Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

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.

Mr. McKEON. I have no further speakers, so I will reserve our time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered and overreaching legislation. Proponents of this bill claim it simply reverses a May 29, 2007, U.S. Supreme Court decision and clarifies congressional opposition to wage discrimination. In reality, however, this bill will set into motion a series of unintended consequences that will ripple through the economy and plague workers, small businesses, and the judicial system with a vast new legal minefield. At the outset, let me make it clear that opposition to discrimination of any type, be it gender discrimination, racial discrimination or any other type of discrimination inside and outside the workplace, is not confined to one party or the other. Every Member of this Chamber stands in strong opposition to the unfair treatment of any worker. At the same time, I believe we must stand firmly behind a process that ensures justice for all parties, and that includes protecting against the potential for abuse and over-litigation. It is my commitment to those principles that requires me to vote no on this bill today. For more than 40 years, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay scale based on his or her gender. This is a principle upon which all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree. As such, current law provides that any 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, which is either 180 or 300 days, depending on his or her state of employment after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred. The statute of limitations was clearly established in the law to encourage the timely filing of claims which helps prevent the filing of stale claims and protects against the abuse of the legal system. Consider these ``worst case'' scenarios, for example: Without a statute of limitations in place, an employee could sue for pay discrimination resulting from an alleged discriminatory act that might have occurred, 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years earlier. And without a statute of limitations in place, it is entirely conceivable that a worker or retiree could seek damages against a company run by employees and executives that had nothing to do with the initial act of the alleged discrimination that occurred dozens of years ago. The bill before us would dismantle the statute of limitations and replace it with a new system under which every paycheck received by the employee allegedly discriminated against starts the clock on an entirely new statute. While fair-minded in principle, this dramatic change in civil rights law would have an incredibly far-reaching impact, one that supporters of the bill have yet to take the time to thoroughly and appropriately consider. Indeed, if this bill becomes law, the worst case scenarios I just described could become commonplace. And let's not kid ourselves: our Nation's trial lawyers would seize upon that. Madam Speaker, this bill is not a matter of tinkering around the edges as its supporters would have the American people believe. Rather, it is a fundamental overhaul of longstanding civil rights laws. The last major change to these laws occurred more than 15 years ago, and after several years of debate. Yet, here we are, just hours into the 111th Congress, and without having held legislative hearings, a committee markup, or even an open-debate process on the floor, voting on a highly flawed bill without any regard to its long-term ramifications. I'm opposed to discrimination in the workplace, and I believe that workers must have a protected right to avail themselves of legal protections when such discrimination occurs. That right exists today in carefully crafted civil rights law that ensures fairness and justice for all parties. Unfortunately, the bill before us is neither fair nor just, and for that reason, I will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I reserve my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I will close and you will close. We have no more speakers.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. ``The Paycheck Fairness Act.'' It has a nice ring to it. Who doesn't support paycheck fairness? Who doesn't support equal pay for equal work? I have three beautiful and talented daughters, and I have 13 beautiful and talented granddaughters. I won't mention that I have three handsome, talented sons and 16 handsome, talented grandsons. If this would do for women what all of these speeches have said it would do, I would be the strongest advocate for it because of my daughters and my granddaughters and hopefully, some day, great granddaughters. Unfortunately, that is not what this bill is offering. No, Mr. Speaker, if this bill becomes law, it will make the system fundamentally unfair, except for trial lawyers. Now, if one of my granddaughters becomes a trial lawyer it would help her, and I guess that's a good thing to support. But the bill will expose family businesses to unlimited liability, threatening jobs, and retirement security at a time when both are on shaky ground. The Democrats' meager efforts to blunt the potential harm do not change the fact that trial lawyers stand to receive a big payday because this bill lowers the bar on costly jury awards. H.R. 12 will encourage class action lawsuits, treating the EPA as a litigation factory. It will make it harder for businesses to defend against legal challenges, inviting unscrupulous trial lawyers to pursue baseless claims. Now we know what the bill would do. But what about what it fails to do? It doesn't prohibit discrimination under the law. We did that 46 years ago. It doesn't offer working women new flexibility so they can balance work and home, as Republicans have fought for. It certainly doesn't do anything to stimulate the economy, which is the number one issue, what many working families are struggling with today, working mothers are struggling with. