Pete Stark

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of making college affordable again. Since taking over Congress, Democrats have made historic investments in higher education. We have reduced interest rates on federal student loans by 50 percent. We have increased both the amount and the reach of Pell Grants and we have acted to provide long overdue oversight of the student loan industry. Today, we will reauthorize and reform the Higher Education Act and take another step forward toward the goal of making sure that all qualified students can afford to go to college without being saddled by overwhelming debt. A college degree is not only the best guarantee of a good paying job, it is quickly becoming a necessity in our economy. The College Opportunity and Affordability Act, H.R. 4137, will open up the gates of higher education to students from all backgrounds. By increasing the maximum Pell Grant amount from $5,800 to $9,000, this bill will allow many lower income students to realistically pursue a degree. By making Pell Grants available year round and for part-time students, this legislation would help non-traditional students such as those working full-time. Finally, by simplifying the financial aid application process, this bill will make it easier for students to receive the aid they need and deserve. For too long, the student loan industry, much like the mortgage industry, has operated without proper oversight. As a consequence, lenders entered into quid pro quo agreements with universities and coerced students into high-interest loans. The bill before us today protects borrowers by requiring full disclosure of all terms, prohibiting revenue sharing between colleges and lenders and doing away with draconian pre-payment penalties. We must encourage and reward careers in public service. I strongly support the loan forgiveness program in today's measure. It will provide up to $10,000 in loan forgiveness for graduates teaching in low-income areas or entering crucial fields such as early childhood education and mental health. Four decades ago, President Johnson signed the Higher Education Act and committed to helping low income students afford a college education. Today, Congress has the opportunity to renew that commitment by providing the support and oversight so that all students can fulfill their dream of attending college. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, this stimulus package is a small dose of medicinal venom for an economy that has been bitten by the short- sighted, regressive policies pursued by the Bush Administration. While the administration pushed tax cuts for the rich and war without end through a rubber-stamp Congress, the President gutted and stifled the executive agencies that should have been reining in predatory lenders and regulating what became a financial house of cards. I support this package because we must do something to help American families. I am disappointed, however, at the failure to adopt the common sense initiatives that all agree would have the most effect. At this time of economic uncertainty, in which those at the bottom feel pinched the hardest, economists tell us that we must implement relief in the form of stimulus that is timely, targeted, and temporary. For a moment, it appeared that Republicans and Democrats, progressives and conservatives, economists and activists, could actually join in agreement that the best way to help all of us is to help the least of us. We were told that the most ``bang for the buck'' could be accomplished by increasing food stamps, expanding unemployment insurance, and providing additional Medicaid funding for States squeezed by the economic downturn. Somehow though, here we are a week or so later, and none of that is in this package. Never let it be said that the President, or his Republican allies, was derailed from what he wanted to do by common sense, economic sense, or a sense of compassion. The Republicans have a way of seeing every bill that comes before them as a vehicle for gifts to their industry friends, and this stimulus is no different. So instead of more unemployment assistance for those who lost their jobs as a result of this mismanaged economy, we get bonus depreciation for industrial equipment. Instead of more food stamps for families facing record high energy and food costs, we raise the Section 179 Expensing cap. If you don't know what that is, believe me, it's not going to help you. The refundable tax rebate will help average families, and that is why I support this bill. I commend the Speaker for making sure that this rebate includes some of those who did not make enough to pay taxes last year. After all, these people will do what we are asking them to do with these rebates--spend the money to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, one important group was left out of this rebate. Millions of seniors receive their only income from Social Security. They do not have enough ``earned income'' to receive the refund check, yet they are among our most vulnerable. At a time when we are reaching out to accomplish the dual goals of stimulating the economy and providing relief for those most adversely affected, this omission is glaring. I join my colleagues who call for a second package going forward that would address unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid relief to States, and would help our most vulnerable senior citizens.