Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the committee, Representative Walberg.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. However, I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. McKEON. I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Jim Jordan.

Mr. McKEON. At this time, Madam Chair, I'm happy to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee involved, the gentleman from Minnesota, Representative Kline.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 3685, a proposal fraught with burdensome mandates, litigation traps, and constitutional concerns. This bill purports to prohibit discrimination in the workplace, a goal to which we are all committed. However, the reality of this bill's consequences does not match the rhetoric of its supporters. This bill departs from the longstanding framework and structure of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by establishing stand-alone protections exclusively on the basis of sexual orientation. This new protected class would be afforded protections on the basis of vague and highly subjective measures that will cause confusion in the workplace and will result in costly litigation. For example, the bill extends protections on the basis of ``perceived'' sexual orientation, a characteristic that is subjective by its very definition. How would an employer credibly refute such an accusation? This proposal could result in the exact opposite effect its supporters intend by creating new pressures on employers to consider and even document their employees' sexual orientation, actual or how it is perceived, in order to guard against litigation. This is a highly inappropriate infringement on employee privacy and would actually increase the consideration of such characteristics in the workplace. Also, any argument that the term ``perceived'' is already included in existing civil rights statutes is simply not true. This is a new term, applied to a new situation, which will increase uncertainty and litigation. Even more broadly, this bill encroaches on two fundamental principles we hold dear: the free exercise of religion and preservation of the institution of marriage. H.R. 3685 is inconsistent with the longstanding religious exemption contained in title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The bill adds additional layers of complexity in determining whether a religious organization is covered, setting up highly intrusive Federal interference with the free expression of religion. We understand an amendment is to be offered later today that attempts to move closer to existing title VII provisions. However, it remains unclear whether this amendment, which has been rewritten repeatedly, does enough to protect faith-based institutions. On the issue of marriage, the majority adds a provision that prevents employers from considering marital status as a job qualification, even though they have not provided any evidence that such a limitation is necessary. We are left to speculate that the real reason for this provision could be an attempt to undermine the fundamental right of States to define, protect, and preserve the institution of marriage. The bill establishes new limitations on hiring practices only in those States that have prohibited same-sex marriage. By limiting these new restrictions to States that have defined marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, the bill has essentially identified traditional marriage as a form of discrimination. This bill, then, could become the first step in a radical effort to undermine State marriage laws. Madam Chairman, this bill has been introduced in various forms and fashions for some three decades. It has been introduced in the House three separate times this year alone. This is evidence of the inherent complexity that comes with such a far-reaching proposal. Later today, we will consider an amendment that seeks to broaden these new protections even further, to purportedly cover discrimination based on gender identity, despite the fact that this provision was stripped from the bill before it was taken up in committee. There are serious practical and legal concerns with this amendment, and many questions remain unresolved. This is an effort to make an end-run around the legislative process, considering the full scope of this proposal only when it is convenient for supporters. The bill before us is a sweeping departure from longstanding civil rights law, and its consequences will be far-reaching. A number of valid questions have been raised about how this bill will align with existing State and Federal anti-discrimination policies and those policies that have been voluntarily adopted by employers. These questions remain unanswered. Because of that, I must oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With this amendment, the majority tries to correct fundamental flaws related to hiring protections for faith-based institutions and the preservation of marriage. I will reluctantly support this relatively futile attempt, but let me be clear, on the issues of faith-based protections and the institution of marriage, this amendment fails to solve the problems. As such, even with adoption of this amendment, the underlying bill should be defeated. For months, my colleagues and I have raised substantive legal and policy concerns related to this legislation. After a series of legislative false starts, the bill brought to the floor continues to pose a number of challenges. The amendment offered by Chairman Miller is an obvious attempt to address a few, but certainly not all, of the issues we have identified. We expressed concern that the bill created a new anti-discrimination framework outside the existing scope of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among other things, this allowed for a new set of provisions to dictate the hiring rights of religious organizations, thereby stripping faith-based institutions of their long-standing title VII protections. I appreciate that the majority has recognized and agreed with our concerns about how this bill would intrude on religious freedom. In response to those concerns, the amendment moves closer to title VII. Inexplicably, however, it still leaves out an important piece of current law. Chairman Miller says his amendment fully restores protections to faith-based institutions. It does not. We expressed concern that the bill could undermine the rights of States to define, protect and preserve the institution of marriage. The Miller amendment deletes troublesome provisions related to employee benefits for same-sex couples and references the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, despite these steps, or perhaps even because of them, the bill taken as a whole continues to create potential conflicts between State and Federal marriage laws. Chairman Miller says his amendment protects the rights of States to define and preserve traditional marriage. It does not. A Presidential veto threat has been issued on constitutional and policy grounds. This amendment fails to fully address those concerns. I reluctantly support passage of this amendment to partially address a few of the problems we have identified throughout this bill's troubled legislative path. But I remind my colleagues that this amendment is not enough. The bill remains a litigation trap that undermines marriage and provides insufficient protections to faith-based organizations. Even after supporting this amendment, I urge my colleagues to reject the underlying bill. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Who has the right to close?