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part, of H.R. 2638, ``The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. This submission is in addition to my prior submission of an earmark contained in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009.'' Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the ``Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Advatech Pacific, Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 950 E. Palmdale Blvd., Suite C, Palmdale, CA 93550. Description of Request: At my request, $1.2 million for the continued operation of the Advanced Vehicle Propulsion Center (AVPC) is included in the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. The AVPC, which provides the Air Force with a unique, world-class engineering modeling and simulation environment for analysis and engineering of current and future space vehicles, missiles, and advanced weapon concepts. The AVPC leverages and integrates the best engineering, analysis, and cost tools from government, industry, and academia. The AVPC directly supports analyses of alternatives, the fundamental first step in the formal DOD weapon systems acquisition process and plays a key role directly supporting the following Air Force Research Laboratory programs at Edwards Air Force Base: Prompt Global Strike, Common Aero Vehicle, Operationally Responsive Space for strategic and tactical commanders, and Conventional Ballistic Missile. AVPCs detailed technical engineering analysis also provides cost versus risk trade-off analysis across missions, systems, operations, and infrastructures. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the ``Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Air Force. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Aerojet-General Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 13222, Sacramento, CA 95813- 6000, USA. Description of Request: At my request, $1.4 million to help return the Hydrocarbon Boost Technology Demonstrator program to its initial programmed funding level is included in the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. This critical, next-generation liquid rocket engine development effort run by the Air Force Research Laboratory at Edwards AFB will not only provide the highest performing hydrocarbon engines ever developed in the United States, but also will provide higher operability, lower costs and greater safety with higher reliability than any liquid booster engine ever made in the U.S. and perhaps the world. Since the federal government is the primary end- user, it is logical that federal funding support the initiative. While a match is not required, during the past eight years, Aerojet has invested approximately $30 million in internal research and development funding on this technology and intends continued support in FY09. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the ``Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded Computing. Address of Requesting Entity: 28965 Avenue Penn, Santa Clarita, CA 91355, USA. Description of Request: At my request, $2.4 million to develop a Common Ground Combat System electronic architecture prototype is included in the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. This project will include replacement of legacy military standard based data-bus components with modem commercial standards based network centric capable components, the consolidation of obsolete electronic subsystems into common electronic modules and assemblies providing greatly reduced space, weight, and power consumption and the implementation of a two-level maintenance approach using newly standardized commercial electronic module technology. Funding is intended to be spent on program management, electronics obsolescence study, electronics commonality study, design concept development, design concept demonstrators, and a heavy brigade combat team Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) application report. The advantage of this approach to the Department of the Army is an evolutionary capability migration allowing the Future Force to operate with the current force. This project can be completed in FY09. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the ``Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Research Development Test and Evaluation, Navy. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Aerojet-General Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: P.O. Box 13222, Sacramento, CA 95813- 6000. Description of Request: At my request, $800,000 in project funding for risk reduction of the High Speed Anti-Radiation Demonstration (HSAD) is included in the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Following a successful test flight of the HSAD, this funding will be spent for Navy program management, tactical missile component design development and analysis, lightweight ramjet engine component testing, ramjet engine safety engineering and analysis, guidance system conceptual design, and operational analysis. The basic HSAD program focuses on demonstrating the feasibility and viability of using variable flow ducted rocket propulsion technology for the propulsion portion of planned advanced weapon systems. This request is consistent with the intended and authorized purpose of the account and the project is under the direction of the Naval Air Warfare Center. Requesting Member: Congressman Howard ``Buck'' McKeon. Bill Number: H.R. 2638, the ``Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Account: Other Procurement, Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: General Atomics. Address of Requesting Entity: 3550 General Atomics, San Diego, CA 92186-5606. Description of Request: At my request, $1.6 million in project funding for the U.S. Army Warrior UAV program is included in the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2009. SAR/GMTI radar is an integral part of the U.S. Army Warrior program. A current buy of six Warrior Block 0 aircraft has no provision for radars. Included funding will be used for to procure Lynx II SAR/GMTI radars and spares for the Army's six Warrior Block 0 aircraft. Integration of Lynx II on the Warrior Block 0 aircraft will provide a fleet of aircraft with common radar and the highest level of all weather, broad area surveillance capability.