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the opening of the Ohlone College Newark Center for Health Sciences and Technology in Newark, California. The Center will be officially dedicated on January 31, 2008. Ohlone College is looking to the future with a new green campus that will prepare students for jobs in the burgeoning health, biotech and environmental technology industries. Ohlone College President Douglas Treadway said the Newark Center, in addition to being the first green college campus in the Nation, will be the first community college campus in California to have a thematic emphasis. The Center will specifically support the growing fields of health care, biotech and environmental technology. The Ohlone College Newark Center for Health Sciences and Technology was completed in December 2007 and could be certified at the LEED platinum level--the highest U.S. Green Building Council certification for sustainable construction and design. The 135,000 square-foot campus is constructed on 80 acres on Newark's Cherry Street and will be an addition to the college's main campus in Fremont, California. The Newark Center will serve some 3,500 students attending day and evening courses. The Newark campus houses 26 miles of underground piping which is part of a geothermal system that will result in a 25 percent improvement in energy performance. There are some 38,000 square feet of solar panels employed at the Newark campus, which provide energy savings the equivalent to taking 1,000 cars off Bay Area freeways every day. The effects of the alternative energy features could reduce the campus' utility bills by as much as $400,000 to $500,000 a year. The building employs three different alternative energy systems, and a long list of other green features, from recycled blue jeans for insulation to sustainable produced furniture. I join the community in applauding the opening of the Ohlone College Newark Center for Health Sciences and Technology, the first green community college campus in the United States. This leadership and commitment to quality education, energy and the environment, as demonstrated by Ohlone College, is exemplary.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), who understands that this bill would allow 65,000 Maryland children to gain coverage under SCHIP.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I'd like to take this time just to urge my colleagues to vote to override President Bush's veto on what is, in my way of looking at it, bipartisan SCHIP legislation. We had 43 Republicans in the House who voted with us, and 17 Republicans in the other body voting with us, many of whom participated in the crafting of this compromise. It is not exactly what the distinguished ranking member from Texas asked. It takes people below 300 percent of poverty, below 50-odd thousand bucks for a family of three. The adults will be out in a year, not tomorrow. It makes an effort to reduce crowding out, and only citizens and legal residents are eligible, and there are some means by which States can enforce that. Children don't choose to be born into families, unlike those of us in Congress, who lack health insurance, and we should be able to give the children the health care they need to become healthy, productive members of society. It becomes more urgent now that we're in a recession, perhaps in free-fall, and we should provide this safety net for families. It probably is the most urgent concern of a parent. We're going to soon address a bipartisan economic stimulus package, and it seems to me that if we could come together on that and deal with tax credits or tax relief and additional food stamps or additional unemployment insurance that somehow I don't follow the logic that would say that we shouldn't deal with young children. Furthermore, I'm advised today by my 6-year-old son, who I must admit started out at about a hundred, so I kept him out of school, this was not planned otherwise, and he said, Dad, if we don't pass this health insurance they may fire all the Republicans, and I'd hate to see that. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am happy to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen, for 1 minute, who recognizes that 37,800 children in Wisconsin could gain health insurance and not have 161,000 prohibited, as they would in Georgia, if we don't override this veto.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer from Maryland.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I would be glad to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of resolving to cut poverty in half over the next 10 years. America is the richest country in the history of the world, yet 37 million Americans languish in poverty. The poverty rate is an inexcusable 17 percent for all children and 33 percent for black children. As a body, Congress has a moral obligation to alleviate poverty and provide all people with opportunities to lead healthy and independent lives. The resolution, H. Con. Res. 198, before us is simple: it puts Congress and the Nation on the clock and acknowledges our collective responsibility to the impoverished and disadvantaged. As a country, we spend more than all other countries combined on our military and ongoing wars. Yet, our poverty rate is dead last among developed nations. Clearly, we have the financial ability to drastically reduce the number of people living in poverty. The question is do we have the political will. I believe the answer is yes. During the 1960s the poverty rate fell from over 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent. These gains were brought about by the creation and expansion of a strong safety net supported by programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and AFDC. Now, the safety net is frayed and under constant attack from those who don't blink when approving the $500 billion to fight the Iraq war, but would like to see crucial entitlement programs ``wither on the vine.'' This resolution rejects the failed ideology that has brought us the manmade disaster in New Orleans and the shame of an additional 5 million people living in poverty since 2000. As we celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday, we must redouble our efforts to fight poverty. Congress has to expand SCHIP and continue moving toward universal health care. We need to ensure that all families can afford childcare, decent housing, nutritious meals, and a good education. These are basic human rights. As a society, our obligation is to lift those who are disadvantaged and provide opportunities. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and rededicate ourselves to eradicating poverty.