. It amazes me that the Democratic leadership would bring such a divisive matter to the floor so soon after receiving accolades for working so well with the minority to pass an economic stimulus package. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Yesterday, the other body passed the FISA bill by a vote of 68-29. I don't understand why House Democrats refuse to bring this bill to the floor, sponsored by Senator Rockefeller. It makes no sense to block its consideration for another 21 days. Why do we keep extending the terrorist loophole? It's imperative that the House pass the Senate bill today. The Rules Committee last night rejected a Republican amendment to vote on the Senate-passed bill, and then the committee refused to allow the Senate-passed bill as a motion to recommit this afternoon. The majority knows that the American people support long-term legislation to keep our country safe. And I guarantee that the Senate bill would pass the House by a wide margin if the Democratic majority would let the House vote on it. Instead of passing the Senate bill, we continue to waste time on legislation of little consequence. The FISA bill expires on Friday. There is no more time to waste. We passed a temporary fix last summer and another extension earlier this year. There has been plenty of time to review this and to come up with a permanent fix. If we keep on passing these extensions, we're never going to get a permanent bill, and Americans are in jeopardy. This majority's charade of passing short-term extensions has gone on long enough. President Bush will veto another extension, and the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. It's time for the majority to stop playing political games. We have had plenty of time to debate this issue. The Senate finally got it right, and it's time that the House does the same. Our intelligence community needs the certainty of a long-term bill to protect the Nation. The Senate bill will continue to give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to keep us safe. I urge my colleagues to reject the 21-day extension up now and to pass the Senate's bipartisan FISA bill today.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5140. There is no question that our economy is in trouble, and the best way Congress can help fix it is to cut taxes. But this bill is too little and too late. Rather than sending checks that won't arrive until June, 5 months from now, Congress can give the economy the immediate shot in the arm it needs by eliminating Federal income tax withholding for a month or two. That would give wage earners a boost in their take-home pay next month, which they can spend or save or reduce their debt. Individual income tax rates could be adjusted so that taxpayers won't be hit when they file their 2008 tax returns a year from now. Rather than telling the country that the check's in the mail in June, let's do the right thing that will put money into taxpayers' pockets in the quickest and least bureaucratic way possible by canceling Federal income tax withholding for a limited period of time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the House of Representatives lost a giant, and the people of Ohio and indeed all Americans lost a true legislative workman with the passing of Congressman Paul Gillmor. When I first was elected to this House, I was told by former President Gerald Ford, who served with distinction here for many, many years, that there are two types of representatives: The workhorse and the show horse. The show horse, you see their face on TV all the time and they issue bombastic press releases. It is the workhorses that get the work done in this Chamber for the American people. Paul Gillmor was a workhorse. Not only was he a workhorse and a true legislative craftsman, but he applied what those of us who live in the upper Midwest refer to as Midwestern common sense. We think that we have maybe more of that than those that live in other parts of the country. But Paul's Midwestern common sense meant that the legislative activities that he was engaged in were done professionally and were done for the benefit of all Americans. I am sorry to see Paul pass. We have all lost a giant. Cheryl and I send our condolences to his wife and his children.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I am pleased that the Baldwin amendment was included in the manager's amendment. The Baldwin amendment deletes the prior user rights section from H.R. 1908, leaving current law on prior user rights intact. H.R. 1908, as considered in committee, encouraged a resort to trade secret practices which would have bred litigation and chilled publication and disclosure, which are the constitutional principles underlying the entire patent system. The Patent Reform Act, as originally drafted, would not have made for a good situation for innovation. It would have been detrimental to individual inventors, small businesses, nonprofits, including research universities. Although I plan to vote in favor of the Patent Reform Act, I have serious concerns about the process that we have used to reach floor action today. IPR law changes have always been negotiated in the subcommittee until this year. This bill should have been vetted in subcommittee. Instead, the subcommittee simply passed the buck to the full Judiciary Committee. Ramrodding this bill through subcommittee left a lot of unhappy people thinking that the train had left the station. The subcommittee Chair should have kept the bill in his subcommittee. Keeping it in subcommittee works, even though the process may take more time. As we realize, moving it forward with so many loose strings makes it quite easy for the whole thing to unravel. It's essential that subcommittee members work out problems in the subcommittee and not jam stakeholders. I believe that by holding onto this bill a little longer, we could have applied pressure to the stakeholders and moved them to our common ground. The volume of e-mails and calls we have received from interest groups, which number in the hundreds, clearly indicates that we don't have everybody on board. Much of this opposition could have been avoided. At subcommittee, the Chair told us that concerns would be addressed at full committee. The Chair then assured us that concerns would be worked out in the manager's amendment prior to floor action. While concessions have been made, this bill still needs work and isn't ready for prime time. Later today, during debate on the bill, I expect Members' concerns to be brushed off and told that everything will be worked out in conference. I served as Chair of the Judiciary Committee for 6 years, and I know all too well how elusive compromise can be. But that doesn't mean that we should throw in the towel or simply lower a shoulder and plow forward. I prevented my Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chair from moving forward on patent form until we could reach agreement with all the interested parties, and that is what we should have done here. Patent reform is vital to our Nation's economy. The House should not take up this legislation at odds with so many sectors of the economy for the benefit of others. The other body is continuing to entertain stakeholder meetings to try to develop consensus, and I commend them for that. This would be a wise course of action for the House as well. I believe that with more time and energy, we could draft a bill that is supported by a large cross- section of America, which this bill is not. The process that we took to get here today was flawed, but it's not too late to correct it. I encouraged the Chair and the ranking member to continue to meet with stakeholders. That's the way to get a good patent bill that is really a 21st-century innovation-inspiring bill enacted into law.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further parliamentary inquiry. Does not a recorded vote in the House require the second of 44 Members?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Further parliamentary inquiry. Did one-fifth of the Members present stand? And, if so, how is it possible to challenge the call of the Speaker on the accuracy of the count of the Members present?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that one- fifth of the Members present did not support the demand for a recorded vote or a yea or nay vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair tell me how many Members rose to request the recorded vote and the total number of Members present in the House upon which the Chair made his decision?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Speaker, does not the Constitution require that in order to get a yea and nay vote there has to be one-sixth of the Members present requesting a yea and nay vote?