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill before us is about environmental education. Specifically, it is about teaching elementary and secondary students about the world in which they live, about the natural resources of our great Nation and about the stewardship of our environment and of our resources for the future. This legislation provides grants to State and local education agencies, to institutions of higher education or to nonprofit organizations. The resources are targeted to ensure they will directly benefit students. This amendment, as I understand it, would make ``municipalities eligible for these grants as well.'' Unfortunately, that term is not defined, leaving open to interpretation just exactly how far we would be expanding this program. Without a clear and narrow definition, this amendment could open up the funding to any number of entities, including cities, townships, districts or county governments, to name just a few. In other words, this amendment opens the limited resources under the bill to organizations that may or may not provide the direct services to students that we're seeking. I support local control and local partnerships. That's why I support the Courtney amendment, which allows partnerships with State and local park departments. Through that model, we provide grants directly to educational organizations, which can then partner with the local organizations we're talking about now that can enrich the environmental education experience. I understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish with this amendment, and I'd like to work with him to see if we can get there, but at this time, I'm opposed to this amendment because it's not clear enough about prioritizing funds for educational entities that provide direct services to students. I know that the majority is working with us to clarify the definition of ``municipality.'' As this bill moves forward, I look forward to working with them to ensure we do not dilute the limited resources of this program away from the students they're intended for. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I appreciate the gentleman. As I said, I appreciate his amendment, and I appreciate his effort in this regard. This points out, once again, to me that we have a large country with 435 congressional districts. Just within my congressional district, we have cities; we have counties; we have towns; we have towns that really don't have a government responsibility, but they're kind of granted that, and that's just in my district. I haven't had the opportunity to visit your district. I'm sure that in each of the 435 districts we would find different ways that this would be treated, and that is my concern is how we define that. I think the gentleman's bill is directed towards students to help students get the education of environmental studies that he would like to see and that I support. The concern that I have again is that, if we direct it as your amendment would, it may be directed away from students. I think that this could be worked out. As we know, we are not going to finish this up in this Congress anyway, so it will be something that will carry over next year. Should we all happen by some circumstance to win our elections, we'll be back here in a few months, working on this again, but at this point, I would still have to oppose the amendment, hoping that we could work this out in the future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. One week before the 110th Congress is scheduled to adjourn, we are devoting precious legislative hours to debating a noncontroversial bill to extend a minuscule environmental education program for 1 year. I think we all agree that environmental education is important now and for future generations, and I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for the work that he's done on this bill. I think, as he has eloquently stated, environmental education is very important. But how we spend our time in this Chamber is a reflection of our priorities, and today, our priorities are all wrong. Chairman Miller and I work well together on the Education and Labor Committee, and we often reach agreements before bills are brought to the floor. On this bill, we worked together to resolve our differences, and we agreed that while important, this bill was straightforward and noncontroversial--most of our Members will vote for it--enough that it should be considered on the suspension calendar. I believe that two- thirds of this body would easily have supported the legislation, making these hours of debate unnecessary. For whatever reason, whether to mask their continued failure to offer comprehensive energy solutions or simply to avoid a debate on the issue altogether, the majority has opted to bring this bill to the floor today under a rule. So let me just take a moment to reflect on H.R. 3036. The Federal Government has a role to play in education. That role is to provide support and assistance to ensure that all children are provided a quality education. It is to support the academic achievement of disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, and other at- risk students who might otherwise be left behind. In pursuing these goals, we must be careful not to create too much bureaucracy nor too many Federal programs that could undermine local control. That's why I appreciate the efforts that were made to limit the scope of this bill, extending an existing program at the EPA and supplementing it with similar activities through the Department of Education rather than establishing a massive new environmental education bureaucracy as some had originally proposed. This is a reasonable bill, and at the end of the day, I will support it. But, Mr. Chairman, if I had my choice, we would not be here debating this legislation today. Although environmental