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. STARK. I have one. Madam Speaker, I would yield, at this point, 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish I could say I was pleased to be here today to support this important legislation, but you can't say that about this bill the Republicans have brought us. Last July we sent to the Senate the CHAMP Act, a strong bill that preserved and improved both the Medicare and SCHIP program. The CHAMP Act extended health coverage to 10 million children nationwide. This bill doesn't even come close. This bill was designed by the Republicans to support their rich friends, the pharmaceutical industry, the for-profit insurance industry, and to destroy Medicare as millions of American seniors have known it, to harm children, and to cast blame at illegal immigrants and working single parents. It shows the Republicans in their truest form: Help the rich at the expense of the poor; to deny government services to anyone, and only help the profit industries who pay them so generously through their campaign contributions, which will be useless, because the public will realize that we don't need them anymore. The CHAMP Act provided Medicare benefits for all, and it increased protections for low-income beneficiaries. It extended the physicians' reimbursement above par for 2 years and it protected rural providers for those same periods of time. The CHAMP Act overwrote provisions enacted by the former Republican majority designed to end Medicare as an entitlement program. The CHAMP Act was paid for by reducing overpayments to the substandard private plans in Medicare, plans designed to privatize the program by Republicans. For this effort, House Members, five Republican Members and the Democrats, and our staffs are to be congratulated. They worked hard and took tough and reasoned positions. The Senate failed to act on our legislation and the irresponsible Republicans in the House of Representatives failed to help the children in this country as is their wont. What we have before us gives the lowest common denominator a bad name. The Senate has sent us a bill that extends otherwise expiring Medicare provisions by a mere 6 months, meaning that we will be back here next summer, next spring trying to fix a system which the Republicans consistently try and privatize and destroy. That is Medicare and SCHIP. For the next 6 months, the bill delays the 10 percent physicians cut, prevents some therapy caps from going into effect, and protects rural providers by extending a host of particular provisions that would otherwise expire. There are some provisions that run longer. SCHIP will go for 15 months, moving it forward in time when we have a new President, whom we hope will be willing to work with Congress to protect children's health and expand access to care. It also makes longer term reforms to Medicare payment policies for long-term care hospitals and rehab hospitals, two changes that are long overdue. What is wrong with the bill is what it fails to do. It flat out fails to address real improvements needed for Medicare beneficiaries, many of which we had addressed in the CHAMP Act. It lacks increased protections for low-income beneficiaries; it lacks Medicare mental health parity; it lacks overdue improvements in preventive benefits and nonpayment related reforms to the HMO program. It lacks limits on physician hospital ownership and self-referral. And the list goes on. Adding insult to injury, this legislation also lets HMOs in the insurance industry off virtually scot free, even though MedPAC, CBO, GAO, the Office of the Inspector General and even the administration's own actuaries confirm that we overpay these second-rate, for-profit plans relative to the rest of Medicare. I would hope that those of you learned, as I learned, that if you don't like the food, don't eat it, but don't complain about it. We still have a strong bill pending in the Senate, the CHAMP Act. The Senate must act early in 2008 so that we can reach a better outcome for Medicare. We just can't keep subsidizing the for-profit providers and failing to serve our own children and seniors. So we must proceed as best we can. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time and agree with the gentleman from Georgia that the fix for the physicians is an abomination, but it was written by the Republicans in the Senate, and with concurrence with Republicans in the House. So I congratulate you for at least recognizing a lousy piece of legislation when it's drafted by Republicans. The distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) suggested that all's well that ends well, and that pretty much sums up the Republican philosophy. They've kept 4 million kids from getting health care. They've endangered the health care of many of the 6 million kids on SCHIP now, and they've protected the for-profit insurance industry and other special interests who fund their campaigns to the detriment of the children and the seniors in this country. You might call that all well, but the Democrats don't. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of increasing fuel efficiency and taking the first steps toward ending our costly addiction to fossil fuels. The Energy Independence and Security Act, H.R. 6, will provide much needed increases in energy efficiency and investments in clean energy and green buildings. Most importantly, for the first time in a generation, this bill will raise the fuel economy, CAFE, standards for new cars and trucks. By increasing CAFE to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 this bill will reduce oil consumption by 1.1 million barrels a day in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking 28 million vehicles off the road. Although I believe we can and should get to 35 mpg faster, this bill represents real progress in our efforts to combat global warming and achieve energy independence. It is no secret that our addiction to oil and coal is having increasingly dire consequences for our Nation and the planet. The price of oil hovers near $100 a barrel. An endless war continues to rage in Iraq while the President continues his saber rattling in the direction of Iran. The specter of catastrophic global warming becomes more real each day. The time to take action is now and this legislation is a good starting point, but we must do more. I agree with the numerous economists