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Broun.

Mr. McKEON. Might I inquire how much time we have left?

Mr. McKEON. At this time, I would be happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, since 1965, the Head Start program has provided comprehensive health, developmental and educational services to disadvantaged, 4- and 5-year-olds. Head Start involves parents and communities in helping to prepare needy children to succeed in school and beyond. Because this program served such an important purpose, the notion that it could be abused to enrich the lifestyles of individuals rather than the lives of children is particularly shocking to the conscience. It's hard to imagine that any individual would seek to divert precious resources away from disadvantaged children in order to finance lavish cars, homes and travel; yet that's exactly what has happened. I would like to share two examples of these reported abuses which began coming to light almost 5 years ago. The head of a large organization of child care centers that operates Head Start programs in Ohio received pay that amounted to about a quarter of the public money that the centers receive each year. She owned a house in Aurora and another in Arizona. A Mercedes Benz and a Hummer were registered in the name of her centers. A portion of her salary came from Federal Head Start funds. The executive in charge of the Kansas City Head Start operation was revealed to have been earning a salary in excess of $300,000 annually and driving a Mercedes luxury sport utility vehicle leased, in part, with Federal Head Start funds meant for disadvantaged children. The executive resigned after questions were raised about his salary, which totaled more than $814,000 in fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002. The Improving Head Start Act takes steps to clamp down on financial abuses. Included in the bill is a reform Republicans have championed since these financial abuses were revealed; establishment of a cap on the amount Head Start executives can earn. We believe the compensation paid to a Head Start program director should be no higher than that paid to an assistant secretary at a Federal agency. Put another way, we do not believe local Head Start executives should be paid more than the Federal official confirmed by the Senate to oversee the entire program. The average Head Start teacher earns approximately $25,000 annually. The Head Start program can serve a disadvantaged child for just a few thousand dollars per year. Allowing these programs to divert resources from children and teachers in order to inflate the salaries of top executives is unconscionable. Head Start is a program intended to help disadvantaged children prepare for school. The House has already voted to protect Head Start children and teachers by explicitly prohibiting salaries in excess of that earned by Federal agencies' assistant secretaries. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this motion to instruct conferees to maintain this commonsense proposal.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, we know that there have been job losses due to trade, there have been job losses due to technology improvements. There are other different reasons why jobs are lost, and we all feel the pain of those who have lost their jobs. Having said that, the answer is not increased bureaucracy and increased problems that employers have to deal with in providing jobs and in coming up with new technology to create new jobs. The answer would be to streamline, to cut back the bureaucracy, yes, to give temporary help to workers that have been displaced, to give them the opportunity to get additional job training so that they can prepare for other occupations, and then to try to spread that pain across the country instead of just having it targeted on those specific plans. We will offer later an amendment to this bill, a substitute, that will do just that. In the meantime, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against additional bureaucracy and to vote against expanded government intrusion into the marketplace that causes these disruptions. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in opposition to this bill. The legislation before us is supposed to be about reforming the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. As flawed as the underlying TAA provisions are, their weaknesses are amplified by the inclusion of separate, largely unrelated legislation that moved through the Education and Labor Committee. That bill, which has been folded into the larger TAA package, modifies the WARN Act and COBRA, two statutes that were not even designed to help workers impacted by globalization get the tools and training they needed to get back to work. We've heard time and again that in order to effectively respond to competitive challenges we need to bolster our education and training systems to better prepare current and future workers for success. Unfortunately, the provisions inserted into the broader TAA bill take a different approach. Instead of offering proactive solutions that will allow American workers to compete and thrive, these policies do nothing more than layer on additional Federal red tape for employers while offering only incremental provisions for workers that would do nothing to help them adjust to the changing workplace. The proposal for a massive expansion of the WARN Act would be incredibly burdensome for employers struggling to keep pace with a changing economy. The limitations of this proposal do not match the real-world scenarios in which employers may be shifting their workforce to meet changing needs. The bill mandates a full 90 days' notice before a plant closure or other mass layoff, requiring employers to remain stagnant for a full fiscal quarter before adjusting their workforce. This, despite the fact that in order to keep and create jobs here at home, employers need a workforce that is flexible and adaptable. Layered on top of that unworkable time frame is a requirement that double damages be paid by any employer unable to comply. This would create a system that is more focused on punishing employers than truly helping workers who lose their jobs. Similarly, the selective expansion of COBRA availability seems to focus more on compliance and red tape than on offering genuine solutions to workers who need assistance and retraining as a result of globalization. It creates an unfair system in which not all workers who lose their jobs would have access to the same health care options. The bill uses TAA eligibility as a trigger for expanded COBRA coverage but extends the coverage almost indefinitely. This is inconsistent with existing COBRA eligibility and inconsistent with other TAA benefits. The Education and Labor Committee convened a hearing in March to examine the impact of international trade on American workers. The challenges we considered during that hearing are the same challenges we appear to be attempting to address today. Yet during that hearing, not a single witness suggested or endorsed these bloated, bureaucratic WARN Act and COBRA proposals. We all know that American companies must be flexible and dynamic in order to keep pace with their competition overseas. These proposals would put American companies at a distinct disadvantage, preventing them from maintaining an agile workforce and undermining efforts to preserve American jobs or create new ones because of the burden and cost of compliance with these new mandates. If we're serious about assisting dislocated workers and keeping America competitive, the Education and Labor Committee has a crucial role to play. We should be renewing our one-stop job training system authorized under the Workforce Investment Act. Unfortunately, Democrats have stalled our efforts to strengthen and improve job training, failing to even introduce a bill to extend and enhance WIA. Republicans are committed to keeping America competitive in the global economy. Later today, I will join with Representative McCrery, the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, to offer a comprehensive approach to assist Americans adversely affected by trade. The increased employer burdens proposed through an expansion of the WARN Act and COBRA are nothing more than a distraction from the real debate we ought to be having. I oppose these costly, arduous provisions because they move in exactly the wrong direction. Instead of fostering competitiveness and job creation, they will breed litigation and stagnation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions ranking member, with jurisdiction over COBRA, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for such time as he may consume.

Mr. McKEON. May I inquire of the Speaker what time is left.