education is important, this Congress has a limited amount of time to challenge our mammoth problems facing this Nation. As of a few minutes ago, when we found we won't be in session tomorrow, if we work all of next week, we will have 5 days left to finish the work of this Congress. Instead of tinkering around the edges of an existing environmental education program, we ought to be debating comprehensive, all-of-the-above approaches to reform our Nation's energy policy and put America on the path to energy independence. Here we are, going into the last week of this Congress. We've been here 2 years, we only have now 13 days of work scheduled for the last 5 months of this year--and that, after our Democrat leadership, during the last election, said that we would be a harder working Congress, we would be a more open Congress, we would be one that would follow regular order, we would be open to the way this House was meant to function. At this point, we have not passed one spending bill. The spending bills that were passed last year run out on September 30, the new year starts October 1, and not one spending bill to continue to fund the Government through the next year has yet been passed. We did pass one on this floor, but not one has been passed through the whole process-- the House, the Senate, and been sent to the President's desk, not one spending bill. I guess the people throughout the country will be watching and seeing what happens on October 1. Will the Government be shut down? I don't know. I don't know how they plan to solve this problem. I just know that at this point they have not brought one spending bill to completion for the President to sign. We have not finished our work on this committee on No Child Left Behind. That was a very, very important piece of legislation. We worked on it last year. We haven't talked about it for over a year now. And I guess that's just going to be let go into next year, when a new Congress will be here. I am greatly disappointed, Mr. Chairman, with the work product of this Congress. We had the ability. We had new leadership that came in with lots of promises, lots of enthusiasm, lots of things that were going to be done to make things better for the American public. The most important issue facing us today is the energy issue. Every one of us in America sees that every day when we fill our tanks or at least drive by the gas stations and see how the price has gone up--or maybe down a couple cents, depending, but it's a couple dollars more than it was when the Republicans were in charge here a couple years ago. We had the opportunity this year, even this week, to address an all- of-the-above energy solution: More conservation, more alternative fuels, more biomass, more wind, more solar--yes, and more oil, more coal, more shale.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose it.

Mr. McKEON. I think I've said everything I needed to say. I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank Chairman Miller for offering this amendment, and Mr. Sarbanes for filling in. This amendment clarifies that the Federal Government will not impose an environmental justice curriculum on our Nation's schools. This issue was debated during the committee consideration of the bill and it was an issue on which there was disagreement between the majority and the minority. I believe that the bill approved by our committee went too far in this regard because it could have required State and local officials to develop specific environmental justice curricula. We have long believed that specific curricula--which is taught in individual classrooms--is best determined at the local level. And while this bill contains a broad prohibition on Federal curriculum development, I believe it was necessary to clarify the environmental justice language as well so that there would be no confusion as to what the Federal Government is or is not demanding of our schools. Chairman Miller worked closely with me to refine this language, and I want to thank him for his willingness to do so. This amendment also contains some interesting language that was added earlier this week, presumably in response to efforts on our side of the aisle to ensure this bill does not ignore critical energy issues. Republicans proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of clean coal and oil shale production, energy production in the ANWR, and energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf. We proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear power, and of American-made energy, and of the all-of-the-above energy strategy, which would increase production, promote conservation, and expand innovation. We think that each of these issues deserves a full and open debate because an all-of-the-above energy strategy does not ignore any aspect of energy reform. Although our amendments were not made in order, I was pleased to see that the Miller amendment now includes language to ensure that environmental education programs include a discussion of the costs and benefits of oil and gas drilling, of nuclear power, of new coal technologies, and of renewable energy sources. While this language is not as strong and comprehensive as what the Republicans had offered, I appreciate its inclusion nonetheless. The truth is we need to be talking about energy more, not less. We passed an energy bill earlier this week that won't increase energy production. We passed an energy bill that puts American resources under lock and key instead of opening them up to environmentally safe production that will create jobs and that will bring down energy prices. This sham of a bill that we passed raises taxes and stands to drive consumer prices up, not down. So I'm glad we're going to be talking to our children about the benefits of American energy production. It's a conversation we should be having here in Congress as well. Once again, I want to thank Chairman Miller for working with me to clarify the environmental justice aspect of this legislation, and I look forward to supporting this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to at this time yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) such time as she may consume.