Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield now to the gentleman from Delaware, ranking member of the K-12 Education Subcommittee, such time as he may consume, Mr. Castle.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to associate myself with the remarks that Chairman Miller just made of thanking Leader Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner for the work that they began in the last Congress and persevered to bring us to this point today. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 with broad bipartisan support. Among the bill's most important purposes was the protecting of individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace. By many measures, the law has been a 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. For example, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony earlier this year from individuals who, I would stipulate, were intended to be covered under the original ADA. But in a perverse fashion, someone who was able to treat the effects of his or her disability through medication or technology was left without protection because they weren't ``disabled'' enough. I don't think that is what the authors of the original ADA intended. I don't believe it is what we intend today, and I am glad that the bill before us addresses and corrects this issue. Madam Speaker, we are here today because some individuals have been left outside the scope of the act's protections by court cases and by narrow interpretations of the law. Still, others have sought to massively expand the law's protections, an equally dangerous proposition. Our task with this legislation is 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, I am pleased to say we were able to do so. Because the ADA extends its protections to so many facets of American life, there were four separate committees with the responsibility for moving the process forward. Equally important, this compromise was forged with representatives of many of the stakeholders who will be affected by this bill. It was truly a process of give-and-take. For instance, even as we work to ensure the law's protections are extended to some who are currently excluded, such as those I mentioned earlier who were wrongly considered to be not ``disabled enough,'' we define that expansion cautiously. Through the carefully crafted language of the bill, we will ensure, for example, that someone is not ``disabled'' under the ADA simply because he or she wears eyeglasses or contact lenses. That's an important limitation, and it is necessary to maintaining the intent and integrity of the ADA. Also importantly, this version of the legislation maintains a requirement of the ADA, which is that, to be considered a disability, a physical or a mental impairment must ``substantially limit'' an individual. As introduced, H.R. 3195 threatened to gut any meaningful limitation on the ADA by simply calling any impairment, no matter how trivial or minor, a disability. That was not the intent of Congress in 1990, nor should it be today. Madam Speaker, I support this bill, not because I think it is perfect but because I think it represents our best efforts to ensure that meaningful relief will be extended to those most in need, while the ADA's careful balance is maintained as fully as possible. In recognition of that achievement, let me simply 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. And I also want to thank all of the people who worked so hard--the members of the community most affected by this--and thank them for their efforts and patience in working with us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I recognize now the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

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

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I plan to support passage of H.R. 5876 today not because it's perfect but because Members on both sides of the aisle have acted in good faith to develop a package of reform that will help to protect the young people enrolled in residential treatment facilities. I thank Chairman Miller. I think that he knows that this is not the bill I would have written, and some concerns do remain, but he's made compromises and I have made compromises, and together we're working to develop a seamless system of oversight to ensure the teens in these programs, some of our most vulnerable young people, will be kept safe. I plan to continue working with the chairman in the coming months to improve the bill, avert unintended consequences, and ultimately achieve our goal of putting an end to the stories of abuse, neglect, and even death that have put a black mark on some of these programs. I look forward to working more closely with the programs themselves as this legislation moves forward. I believe there are best practices out there that can be identified and replicated, and I take the expertise of these programs will be invaluable as we develop programs that do not undercut their ability to treat troubled youth. I'm also eager to work more closely with the States, some of whom are doing an excellent job of licensing and regulating these programs. Unfortunately, not all States are rising to the task, which is what this bill hopes to change. So let me close by simply thanking Chairman Miller by shining a spotlight on this issue and offering my assurances that I will continue to work with you to stop child abuse in residential programs for teens. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, Madam Chairman, although I am not opposed.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. After the devastating stories we heard of children dying at residential treatment facilities, every member of our committee wondered how this could have happened and what could have been done to prevent it. And being in Washington, it's easy to assume the answer lies here with the Federal Government. But, Madam Chairman, we know the answer is not always the Federal Government. In fact, States may be better equipped to regulate, monitor, and enforce the safety protections that are needed for these programs. We can ensure stronger protections by resisting the urge to consolidate all responsibility inside the Beltway. When this bill was brought before the committee, the Department of Health and Human Services said the following: ``The Federal Government has no oversight or rules governing child abuse and neglect investigations, as each State has its own process for defining and investigating child abuse and neglect, including the timeliness and methods for responding to and completing investigations of allegations. As such, any Federal investigations of abuse and neglect would likely interfere and perhaps conflict with a State's procedures for the same.'' The Miller-McKeon substitute will go a long way toward addressing this issue, and I want to once again thank Chairman Miller for his willingness to consider our concerns. Some danger still remains that the specific requirements of this bill could conflict with State child protection laws, and I look forward to working in a bipartisan basis to resolve that issue as this bill moves forward. There was also a practical problem with the top-down Federal regulation in the bill as it was drafted. It would have been virtually impossible for HHS to build up a new regulatory infrastructure and have the capacity to begin visiting each and every one of these programs in the time allotted. It is far more practical for the States, many of which are already licensing and regulating these programs, to take on that responsibility. This substitute ensures that States will do so. The bill, as originally drafted, also included a new private right of action to sue in Federal court, something that I think would have provided a much greater benefit to trial lawyers than victimized youth. I'm pleased this provision has been removed. Victims of abuse still have the right to remedies in court, but our emphasis now is on protection and prevention instead of litigation. And so, Madam Chairman, because of this substitute, the bill we will vote on later today is a considerable improvement over what was introduced. While it is still not perfect, I plan to support it and continue working with the Chairman to create strong protections for the young people enrolled in these programs. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes no the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here today to consider a bill that will help protect the thousands of young people enrolled in residential treatment facilities. Although we don't know exactly how many such facilities exist, it is estimated that hundreds of them have been established all around the country. We will hear a lot about boot camps today, but there are a range of residential treatment programs, both public and private, ranging from wilderness therapy to boarding schools. Many of these programs are successful, helping troubled teens overcome addiction, emotional struggles, and other challenges in order to turn their lives around. We are here today not because of the success stories, and there are many, but because of cases where these programs have harmed the young people they are meant to heal. Over the last several years, the Government Accountability Office has been conducting a series of inquiries into reports of child abuse, neglect, and even death at residential treatment programs for teens. Beginning last fall, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony from the GAO on its findings. We also heard directly from victims of abuse and from the families of teens who lost their lives. The stories we heard were devastating and the response was unequivocal: Someone needs to take responsibility for regulating and monitoring these programs and enforcing strong protections for the young people they enroll. However, even though we know the need to regulate these programs is clear, we are faced with many obstacles in determining the best approach. The threshold challenge we face is to determine exactly what facilities we are talking about. Even the GAO, which has spent years investigating these programs, cannot offer a precise count or even an estimate of how many such programs exist and where they are located. There is also the question of protecting against abuse while still allowing effective programs to serve families. As I mentioned earlier, in addition to stories of neglect and victimization, our inquiries into these programs also brought to light numerous success stories. We heard from young people who suffered from drug addiction, emotional and behavioral troubles, and other self-injuring behaviors. They credited residential treatment programs with turning their lives around. Balancing these and other challenges, and after a process of review, analysis, and cooperation, I am pleased that we have developed a bipartisan proposal that will ensure the effective regulation, monitoring, and enforcement of these programs by the States, with the Federal Government playing an appropriate oversight role. I appreciate Chairman Miller's willingness to work with our side of the aisle throughout this process, and particularly over the last several days as we were able to forge a compromise that achieves our shared goal of protecting young people without creating the type of parallel and conflicting dual-regularity structure envisioned in the original bill. As with any piece of legislation, this bill is not yet perfect. I remain concerned about potential conflicts between State child abuse laws and the new definitions and interpretations established here at the Federal level. I also think we need to consider whether linkages to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act will be sufficient to ensure States are fulfilling their duties to protect the young people in these programs. But on the whole, I am pleased with the progress we have made to develop a strong bipartisan bill that will help put an end to the cases of abuse, neglect, and death in these facilities. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise today to recognize the contributions of Clyde Smyth, a member of my staff since 1994. Clyde has generously served the United States and the Santa Clarita community over the years by identifying worthy students in the 25th Congressional District of California for appointment to the military academies. After years of offering his leadership and expertise and effecting change throughout the district, it is a great pleasure to recognize Mr. Smyth on the occasion of his retirement. Clyde's story is one of absolute service at every turn. He is a man of honor and integrity who has given of himself for the betterment of those around him. Clyde first came to the Santa Clarita Valley in 1969 to serve as principal of Placerita Junior High and later served the William S. Hart High School district as superintendent from 1974 until 1992. He is a true American hero who also served in the United States Army during the Korean war. After our community of Santa Clarita incorporated, Clyde was elected to the city council in 1994 where he served with honor for 4 years and as mayor for a year. Clyde Smyth has instilled strong core values and the desire to give back in his family as well as in his community. He is an example for his sons and also for all those who meet him. To know Clyde is to be inspired to be a better person. While Clyde is retiring from his current position on my staff, I am certain that he is not done working. I know Clyde as a man who, through his words and deeds, has demonstrated his desire to lend a helping hand, and I can't imagine that retirement would change that. On behalf of myself and the many young men and women who have been helped directly by his work, I offer sincere gratitude to Mr. Clyde Smyth and wish him and his wife Sue all the best in his retirement years.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I oppose this amendment, Madam Chairman, for the same reason I oppose the underlying bill. This proposal radically shifts the Federal role in education. This new school construction program will compete for funding with other critical priorities like title I and IDEA. And no matter what the other side tries to tell you, every dollar spent under this legislation is a dollar that won't be spent improving academic achievement for disadvantaged children. Here in Congress our job is to set priorities. Are we really saying that it's more important to fund bicycle racks, as this substitute would do, than it is to provide funds for schools to serve children with disabilities? I don't deny that schools can use bicycle racks, but I challenge anyone to explain why that's a priority for scarce Federal dollars when title I and IDEA continue to be funded below their authorized level. I also think this entire debate is a distraction from the most immediate financial concern facing many school systems and every family in this Nation: That's the high price of gasoline. School districts are struggling just to fill the tanks on their school buses. They're scaling back field trips and activities. And some schools are even moving to a 4-day school week to save on energy costs. Just like the rest of the country, our schools need energy relief and they need it now. But we're not here today to discuss how we can produce more American- made energy. We're not here to promote new clean and reliable sources of energy like advanced nuclear and next-generation coal. We're not even here to encourage greater energy efficiency by offering conservation tax incentives to Americans who make their home, car, and businesses more energy efficient. Instead, we are proposing a big government program to exert Federal control over how States and local communities build their schools. It's the classic Washington approach to problem solving: If we just kick in a little bit of money, we'll be able to wield our power and influence over the decisions that used to be made by individual citizens and local leaders. Surely Washington must know best when it comes to where our children learn. Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment, I oppose this legislation, and I oppose the fact that Congress has yet to do anything to address the skyrocketing cost of energy. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. I am privileged to yield at this time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) 3 minutes.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't expect to oppose its passage.

Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment allows funding under the massive new program to be used for renewable energy generation and heating systems in schools. Clearly, this amendment recognizes that schools are grappling with the high cost of energy, and they need help. I couldn't agree more. But we are acknowledging that schools, like the rest of the country, are being burdened by the skyrocketing costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, and other energy sources. I'd like to know why we are not having a real debate about energy solutions. Giving schools a little bit of money for renewable energy generation and heating systems, while ignoring the problem of rising gasoline, diesel, and other energy costs, will not solve the problems our schools are facing. In the Northeast, for instance, we know that many schools rely on home heating oil during the winter months. Clearly, a one-size- fits-all approach isn't going to work. What we need are comprehensive energy solutions. We need to expand production here at home, something my friends on the other side of the aisle have historically opposed 86 percent of the time. We need to encourage innovation and invest in new fuel alternatives, and we need to promote conservation. Only by embracing meaningful energy reforms will we finally be able to move toward energy independence and provide our schools, especially those impacted by the skyrocketing costs of heating oil, much needed relief. That is why I am so disappointed in this legislation. It's quite simply the wrong solution to the wrong problem. If the question is how should the Federal Government help our schools, the answer is by funding programs that promote academic achievement for disadvantaged children. If the question is how should the Federal Government help schools burdened by high energy costs, the answer is by taking decisive action to increase energy production here at home, and red tape and regulations encourage next generation energy sources and promote conservation. The bill achieves none of these goals. I won't oppose passage of this amendment, but I strongly oppose passage of this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I rise in opposition to this rule. Schools around the Nation are facing an immediate funding shortfall, but it's not a lack of funds for green facilities maintenance. Mr. Speaker, like the rest of us, they're struggling with gasoline prices. For local school systems, energy represents a significant share of their budget. They pay for the fuel to operate the buses that drive children to and from school. They pay to heat their schools in the winter and cool them in the summer. They pay for electricity to light their classrooms and power their computers. And with the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline reaching $3.98 today--now, that might have been at the start of debate. It could be $3.99 or $4 now the way it's going up. In California, it's much higher than this already--these energy costs are consuming an increasing share of overall school budgets. For schools, rising energy costs don't stop with school buses and utilities. The cost of fuel makes almost everything more expensive, from books and supplies to the food that goes into school lunches. So, yes, our schools do have an immediate need, and we ought to be on the floor addressing that need today. We should be taking action on comprehensive energy legislation that will increase production, drive innovation, and promote conservation. Unfortunately, that's not what we're going to do today. Instead, the House will consider a bill that fundamentally changes the Federal role in education. I'm talking about legislation that begins the process of Federalizing the building and maintenance of individual schools in communities across this Nation. Agree or disagree with what this bill is trying to accomplish, no one can deny that what's being proposed is a significant, perhaps even monumental, shift in education policy. In keeping with the pattern established by the majority, it is no surprise then that this bill is being brought up with limited opportunity for debate and amendment, after being rushed through an abbreviated committee process. Of the 20 amendments submitted by Republicans, just four were made in order. That's one in five. Not surprisingly, members of the majority party fared a little better. Of the eight amendments they offered and did not withdraw, fully half of them were made in order. Several others were combined with amendments that were accepted or added to the manager's amendment, making sure that in the end virtually all of their concerns are going to be addressed. We can do better than this. We should do better than this, but after a year-and-a-half under this iron-fisted majority, I know better than to expect better. So much for the most open Congress in history. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.