Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield to the gentleman who represents the First District of Virginia, who represents the University of Mary Washington, Mr. Wittman, for as much time as he may consume.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding Member priority requests I received as part of H.R. 1105, the ``Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009.'' Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice Programs Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Victorville Address of Requesting Entity: 14343 Civic Drive, PO Box 5001, Victorville, CA 92393 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $82,500 to assist with the Uturn Gang Prevention Program evaluation and assessment component. Uturn Gang Prevention Program will focus on elementary school age at-risk youth, along with their immediate families. The focal point will be three areas of accountability: home, school and community. The Uturn program aims to work with at-risk families willing to make a two-year commitment to involvement in services. The goal is to develop at risk children's full personal potential so that they will not be attracted to gang involvement. The City of Victorville will contract evaluation and assessment services through California State University San Bernardino, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Social Work. Evaluation and assessment services will track participants' behavioral changes, school attendance, communication skills, academic trends, family involvement, and communication skill sets. Ultimately this program will evaluate and assess the individual and collective development of the youth and families. This program will enhance the family structure and strengthen values. The progress of the program participants will be tracked every 6 months for a two year period insuring behavioral, emotional and family stability. The success of the program insuring gang life will be less attractive and irrelevant to the youth. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Justice, Law Enforcement and Interoperable Program (COPS Technology) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Palmdale, California Address of Requesting Entity: 38300 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $100,000 for the City of Palmdale's Technology Acquisition for Joint Law Enforcement Emergency Operations Center. The City of Palmdale is vulnerable to earthquake and fire disasters, which have been identified in the City's local hazard mitigation plan. While the City has an emergency operations center, it is currently inadequate to accommodate a full-scale deployment of staffing to respond to a catastrophic event. Additionally, the City's contract law enforcement agency, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, does not currently have a departmental operations center that is adequate to service their needs in a disaster. The new site will allow the City flexibility in its response, a larger facility to accommodate joint operations between the City of Palmdale, the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. This project will allow the City of Palmdale to better respond to natural or man-made disasters. It will provide an alternate facility to be jointly used by the City, law, and fire branches. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice Legal Name of Requesting Entity: CASA of Los Angeles County Address of Requesting Entity: CASA of Los Angeles County, Lancaster office, 1040 West Avenue J, Room 1130 Lancaster, CA 93534-3329 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $300,000 for the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Los Angeles County Lancaster program. The funding is specifically to recruit and train additional CASA volunteers to provide advocacy services to 120 additional abused and neglected foster children in the Antelope Valley area. CASA of Los Angeles County will provide any required match for this program. CASA of Los Angeles services the needs of abused and neglected children in the foster care system through the recruitment, training, supervision and support of community volunteers who investigate the circumstances of each child, facilitate the provisions of services, monitor compliance with the orders of the court and advocate for the best interests of the child. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Barstow Address of Requesting Entity: 220 East Mountain View Street, Suite A, Barstow, CA 92311 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $500,000 to assist with the City of Barstow Sewer Master Plan Implementation, Phase II. This project involves constructing de-nitrification facilities at the City's wastewater reclamation facility (WRF) to reduce effluent nitrate levels and expand and upgrade the WRF from a secondary to a tertiary treatment facility. This project is critical to reducing the amount of nitrate pollution generated by the City's WRF and mitigating the overdraft of the Mojave River basin, the Southern California High Desert Region's sole natural source of water. In FY08, the City of Barstow received $500,000 to partially fund the de-nitrification facility construction. The FY09 funding will be used to fund the balance of the construction of the de- nitrification facility. The City of Barstow will provide a minimum of a 50/50 cost share for the remaining funding. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: USDA Forest Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Pacific Crest Trail Association Address of Requesting Entity: 5325 Elkhorn Blvd., PMB 256, Sacramento, CA 95842 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $500,000 to assist the Pacific Crest Trail Association (PCTA) with land acquisition to protect public access to the The Pacific Crest Trail (PCT). Land acquisition would occur in the following areas: Agua Dulce/Soledad Canyon, CA to relocate the trail off dangerous roadway, Pilot Rock, OR to aquire privately owned parcels from willing sellers within the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument that include the PCT, Plum Creek Timberlands, WA to protect the trail corridor from development pressures, Tejon Ranch, CA to reroute the trail from the temporary Mojave Desert route to the originally proposed crest route, and for program administration. The Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) is the western treasure of America's scenic trails, spanning 2,650 miles from Mexico to Canada through California, Oregon and Washington. Thousands of hikers and equestrians enjoy this national treasure each year. The need for federal assistance is apparent as the PCT crosses or is near 26 National Forests, 7 National Parks, 5 State Parks, 4 Bureau of Land Management resource areas, and several state and county parks and has been a part of the National Trail System since October 2, 1968. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Health and Human Services, Healthcare Resources Service Agency Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital Address of Requesting Entity: 23845 McBean Parkway, Valencia, CA 91355 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $333,000 to assist Henry Mayo Hospital with the design and construction of a helipad at the hospital necessary to provide emergency care for over 680 square miles of the diverse geography of north Los Angeles County, which is one of the fastest growing communities in the nation. Funding will allow the hospital to maintain its relationship with L.A. County trauma system also assist with flight safety and efficiency upgrades to existing infrastructure. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Education, Higher Education Account (FIPSE) Legal Name of Requesting Entity: College of the Canyons Address of Requesting Entity: 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91355, USA Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $238,000 to increase access to higher education and advanced training through The College of the Canyons University Center Consortium. The Consortium will support economic development by providing advanced education and training for the local work force, making the State of California a more competitive and stable area. Single parents and working adults who must commute to other areas in which universities are located, often experience barriers to pursuing education including childcare, work schedules and geographic barriers. The University Center Consortium was created to create model programs to remove these barriers. The consortium is requesting funding to increase the number of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral programs available in participating communities by 50 within 3 years, increase the number of students pursuing their higher education degree to more than 1,000 annually within 3 years, disseminate specific information on the University Center model including evaluation of best practices to at least 100 colleges annually, further development of University Centers at College of the Canyons, Canada College, and Shasta College, develop model agreements, handbooks, and planning documents that can be shared with any interested college statewide and nationally, evaluate characteristics of successful university centers within the context of local community needs and disseminate information about successful practices through the Web, an annual conference for colleges with existing programs as well as colleges interested in developing new programs, and University Center Briefs highlighting challenges, experiences and best practices. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Health and Human Services, Healthcare Resources Service Agency Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Victor Valley Community Hospital Address of Requesting Entity: 15248 11th St. Victorville, CA 92395 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $143,000 to assist Victor Valley Community Hospital with a Healthcare Modernization and Technical Advancements program. Specifically funding will purchase MRI Equipment, CT Scan equipment, and help cover Integration and Implementation, personnel, and training costs. Furthermore, the funding would be used for advanced services such as arthritis care, behavioral health and counseling, community wellness programs, poison control, and senior health services. The hospital would like to improve access to state-of-the art healthcare for members of the community. As such, modernization and advancement is required to ensure the residents of the Victor Valley receive quality medical treatment in a timely fashion. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Surface Transportation Projects Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Palmdale, California Address of Requesting Entity: 38300 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $475,000 to help the City of Palmdale, CA complete Phase I of the Rancho Vista Boulevard (Avenue P) project, which is a regionally significant transportation corridor that provides primary access to Palmdale Regional Airport and U.S. Air Force Plant 42. The City of Palmdale will use the federal funds for construction to increase safety and capacity of a 2.7-mile section of Rancho Vista Boulevard between SR-14 and 20th Street East; specifically the highly congested \3/4\- mile section between 3rd Street East and 10th Street East. Project is in the RTIP/FTIP. Federal funds have been used in design, and additional Federal funds, in the amount of $2.8 million (SAFETEA-LU), have already been secured for construction of Phase One. In addition, Phase I local funds include approximately $240,000 in Local funds and approximately $343,000 in STP-L (State Transportation Program--Local federal-aid funds), from FFY 2002-03 through FFY 2006-07, with additional $400,000 programmed in FFY 07-08, will be expended in design, environmental documentation, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation and railroad coordination. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Transportation and Community and Systems Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Barstow Address of Requesting Entity: 220 East Mountain View Street, Suite A, Barstow, CA 92311 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $237,500 to assist with the City of Barstow Lenwood Road Grade Separation Project. This $23 million multi-year project involves the design and construction of a grade-separated railroad crossing to eliminate time delays experienced by vehicular traffic. The Lenwood Road Grade Separation project is a key component of the Alameda Corridor East Grade Separation Project, a national goods movement plan for the movement of goods from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The funding received in FY09 will be used to start up the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment components of the project, totaling $1.6 million. The City of Barstow will provide a minimum of a 50/50 cost share for the remaining $23 million, and this funding will come directly from the City, San Bernardino County, and other local government agencies. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Bus and Bus Facilities Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Palmdale, California Address of Requesting Entity: 38300 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $380,000 for the City of Palmdale's Transportation Center to expand the train platform to accommodate the need for additional Metrolink train cars. The project provides for an extension of the existing Metrolink platform by 170 feet, from 510 feet to 680 feet, to conform to current Metrolink standards, which were adopted after construction of the center. Construction of 170 feet of platform would also include shelters, lighting, signage and drainage. Since 2005, the number of visitors has increased dramatically, especially Metrolink train riders. It is estimated that the train riders occupy 80% of the available parking spaces at the Center (approximately 600 of the 730 spaces). Metrolink estimates that there are 6,100 riders during the weekday and that number is anticipated to grow 6-8% each year, necessitating additional train cars. Currently the train platform can only accommodate 6 Metrolink train cars (which is the current configuration for this line), while the latest standards call for a train platform to accommodate 8 train cars (the platform was constructed to Metrolink's standards in effect at the time). Local funding for the project includes: $5.64 million from Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); $320,000 from Antelope Valley Air Quality District; $208,000 from Antelope Valley Transit Authority; $200,000 from Los Angeles County; and $129,000 from Antelope Valley Union High School District. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Training and Employment Services Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Palmdale, California Address of Requesting Entity: 38300 Sierra Highway, Palmdale, CA 93550 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $238,000 for the City of Palmdale and the South Valley WorkSource Center (SVWC) to further develop and fully implement the second year of the Business Resource Network. In early 2008, the City of Palmdale was notified of being awarded $147,000 ($360,000 was requested) toward the first year start-up of this program. It is an economic development support program that will connect area small businesses to organized public and private business resources offered by the South Valley WorkSource, Business Advisory Board, private sector partners, business and economic development organizations, educational institutions, City Government Business Outreach Department, and Department of Rehabilitation. This project will address the need to increase and augment business recruitment and retention of small businesses (1 to 25 employees) in the City of Palmdale and surrounding areas. The project will enhance connections between area firms and available public and private business resources, which are designed to increase worker skills preparedness, reduce the potential for employee lay-offs and business closures, and promote continuing local economic development and growth. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistant Grants, Training and Employment Services Legal Name of Requesting Entity: County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Address of Requesting Entity: 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $900,000 for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works consisting to construct Phase 1B of the North Los Angeles County Regional Recycled Water Project (Regional Project). Approximately 8.5 miles of 24-inch-diameter recycled water pipeline, a 1.5 million-gallon storage reservoir, and a pump station will be constructed to add to Phase lA of the Regional Project that was previously constructed cooperatively by the City of Lancaster and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 40, Antelope Valley (District). Phase 1B will add a recycled water pipeline that runs along Division Street to Avenue K, along Sierra Highway to Rancho Vista Boulevard, and along Rancho Vista Boulevard to 10th Street West. The storage reservoir will be constructed at an existing tank site near Rancho Vista Boulevard and 10th Street West, and the pump station will be constructed near Avenue E and Division Street. Phase 1B represents a critical component of the estimated $120 million Regional Project to construct a recycled water backbone distribution system to serve the cities of Lancaster, Palmdale, and surrounding unincorporated communities in the Antelope Valley. Phase 1B includes the necessary infrastructure to serve recycled water to customers with identified uses for 2 billion gallons of recycled water per year. The beneficial use of recycled water will increase the reliability of the Antelope Valley's limited water supplies, decrease reliance on imported water and local groundwater supplies, and provide a viable means for reusing treated wastewater. The County's request for the project will be matched by $17.5 million in non-Federal funds. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) Address of Requesting Entity: 27234 Bouquet Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $1.148 million to implement the cleanup of perchlorate groundwater contamination at the former Whittaker-Bermite site in the City of Santa Clarita. Characterization studies and treatment system design have been completes by December 2008 and commencement of operations to clean up the contaminated groundwater from the wells is anticipated to start by January 2009. CLWA will provide in-kind services amounting to at least $2,156,000. This project was authorized as part of H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, and has received a total of $10,651,000 from FY 2001-FY 2008. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Army Corps of Engineers, Investigations Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Santa Clarita Address of Requesting Entity: 23920 Valencia Blvd. #300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $239,000 to continue with the initial Project Management Plan component of the Feasibility Phase of the Santa Clara River Study being conducted with the Army Corps of Engineers. Work being funded would include a groundwater characterization study, public outreach and partnership formation with key community groups, development of baseline data, and environmental studies. In November 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers approved the Santa Clara River Reconnaissance Study. The study's focus includes potential habitat restoration, flood protection and ancillary recreation opportunities for the Santa Clara River, located in Southern California. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Transportation and Community and Systems Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The City of Santa Clarita Address of Requesting Entity: 23920 Valencia Blvd. #300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $570,000 to complete the last remaining section of the Cross Valley Connector. The last portion of this vital highway project consists of an 1100-foot bridge over the Santa Clara River. The bridge recently completed an environmental review and construction commenced in the fall of 2008 with completion expected in early 2010. This request is consistent with the intended purposes and authorization of the Federal highway Administration as it fulfills local transportation planning. The project will provide much needed regional congestive relief as well as provide additional capacity. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon Bill Number: H.R. 1105, Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 Account: Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Transportation and Community and Systems Preservation Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Autry National Center for the American West Address of Requesting Entity: 23920 Valencia Blvd. #300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Description of Request: I requested and received a Member priority request totaling $167,000 for the Autry National Center for the American West. This funding would assist with the construction of a new Southwest Museum facility at the Museum's Griffith Park campus. Support will allow the design and creation of new facilities along with planning, design, and public programming of educational immersion environments and visible collections storage. These interactive spaces will allow the Autry to teach local, national, and international visitors about the many diverse cultures who have shaped the American West.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. With this bill, we're trying to do the right thing, but we're doing it the wrong way. Through an open process marked by bipartisanship, we made considerable improvements to this bill. Unfortunately, flaws remain, including a failure to fully protect the rights of parents. If this bill had been brought under regular order--we addressed this issue, but by rushing it to the floor under a suspension of the rules, we've been left with an imperfect, even incomplete product. I trust we will not make that same mistake again, and I look forward to addressing this issue as the bill moves forward. I believe we need to protect the young people in these programs, and that's why I will vote ``yes'' today. But I do so with reservations because I believe this bill could have been much stronger and eventually, I believe it will be made stronger. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, residential treatment programs are unfamiliar to most of us. Sometimes referred to as ``wilderness therapy'' or ``teen boot camps,'' these programs serve a small number of extremely troubled youth. While many teens and their families have benefited from residential treatment programs, those success stories have been overshadowed by instances of abuse, neglect, and worst of all, the loss of life. The Education and Labor Committee has been investigating cases of abuse and neglect at these facilities for the last several years, and the result of that effort is the bill before us today. No one in this Chamber condones abuse, neglect, or mistreatment of the young people enrolled in these programs. And we all want to find the best way to ensure that abuse is prevented and prosecuted if it does occur. Because this issue is nonpartisan, we've been able to