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, as I stated earlier, I support the gentleman's amendment and commend him on it. Madam Chairman, over the last several years, the National Park Service has increasingly relied on partnerships with outside entities to fulfill its mission and foster a shared sense of stewardship for our environment and natural resources. In fact, a number of National Park Service programs operate almost exclusively through partnerships. One way the National Park Service is supporting environmental education is through professional development opportunities for teachers. These include helping teachers utilize park resources in the classroom or preparing classes for a park visit. Most of these workshops are accredited and can be taken for college credit, and are structured to meet the needs of today's teacher--teaching to academic content standards while making the material engaging and relevant. Because of the existing commitment on the part of the National Park Service to provide educational enrichment, the bill allows grantees to enter into National Park Service partnerships as a means to increase the knowledge and understanding of environmental education. The Courtney amendment goes beyond this focus on the National Park Service, by allowing grant applicants to discuss through the grant application process how they have partnered, or intend to partner, with a state and local park and recreation department. I support this amendment because it maintains the current funding structure--in which we provide grants to educational organizations-- while making clear that students can benefit from the creativity, experience, and resources of local programs. These types of partnerships could benefit students by enriching their environmental education experience, and I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment to clarify that these partnerships are permissible, and welcome, under the legislation. This amendment builds on the existing emphasis we have placed on partnerships with the National Park Service, and I am happy to support it. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I will be concluding for our side, if we could inquire how much time we have left.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose it.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from Delaware, the subcommittee ranking member on the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, Mr. Castle, 4 minutes.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since 1990, the Federal Government's environmental education programs have been coordinated by the Environmental Protection Agency and have been well supported, receiving approximately $9 million in 2008. The bill before us aims to strengthen that investment. It would incorporate scientifically-based and technology-driven teaching methods into environmental education, align programs with challenging State and local content standards, and support integrated and interdisciplinary studies. It would also create opportunities for professional development and encourage participation among underrepresented populations. These are all positive steps that I support. This bill also creates a new National Capacity Environmental Education Program, under the Department of Education, to develop elementary and secondary environmental education programs. Unfortunately, this program is duplicative of the existing environmental education program already being run by the EPA, which has provided more than 3,200 grants to States, local schools and nonprofit organizations to increase environmental education. By creating a new program administered by the Secretary of Education, I'm concerned that the bill could create a more fragmented system of promoting environmental education on the Federal level. Still, on the whole, I think this is a modest bill with good intentions, and I do not intend to oppose its passage. I appreciate Chairman Miller's willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion, and plan to vote ``yes'' because of that cooperation. But let me say one thing to the education reform opponents who blame No Child Left Behind for all the world's ills. Our schools are free to teach environmental education or music or history or the Constitution or any number of other important subjects today under the No Child Left Behind act. We don't need a new bill with a clever name to make that happen. So while I will be voting ``yes'' on this bill, I must confess that I'm not entirely sure why we're here today devoting several hours to debating it under a rule. Only a handful of bills are brought up under the rules process each week. Generally, those are the bills that are of greatest concern to the American people. This week, for example, this rather minor environmental education bill is one of just four bills that will be brought up under a rule. Dozens of other minor bills are easily considered under a suspension of the rule each week, giving us more time for those issues that are complex or consequential. The only reason I can think of to bring a bill like this to the floor under a rule is because the majority is trying to fill the time and avoid a debate on other issues. On the schedule that we've been given by this Democratic leadership that pledged to work harder in this new Congress, in the last 5 months of this year, 15 days were scheduled to work. Last week one of those days was eliminated, bringing it down to 14. We just heard that another day has been eliminated tomorrow, bringing it down to 13; 13 working days in the last 5 months of the year. One of the issues that we could be debating, or should be debating, I think it is very important to the American people given the price of gasoline at the pump and the tremendous problems that we have facing us, this issue is energy, and it's an issue that we won't allow the majority to ignore. In fact, I believe this bill to improve