and environmentalists who think an aggressive carbon tax is the only sure way to make the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are needed to reduce global warming. A carbon tax must be part of the conversation as we move forward with comprehensive global warming legislation. This bill is not perfect. Republican obstructionists in the Senate have stripped provisions to mandate production of electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar, and biomass. They also demanded that giant oil companies maintain their preferential tax status. I am also troubled that we are continuing to subsidize and ratchet up production of corn- based ethanol, which will do little to ease global warming, but drives up food prices and contributes to water pollution. I hope that the environmental safeguards contained in the Renewable Fuel Standard-- which mandates production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022-- will quickly push production away from corn ethanol and toward advanced cellulosic fuels. In the meantime, we have a responsibility to protect families hit by rising food prices. Despite these shortcomings, this legislation represents real progress for both consumers and the environment. I urge all of my colleagues to embrace this new direction in energy policy and vote ``yes.'' We must realize that this bill is only the beginning and that more fundamental changes are needed if we are serious about addressing global warming and energy independence.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of clean energy and a clean environment. The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act, H.R. 6, provides long overdue increases in our fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, CAFE, significant investments in energy efficiency, ending needless tax breaks for giant oil companies, and mandating production of electricity from clean and renewable sources. Although this bill represents real progress, much more must be done in order to avoid the catastrophic consequences of global warming. I urge all of my colleagues to take up this cause and support aggressive efforts to end our dangerous addiction to fossil fuels through a carbon tax. We have not increased CAFE standards since 1975. During the intervening years the price of oil has reached nearly $100 a barrel, our reliance on foreign oil has led to deadly wars and propped up corrupt regimes, and the threat of global warming has become real. The bill before us would increase CAFE standards to 35 mpg by 2020. Although I believe we can and should get there faster, this provision alone will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day by 2020. That is real progress. With this legislation we also have the opportunity to greatly reduce our use of polluting fuels like coal by mandating that 15 percent of our Nation's electricity be generated from renewable and clean sources such as wind, biomass, and geothermal. Such a change will have the equivalent of removing 20 million cars from our roadways. In addition, this bill will reduce our energy use and save families money by setting strong, new efficiency standards for appliances and promoting carbon- neutral green buildings. These two steps will prevent as much as 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. I am troubled that we are continuing to subsidize and ratchet up corn-based ethanol production. A simple shift from gasoline to ethanol will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions, but it will eat up open space and continue to drive up food prices. Fortunately, this bill includes some environmental safeguards and directs future production toward advanced biofuels. I urge my colleagues to pay close attention to the effect of ethanol on food prices here and abroad and move quickly to protect families who are squeezed by rapidly rising prices. This bill begins to address the energy and environmental crises caused by the unbridled use of fossil fuels. I urge all of my colleagues to support final passage. We must realize, however, that more fundamental changes, ideally a carbon tax, are needed if we are serious about stopping global warming and becoming truly energy independent.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the RESTORE Act. Unlike past national security measures, this bill will prevent the administration from violating our basic civil liberties in the name of its phony war on terror. I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues, Chairmen Conyers, Reyes and Holt. Thanks to their efforts, this bill is a marked improvement from the legislation President Bush requested and from the Orwellian ``Protect America Act'' the House passed in August. Unlike the President's proposal and the legislation I voted against, the RESTORE Act will prevent domestic spying. As its name implies, this bill restores the judiciary's vital role in checking the administration's desire to conduct surveillance on whomever they want, whenever they want. It prohibits the government from spying on Americans without the explicit approval of the FISA court. It also empowers the FISA court to determine if domestic communications picked up during blanket sweeps directed at international correspondence can be seized or searched. Importantly, this bill does not grant immunity to telecommunications companies. The RESTORE Act will allow individuals who have had their rights violated to sue the telecommunications companies that made spying possible by sharing telephone conversations and email correspondence with the government. The President has made it clear that he believes the three branches of government are ``me, myself, and I.'' Thankfully, this legislation dissolves him of that notion and firmly re-establishing the important and necessary role that the judiciary plays in protecting our civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to stand up in opposition to this President and vote yes to protect our civil liberties.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I would like to yield, if I may, to the gentlewoman from California who now represents the district that our friend Gus Hawkins represented.