work together to find commonsense solutions. The bill before us today is not perfect, but it has improved at every step of the process. I do wish the bill had been considered under a rule so Members--and particularly new Members who were not here in the last Congress when we debated this issue--would have had an opportunity to offer amendments. Unfortunately, that process has been cut short by considering this bill under suspension of the rules. On a bill of this importance, I believe that regular order is necessary. There are complex issues that we have not yet resolved. For instance, we had a rigorous debate during the committee markup about how to balance parental rights with necessary treatment. Members on this side of the aisle, myself included, believe that more needs to be done to ensure that parents are fully informed of and involved with medical decisions made at these facilities. I hope that we can work on this issue as the bill moves forward and ensure that parental rights are protected. Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to address a serious problem. Chairman Miller and Congresswoman McCarthy deserve credit for drawing attention to these intolerable instances of abuse and for attempting to find a solution. I supported this bill in committee, and I continue to do so today. But I am disappointed that the process has been short- circuited. We have another opportunity to work together as this bill moves to the other Chamber, and I look forward to doing so. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I am.

Mr. McKEON. 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. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Our Nation is facing serious challenges. The economic picture remains bleak, with seemingly more jobs lost every day. American families are struggling to pay bills and send their families to college. I don't object to the fact that we are considering this bill again, despite widespread concern about its consequences. What bothers me about it is that we are not truly debating it. Had this bill truly been ``a narrow fix,'' as the supporters would have the American people believe, this rush to approval may not have been such a problem. However, this is a major, fundamental change to civil rights law affecting no less than four separate statutes. The last change to civil rights law of this magnitude, the 1991 civil rights law, took 2 years of negotiation, debate and partisan accord to accomplish. Instead, what we have before us is a partisan product that is fundamentally flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained in current law and, in doing so, would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of discrimination occurred. Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this very prospect. You know, I think about a person that maybe did one of these acts 30 years ago, has since sold the company, the company has since sold again, the original employer that made the discrimination case in the first place has since passed away and now a trial lawyer can bring all of these people to court. The person who passed away maybe would still have that liability. It boggles my mind to think of the unintended consequences that will come from this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and it's the result of an equally bad process. It breaks the vows of bipartisanship that the majority has made time and time again. In the last election and in the previous election they talked about bipartisanship. They talked about regular order, they talked about transparency, about working together. You know, we could work out our honest differences but do it in the light of the day before the American people and, once again, we are denied that opportunity. I think the American people deserve better. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction, such time as he may consume, Mr. Kline.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from California, a new member of the committee, Mr. McClintock, such time as he may consume.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to commit this bill to the committee so that this bill, which is so sweeping in its scope, be given an opportunity to be debated in a comprehensive fashion. To this day, this committee has never had a hearing on this bill. There has not been a full and fair debate, regular order has not been followed, and it needs to be. As I noted in my remarks, we have not entertained, in the three times that this bill has been brought to the floor, a single Republican amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us was the first substantive piece of legislation considered by the 111th Congress. In a matter of days, it could be one of the first substantive measures signed into law by the 44th President of the United States. And despite all the promises of openness and bipartisanship, at the end of the day it will have been considered not once, not twice, but three separate times in the House without the opportunity to debate a single Republican amendment. It didn't have to be this way. This legislation is supposed to be about protecting workers--and especially women--from discrimination in the workplace. Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am strongly opposed to discrimination of any type, be it gender discrimination, racial discrimination, or any other type of discrimination inside or outside the workplace. Rooting out such discrimination is a bipartisan goal, and I cannot think of a single reason why it is not being given a bipartisan debate. The arguments on both sides of this bill are clear, and they have been debated on this floor before. For my part, I believe that enriching trial lawyers is simply the wrong way to ensure a fairer, more just workplace; and clearly that's what this bill will do. By eliminating the statute of limitations, the bill invites more and costlier lawsuits. We're talking about economic stimulus this week, so it's only fitting that we begin with an economic stimulus package for trial lawyers. But for me, Mr. Speaker, the controversy we face today is not just the underlying legislation, although it certainly is controversial. No, the controversy today is the stunning lack of openness being shown by a majority that seems intent on wielding the heavy hand of power. Less than 24 hours ago, the Rules Committee held an emergency meeting in order to bring this bill to the floor today. As I understand it, the job of the Rules Committee is to consider potential amendments and decide which of those will receive a vote by the full House. After 2 years of watching Republican amendments routinely discarded without a vote, I wasn't surprised that the majority brought this bill to the floor under a closed rule. What surprised me was that they didn't even bother to keep up the illusion that they might make one of our proposals in order. In fact, the Rules Committee did not even set a deadline for amendments on this bill, so certain were they that not a single proposal would be worthy of consideration. For the record, I offered two amendments that were refused by the majority, two amendments that I believe were consistent with the majority's stated goals of preventing wage discrimination and overturning the Ledbetter decision. At the same time, I believe those amendments would have helped to avert at least some of the unintended consequences this legislation is sure to spawn. I did not ask the majority to guarantee that my amendments would pass; I simply asked for a debate among the Members of good will who can argue the merits and vote as they see fit. I was denied. Mr. Speaker, workplace discrimination is a serious issue and it deserves a serious debate. What a disappointment this is. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I reserve.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Discrimination in the workplace is wrong. Paying women lower wages for the same work is wrong. It's also illegal. Congress enacted protections to ensure equal pay for equal work in 1963 when the Equal Pay Act was added to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congress acted again to protect women and all Americans from workplace discrimination with the enactment of title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Together, these laws offer women strong protections against workplace discrimination and strong remedies should they be subject to illegal employment practices. Yet we're here today debating a bill that has been touted as necessary to protect women from being underpaid. Supporters of the bill would have you believe that unless this legislation is enacted, employers are free to pay women less money for doing the same job as their male counterparts. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill isn't needed to protect women from wage discrimination. Such protections are already included in the law. No, this bill is about something entirely different. Rather than addressing the real concerns of working families, issues like job training, health care, or a lack of workplace flexibility, this bill invites more and costlier lawsuits. The bill opens EPA claims to unlimited compensatory and punitive damages for the first time ever. The majority offered an amendment last year that attempts to mask this trial lawyer boondoggle. But make no mistake about it, at the end of the day, this bill will invite more lawyers to bring more lawsuits because it offers them the promise of a bigger payday. H.R. 12 will breed litigation in other ways as well, from encouraging class action lawsuits to expanding liability. I am also concerned that this bill has been put forward using misleading claims to justify its dangerous consequences. One statistic that is often repeated is that women earn just 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. Madam Speaker, if a woman earned 77 cents on the dollar doing the same job as a male counterpart, it would be a travesty and it would be illegal. What supporters of this bill won't tell you is that the 77 percent figure does not compare one man and one woman, equally situated, doing the same job. To argue that a woman only makes 77 cents on the dollar doing the same work as her male counterpart is to distort reality. The 77 percent figure is based on 2005 census data, looking at median earnings of all women and all men who work at least 35 hours per week. Interestingly, if you look at 2006 data from the U.S. Department of Labor comparing men and women who worked 40 hours per week, women actually earned 88 cents on the dollar. That's better but not good enough. The wage gap is much narrower, but the existence of a gap is still troubling. However, in the 110th Congress, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony that cited an article published in ``The American Economic Review,'' which found that when data on demographics, education, scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, and work experience are added, the wage ratio rises to 91.4 percent. The addition of variables measuring workplace and occupational characteristics, as well as child-related factors, causes the wage ratio to rise to 95.1 percent. When the percentage female in the occupation is added, the wage ratio becomes 97.5 percent, a far less significant difference. In another study, researchers from the University of Chicago and Cornell University found almost no difference in the pay of male and female top corporate executives when accounting for size of firm, position in the company, age, seniority, and experience. So before we use the 77 percent figure to justify new legal ``gotchas,'' I think we need a better understanding of the scope of any actual pay disparity and why such a disparity exists. Madam Speaker, I've said it before and I will say it again: discrimination in the workplace is wrong. Equal pay for equal work was the right principle when it began in 1963, and it is still right today. The bill before us is not about ensuring equal pay for equal work, and it doesn't offer working women any protections they don't already enjoy. Just look at the plain text of the legislation. This bill is about more and costlier lawsuits. Madam Speaker, I'm strongly opposed to this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I'm happy to yield to at this time to the subcommittee ranking member over this piece of legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), such time as he may consume.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many further speakers there are?