environmental education is the perfect place to talk about energy. That's why we've proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of clean coal and oil shale production, energy production in ANWR, and energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf. We've proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear power, and of American- made energy, and of an all-of-the-above strategy, an energy production strategy that would increase production, promote conservation and expand innovation. Feeling the pressure to acknowledge these important issues, the majority hastily revised their manager's amendment on Tuesday for this bill, more than a week after the amendment deadline for the bill. And they added a half-hearted mention of issues of American energy production. While it's a small step in the right direction, I can't help but wonder if this last-minute change was made not because they agree that we need to explore these issues, but because they simply didn't want to vote on our other stronger amendments. Time and again, this majority has skirted the issue and avoided a real debate about real energy problems. The bill we passed on Tuesday was a sham. It was about offering political cover, not about making America energy independent. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the American people to watch the progress of this bill. I've heard many speeches during the last couple of days about how we've expanded areas where we can explore and we can bring more production on-line and we can move towards energy independence, and this is what we have done to help the American people. I would encourage the American people, Mr. Chairman, to watch the progress of this bill to see how it moves forward the rest of this afternoon; tomorrow we won't be in session so they won't be able to work on it, and then all of next week. We'll be here, maybe all week, and then this Congress will end. And let's see if the American people see that the things that were promised in these speeches the last couple of days come to bear, or if it was just more political rhetoric to try to win the upcoming election. I'm not surprised that they incorporated a fig leaf reference to energy production in this bill at all. It becomes par for the course. But I'm here to tell you that we're not buying it and the American people aren't buying it, either. Our schools are suffering because of high energy prices, and any time we debate a bill to help our schools, we ought to be talking about how to ease their pain at the pump as well. Earlier today I joined Republican Leader Boehner to release the results of our Back to School Energy Survey. The results were eye opening. We heard from nearly 1,000 Americans, principals, teachers, school board members from across country, and they overwhelmingly agreed that Congress needs to be doing more to bring down energy prices. Ninety percent of those surveyed said high energy costs were impacting their schools. Nearly half reported that high fuel costs have forced schools in their community to cut field trips and after-school activities. One-third told us that high costs forced schools to limit bus routes. And nearly a quarter reported that rising energy costs have led to higher school lunch prices. Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better and our schools deserve better. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to rise in support of ADA Amendments Act of 2008, a bill we first approved earlier this year. The bill we passed was the product of good-faith negotiation and careful compromise, and I appreciate that the framework of our bill has been maintained. At the same time, our counterparts on the other side of the Capitol were able to further refine and improve the legislation. Thanks to that effort, the bill before us today represents an important step forward for Americans with disabilities and the employers that benefit from their many contributions. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 with broad bipartisan support. Among the bill's most important purposes was to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace. By many measures, the law has been a huge success. I firmly believe that the employer community has taken the ADA to heart, with businesses adopting policies specifically aimed at providing meaningful opportunities to individuals with disabilities. However, despite the law's many success stories, it is clear today that for some, the ADA is failing to live up to its promise. In the years since its enactment, court cases and legal interpretations have left some individuals outside the scope of the act's protections. Some individuals the law was clearly intended to protect have been deemed ``not disabled enough,'' an interpretation we all agree needs correcting. In response, however, proposals were put forward to massively expand the law's protections to cover virtually all Americans. This is an equally dangerous proposition. Our task with this legislation was to focus relief where it is needed, while still maintaining the delicate balance embodied in the original ADA. In the months since this bill was first introduced and moved through the House, I am pleased to say that we were able to do exactly that. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and the time to enact it is now. It ensures that meaningful relief will be extended to those most in need, while the ADA's careful balance is maintained as fully as possible. Once again, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for honoring our shared commitment to work together on this issue that has the potential to touch the lives of millions of Americans. I would especially like to recognize Majority Leader Hoyer, Representative Sensenbrenner, and Chairman Miller for their leadership and commitment to enactment of these important bipartisan reforms. I also want to thank the many stakeholders, especially the ones that Chairman Miller mentioned in his remarks, who were involved in this process for their efforts. I reserve the balance of my time.