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, it is often as the dean of the California delegation a sad duty to report the passing of a colleague, but I have to say today that I want to announce and celebrate with you the life of a distinguished former colleague who died last Saturday at 100 years of age. Augustus Freeman Hawkins had a 28-year career in this body, and I just briefly want to celebrate with you the accomplishments of this gentleman. Gus, as we all knew him, was born in Shreveport, Louisiana on August 31, 1907, about the same time my dad was born in California. He moved to Los Angeles. He was elected to the State assembly in 1935. He was elected to Congress in 1962, and served here 28 years. During that 28-year service, he chaired the House Administration Committee, he chaired the Committee on Education and Labor, a whole host of joint committees, Printing, the Library Committee, and decided not to run for reelection in 1990. But among his many accomplishments, and Gus authored more than 300 State and Federal laws in his career, but what he will be most known for, I think, is authoring title VII of the Civil Rights Act which created the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. He was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He sponsored and was noted and will be remembered most perhaps for the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act that he sponsored with Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota at that time. I just want to pay tribute to one of the great careers of one of our great colleagues. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STARK. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Revenue Subcommittee for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak just to a couple of things, a couple of errors. First of all, I heard from the other side that today was a getaway day. Now, I think of a getaway day as a day to get home to see our constituents. Not, when you say ``getaway,'' how much unfairness in the Tax Code can you get away with? That's not what today's about. I commend the chairman for putting forth legislation that will prevent millions of Americans from paying higher taxes. I want to talk specifically about one small part and that's carried interest. Half of the $50 billion that we are raising is coming from people who should not be getting away with a tax loophole. That's not raising taxes. That's just taking these people who are collecting carried interest deductions or switching to capital gains. It's a scam. They should be paying their fair share of taxes like all Americans. If you look at all of these ``left-wing loonies,'' George Mankiw at Harvard, who was President Bush's chairman of Council of Economic Advisers; Mr. Buffett, the Blackstone Group; Michael Graetz, all of them say it's wrong to let carried interest be taxed at the capital gains rate so that the capital gains of $650 million is the average annual income of the top 20. That's 5.5 million bucks a month. Why should they only pay 15 percent? And the answer is they shouldn't. They should pay 35 percent, and this bill will get us a long way towards fairness.

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a Peru Free Trade Agreement that is neither free nor fair. Much like the North American and Central American Free Trade Agreements, this agreement will hurt both working families and the environment. Building on the Bush Administration's framework for CAFTA, it promotes the offshoring of high-wage American manufacturing jobs by removing many of the risks firms face when relocating to Peru in pursuit of cheap labor. Much like NAFTA, it enables foreign companies to challenge--in foreign courts--American laws that protect occupational health, safety, and the environment. Already, NAFTA signatories have paid more than $35 million to corporations that have through this provision attacked bans on the use of toxic chemicals, limits on tobacco production and marketing, and regulations on deforestation. In one case that hit particularly close to home, a foreign firm challenged California's ban on the use of polluting gasoline additive MTBE. As a result, American taxpayers were forced to pay more than $3 million in legal fees before the case was eventually dismissed on technical grounds. This agreement also undercuts Congress' authority to ensure American tax dollars are spent to create jobs in America by enabling President Bush to waive existing `Buy America' policies. And it enables foreign firms to challenge American procurement policies designed to promote recycling and renewable energy. That's why numerous American labor, environmental, consumer, faith, family farm, and development groups oppose this agreement. Both of Peru's labor federations, its major indigenous people's organization, and a prominent Archbishop in the country oppose this agreement as well. To be fair, this agreement does significantly improve upon the flawed framework provided of the North American and Central American Free Trade Agreements. For new labor and environmental protections that were absent from prior trade deals, I want to thank and recognize the hard work of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee. Making measured alterations to the rules of the same old game, however, is the wrong approach. Rather than improve on President Bush's trade agreements at the margins, Democrats can and should set the terms of the President's negotiating authority in a way that honors our commitment to America's workers and the environment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. STARK

Mr. STARK. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of equal rights for all people. No job applicant should be discriminated against because of his or her race, religion, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, political affiliation--or sexual orientation or gender identity. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA, H.R. 3685) simply modernizes existing non-discrimination law to prohibit discriminatory employment practices on the basis of sexual orientation. Everyone knows that employment discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation occurs daily in our country. Many of us know people who have been the victims of such discrimination. It is wrong and it should be against the law. I'm only sorry it has taken us so long to bring this bill forward. This legislation succeeds in advancing civil rights. However, it still falls short of what needs to be accomplished. By no means is this bill as inclusive as it should be. It fails to include gender identity as a protected class. I commend Congresswoman Baldwin for her efforts to include the transgender community in today's legislation. Had her amendment reached a vote on the House floor, I would have proudly supported it. Our Declaration of Independence states that Americans have an inalienable right to liberty and happiness, neither of which can be achieved if equal rights are granted to some and not others. Today's bill continues to leave transgender individuals without equal protection from discrimination. I support this bill because it brings the country one step closer to a prejudice-free workplace, but I implore my colleagues to work toward legislation that guarantees fair employment practices to all people. Most of us look back on America's history and bemoan that women and non-whites had to struggle for rights that should have automatically been granted to them. If we as a Congress cannot stand against discrimination for a group of citizens who simply demand the right to be treated fairly in the workplace, we are no better than past legislators who opposed a woman's right to vote or the right of African Americans to sit in the same section of a bus or restaurant as whites. I urge my colleagues to do what is right and support this legislation.