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, these are serious times. The economy is facing challenges like none we've faced in decades, and this time those challenges are on a global scale. The U.S. Department of Labor released its December jobs report this morning, and the news is jarring. The U.S. economy shed some 524,000 jobs in the month of December, and total job losses for 2008 have reached 2.6 million. There are now 11 million Americans out of work, and the unemployment rate has climbed upward to 7.2 percent, the highest level since 1993. The 111th Congress was sworn in this week amid these troubling indicators. What we do on this floor has the potential to help, but it also has the potential to harm. What we do here makes a difference, substantively, of course, but also symbolically. And what signal does it send to the Nation and the world that the first substantive order of business of the 111th Congress is not job creation or tax relief or economic stimulus, but, rather, a trial lawyer boondoggle that could put jobs and worker pensions in jeopardy. We should have done better, and perhaps we could have done better if we had taken the time to craft a bipartisan bill, or if we would have had an open debate process that allowed all Members of this body to contribute in a thoughtful way. Had this truly been a narrow fix, as its supporters would have the American people believe, this rush to approval may not have been such a problem. However, this is a major fundamental change to civil rights law, and no less than four separate statutes. The last change to civil rights law of this magnitude, the 1991 Civil Rights Act, took 2 years of negotiation, debate and partisan accord to accomplish. Instead, what we have before us is a partisan product that is fundamentally flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained in current law, and in doing so would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of discrimination occurred. Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this very prospect. Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill that is the result of an equally bad process. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we debate this legislation, Madam Speaker, I must point out that the myths propagated by our friends in the majority are almost too much to take, so I'd like to take a few moments to dispel some of their more disingenuous claims. We've heard them claim, for example, that H.R. 11 merely restores prior law by reversing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. If indeed this bill was intended simply to reverse the decision, it would have been written to do just that. However, it wasn't. As we have discussed, current law provides that an individual wishing to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable statute of limitations. Let's be perfectly clear. This was the law both before and after the 2007 Supreme Court decision. This bill would dismantle that statute of limitations and replace it with a new system in which every paycheck received by the employee allegedly discriminated against starts the clock on an entirely new statute. In other words it restores nothing. Rather, it totally guts current law and leaves the door open for trial lawyers to have a veritable field day. Supporters of this bill also tell us that with hundreds of charges of gender-based pay discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission each year, numerous claims will never be brought to justice without this legislation. Once again, nothing could be further from the truth. The right to each and every EEOC pay discrimination claim exists today, just as it has since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This bill does not restore any rights because these rights never were taken away. Current law allows an individual to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory by first filing a charge with the EEOC within the applicable statute of limitations. This bill does not establish any new rights, and its supporters know this perfectly well. Finally, the bill's supporters claim that unless this bill becomes law, victims of pay discrimination will have no recourse unless they file a claim within 180 or 300 days of that decision. Unfortunately, the majority refuses to acknowledge clear protections against such a scenario. First, employees who believe they are victims of pay discrimination may also have recourse under the Equal Pay Act, which is not subject to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 180 to 300 days filing requirements. Through a variety of legal doctrines, courts already allow plaintiffs to file claims outside the statute of limitations where it is fair and equitable for them to do so. For example, a court may choose to do so in a case where an employer withheld critical information or otherwise misled an employee into sleeping on his or her rights. In short, Madam Speaker, the lack of candor from this bill's proponents is clouding the debate, and I feel it is my duty to set the record straight. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.