Mr. McKEON. Do you have more speakers?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. You know, it has been 9 years since Congress last reauthorized the Workforce Investment Act, known as WIA. We made dramatic improvements through the last reauthorization, strengthening the nationwide system of one-stop training centers where workers can access a variety of training services. I remember not too long after we did that, two of the displaced workers in my district, we've lost many jobs for aerospace workers, two of them came up to me and thanked me for having done this because they had been able to go back and get vouchers, receive additional training. One of them was becoming a teacher and one was going to be a computer operator. And we've seen many people benefit from that program. But as yet, it has not been reauthorized this year. The system has served job seekers well. WIA now integrates employment and training services at the local level in a more unified workforce development system, which it did not do prior to the 1998 reforms. Yet, without renewal today, it cannot possibly keep pace with the rapidly changing needs of workers in a dynamic economy. Earlier this month, Republicans unveiled a comprehensive road map for reforming both job training and higher education. The Higher Education Act and WIA each play a critical role in keeping Americans competitive by developing the skills and knowledge necessary in a changing economy. Unfortunately, Democrats have not offered proposals to strengthen either of these critical programs. I am pleased to be joining Representative McCrery today in offering a proposal that links our job training reforms with the renewal of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. These proposals work hand in hand to provide dislocated workers the type of responsive, flexible training and assistance they need to get back to work. Our proposal will strengthen WIA's infrastructure, eliminate duplication and waste, increase accountability, enhance the role of employers, and increase the State and local flexibility. Together, these reforms will ensure the Nation's workforce development system can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of job seekers and those in need of training. The time for job training is long overdue. The Department of Labor has made efforts to allow flexibility and creativity within the existing system, and numerous stakeholders have proposed innovative new strategies. However, this type of reform has been hampered because Congress has failed to act. One of the most important steps we can take to strengthen our job training system is to increase program efficiency and focus on results. We must eliminate duplication and redundancy and create a more seamless system that can be flexible based on changing needs. Our amendment will eliminate current barriers to effective programs and services. We will enhance the services offered to job seekers, providing greater flexibility and eliminating arbitrary requirements that prevent some workers from getting the services they need. We also plan to restore long-standing hiring protections to faith- based organizations in order to ensure that they are able to participate fully in the job training system. To foster regional economic development, the Republican plan would allow regional areas to integrate workforce development programs, one- stop services, and community and economic development funds into a comprehensive workforce development system. Finally, our plan would strengthen programs targeted towards specific populations, improving adult education, vocational rehabilitation, and youth programs. Mr. Speaker, I support trade adjustment assistance, and I support its extension and renewal. I want to recognize Representative McCrery for his leadership on this important issue. Our amendment will better integrate TAA with other Federal programs to more effectively equip workers affected by trade, globalization and other causes of job loss with skills they need to adapt to the changing global economy. It will join these TAA improvements to long-overdue job training reforms. We need to update these programs to be competitive worldwide. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the Republican substitute, which will provide a comprehensive approach to helping keep America competitive.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. I am disappointed to be standing here under these circumstances. A full month into the new fiscal year, the Democrats have failed to send a single spending bill to the President for his signature or veto. The President laid out his positions early this year, asking the Congress to adhere to fiscally responsible spending caps. Democrats have been unwilling or unable to control their spending, passing bills that topped these spending targets by billions of dollars. Now, rather than moving separate bills to support our troops and veterans, Democrats are holding these bills hostage to the swollen Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill. As the former chairman of the Education Committee, I know firsthand the arguments the other side will make on funding in that bill. So let's focus on the facts. Republicans are strong supporters of programs that support education, health care and workers. Our fiscally responsible spending targets allow significant resources for these programs. Republicans have a strong record when it comes to funding education. At the same time, we know that the achievement gap in our schools is not caused by a lack of funding, but by a lack of accountability. Throwing money at the problem is not the answer. Our committee is a case study in how the priorities of Democrats diverged from those of the American people. Democrats have failed to act on the No Child Left Behind, the higher education, and job training bills this year. Yet, they have passed bills to strip workers of the right to a secret ballot election, overturned six decades of civil rights law, and created new entitlement spending at the expense of low- and middle-income college students. The worst may be yet to come. When Democrats finally take up higher education reform, we may see prisoners getting Pell Grants and drug dealers getting Federal aid. The Democrats have, quite simply, got their priorities in the wrong place. It's time to get back to work and fund these three bills separately for our troops, our veterans, and our students.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 866, a bill originally introduced by Representative Norwood of Georgia, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the House began this exercise last week granting a temporary extension of programs under the Higher Education Act. We did the same thing in July of this year and in June, and we did it a half dozen times before that. For the most part, these extensions have been clean, simply maintaining current law. Unfortunately, they are now becoming more complicated. Earlier this year, Congress passed a package of student aid reforms cloaked in the guise of a budget reconciliation bill. Instead of moving through regular order, the new majority took a shortcut. That shortcut has cost us dearly. Budget reconciliation bills have strict limitations designed to prevent them from being abused as a tool to enact policy, rather than budgetary reform. Judging by this year's bill, those rules are not strict enough. Nonetheless, the budget reconciliation process chosen by the majority prevented us from including fundamental reforms to the bulk of the Higher Education Act. A few weeks ago, committee Republicans introduced H.R. 3746, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2007. This bill is an updated version of the reauthorization bill that passed the House last Congress. H.R. 3746 would strengthen the Pell Grant program, empower parents and students through ``sunshine'' and transparency and college costs and accreditation, improve college access programs and much more. Unfortunately, the House has yet to act on comprehensive reforms. The budget bill enacted earlier this year was a missed opportunity of epic proportions. But worse than that, it was a classic example of how a secretive rushed legislative process can produce harmful unintended consequences. In rushing to the floor with the reconciliation bill, Democrats made mistakes. Several provisions included in the reconciliation bill need to be fixed so that everyone is treated fairly under the law and the law can be implemented as Congress intended. Additionally, the Department of Education has already reached out to Congress to discuss one of the new grant programs, which they see as near to impossible to implement as written. Had Congress had time to contemplate the impact of the provisions in the new programs, we may have been able to avoid all the confusion that now must be corrected. Today, in addition to extending these programs, we are being forced to fix mistakes made by the flawed budget reconciliation bill. Some of these mistakes can be corrected because the Department of Education has yet to act on them, despite the October 1 implementation date. Other legislative errors have already been implemented by the Department of Education, rendering a correction costly, if not impossible. Already our hands are tied, and we are unable to fairly and fully correct the problems created through reconciliation. Rather than repeat this rushed process again, I hope that we will move forward with the Higher Education Act reauthorization in a bipartisan and thoughtful manner. I look forward to working with Chairmen Miller and Hinojosa and Ranking Member Keller, and all of my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee, in completing our work in the coming months. In the meantime, however, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extension. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, due to the ongoing wildfires in Southern California, and specifically those in the 25th District of California, I was unable to vote on the following measures. Please enter into the record this personal explanation for my absence on the following rollcall votes: Rollcall No. 986--On Motion to Table the Resolution, which I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall No. 987--Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act, which I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 988--Charlie Norwood Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, which I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 989--Condemning the actions of September 7, 2007, resulting in damage to the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial. Rollcall No. 990--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1011, which I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall No. 991--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1483, which I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall No. 992--Providing for consideration of H.R. 1483, which I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall No. 993--Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his work on this amendment. We're kind of facing a dilemma. I think both of us, both sides, want to protect workers. However, we want to make sure that they're protected by sound science. This amendment immediately starts the 90-day rule which would protect people from diacetyl, those working on popcorn or other products, and then it requires that within the 2 years they have the final rule based on sound science. I think that this amendment would solve the dilemma to make sure that if diacetyl isn't the only cause, we have the time to find the science to make sure that the workers really are protected. We may find that diacetyl and diacetyl alone is the cause, but if not and we have moved forward just on diacetyl, these workers will think they're protected, and in the long run they will not be. And this is why we're really concerned. We move quickly to provide the 90-day rule, but then allow the time within the 2 years to base the final ruling on sound science. For that reason, I ask that we support the gentleman's amendment that would fix this bill.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing that explored, among other things, the question of whether and how the flavoring compound diacetyl should be regulated by OSHA. We heard from an individual suffering from lung impairment that could well have been developed as a result of his manufacturing popcorn, during which he was exposed to high concentrations of diacetyl and numerous other chemicals. There are many questions about this particular chemical. In fact, a number of large popcorn manufacturers recently announced voluntary steps to curb the use of diacetyl while its effects on worker health are studied. The bill before us calls for a much more drastic response to the concerns about this chemical. It would require OSHA to set an interim final standard relating to diacetyl exposure within 90 days of passage, to be followed by a final rule within 2 years. This directive is, without a doubt, a well-intended effort to prevent illness that may be caused by this particular substance. Unfortunately, despite its good intentions, this bill has the potential to cause great harm. I recognize that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wish to do something to respond to the questions about this chemical. I also understand their frustration about a lack of action by the administration. Candidly, I share some of that frustration. It is my understanding that just this week the administration announced plans to implement rule-making for diacetyl exposure; this, despite the fact that Congress has been looking into these concerns for months and until this week had not received clear, unambiguous direction from the administration other than a letter written by the OSHA administrator expressing serious concerns about the implications of the bill. From the outset of this process, I have been concerned about the lack of scientific data available to guide our actions. Without the necessary scientific understanding of this chemical, we cannot possibly develop the appropriate guidelines to protect workers. At this point, we still do not even know whether diacetyl alone, or in conjunction with other chemicals, is responsible for the condition known as popcorn lung. Because of my concerns about a lack of scientific data, and because I'm uneasy about short-circuiting the proven regulatory process, I raised concerns about this bill when it was considered in committee. It's my position that the administration should be allowed adequate time to complete necessary scientific investigation before developing new standards. I was, at the outset, and I remain, concerned that such a rushed response to questions about this substance make for better politics than policy. That is why I was so surprised, and frankly, disappointed, to learn that only now has the administration suddenly chosen to take action. They announced on Monday their intent to initiate rule-making, issue a Safety and Health Information Bulletin, and provide Hazard Communication Guidance. The administration's actions in this case, and their lack of communication with Congress, have done nothing to shed light on this issue of concern to us all. Instead, it has resulted in confusion about what is being done to address this issue and when they and we can expect to have answers. In fact, if the administration had simply been forthright with Congress about its plans, we might not be here considering this questionable legislation at all. During committee consideration, Republicans offered an alternative. Our plan, which we will offer as an amendment today, strikes a balance between acting quickly to protect workers while relying upon sound science to establish a comprehensive regulation. The Republican plan would maintain the 90-day deadline for establishing an interim final rule. Under this rule, guidance would be provided so that manufacturers could take immediate steps to limit exposure through the use of engineering improvements, ventilation and other strategies to protect workers. Our plan would also maintain the requirement that a final rule be developed, including a permissible exposure limit. Under our alternative, this would be required within 2 years after the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health concludes that the standard can be supported by solid scientific evidence. In short, the amendment maintains the same time frame for immediate protection, while eliminating the arbitrary nature of the final rule in favor of a timeline based on the availability of scientific evidence. I want to reiterate my deep concern for the workers who have become ill. It is my goal, and surely the goal of everyone here, to determine as soon as possible what caused their illness and what can be done to prevent future occurrences. Mr. Chairman, I opposed this bill in committee because I felt it did not allow for adequate scientific study. I also believed it undermined the long-standing regulatory process. However, I strongly support the effort to protect workers, and I can understand why Members on both sides of the aisle would wish to vote in favor of this measure. As for me, until we can clear up the confusion surrounding this bill, I will reluctantly oppose it. I continue to believe this legislation undermines sound scientific and regulatory processes, but I will keep an open mind as this bill progresses through the legislative process. If further scientific evidence is uncovered as this bill moves to the Senate and to the President, my position could change. I only wish the administration had acted sooner and we could have been spared this debate entirely. With that, I reserve the balance of my time and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina, the ranking member on the subcommittee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time (Mr. Wilson).