Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered and over- reaching legislation. Proponents of this bill claim it simply reverses a May 29, 2007, U.S. Supreme Court decision and further clarifies congressional opposition to wage discrimination against employees in the workplace. In reality, however, it will set into motion unintended consequences that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge. 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 or 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, but at the same time 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. That, I believe, is where the two parties diverge on the bill before us. We aren't taking sides for or against discrimination in the workplace; rather, we're staking out different positions on fair and equitable justice and the rule of law. 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. And 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 abuse of the legal system. Consider these worst case scenarios, for example. Without a statute of limitations in place, an employee could sue for discrimination resulting from an alleged discriminatory act that might have occurred 5, 10, 20, 40, or even more 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 alleged discrimination that occurred dozens of years ago. H.R. 2831 would essentially 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 and principled, this dramatic change in civil rights law would have incredibly far-reaching impact, one that supporters of the bill have yet to take the time to thoroughly and appropriately consider. And B, under H.R. 2831, the worst case scenarios I just described would become commonplace. And let's not kid ourselves; our Nation's trial lawyers would seize upon them. Because H.R. 2831 would dismantle the critical statute of limitations, the Bush administration last week threatened to veto, should the bill ever arrive at his desk. Specifically, the administration noted that the legislation ``would serve to impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved.'' Furthermore, the effect of elimination of any statute of limitations in this area would be contrary to the centuries' old notion about limitations, period, for all lawsuits. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the Statement of Administration Policy into the Record Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, July 27, 2007. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2831--Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 (Rep. Miller (D) CA and 31 Cosponsors) The Administration supports our Nation's anti- discrimination laws and is committed to the timely resolution of discrimination claims. For this and other reasons, the Administration strongly opposes the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. H.R. 2831 would allow employees to bring a claim of pay or other employment-related discrimination years or even decades after the alleged discrimination occurred. H.R. 2831 constitutes a major change in, and expanded application of, employment discrimination law. The change would serve to impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved. Furthermore, the effective elimination of any statute of limitations in this area would be contrary to the centuries- old notion of a limitations period for all lawsuits. If H.R. 2831 were presented to the President. his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. Meaningful statutes of limitations in these sorts of fact- intensive cases are crucial to the fair administration of justice. The prompt assertion of employment discrimination permits employers to defend against--and allows employees to prove--claims that arise from employment decisions instead of having to litigate claims that are long past. In such cases, evidence often will have been lost, memories will have faded, and witnesses will have moved on. Moreover, effective statutes of limitations benefit employees by encouraging the prompt discovery, assertion, and resolution of employment discrimination claims so that workplace discrimination can be remedied without delay. H.R. 2831 purports to undo the Supreme Court's decision of May 29, 2007, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. by permitting pay discrimination claims to be brought within 180 days not of a discriminatory pay decision, which is the rule under current law, but rather within 180 days of receiving any paycheck affected by such a decision, no matter how far in the past the underlying act of discrimination allegedly occurred. As a result, this legislation effectively eliminates any time requirement for filing a claim involving compensation discrimination. Allegations from thirty years ago or more could be resurrected and filed in federal courts. Moreover, the bill far exceeds the stated purpose of undoing the Court's decision in Ledbetter by extending the expanded statute of limitations to any ``other practice'' that remotely affects an individual's wages, benefits, or other compensation in the future. This could effectively waive the statute of limitations for a wide variety of claims (such as promotion and arguably even termination decisions) traditionally regarded as actionable only when they occur. This legislation does not appear to be based on evidence that the current statute of limitations principles have caused any systemic prejudice to the interests of employees, but it is reasonable to expect the bill's vastly expanded statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims. Mr. Speaker, as the President's veto threat makes clear, H.R. 2831 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 long-standing 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, barely 2 months removed from a Supreme Court decision ready to grab headlines before we return home for the month of August by advancing a highly flawed bill without any regard to the long-term ramifications it could have should it ever make its way into law. H.R. 2831 represents bad policy, and even worse processing, and for these reasons I will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do likewise. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. McKEON. It was my understanding we were going to finish up tomorrow.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy now to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. McKEON. How much time do we have?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) 3 minutes, ranking member on the subcommittee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. McKEON. So you want me to take 30 seconds?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Kline just said, I think we have had a good debate here tonight. As we did have that hearing on Ms. Ledbetter's case, the bill wasn't before us, but we did hear her story. And all of us I think felt bad for her for the things that happened to her 20, 30 years ago. But what was also said, as we're sent here to represent all of our constituents, we can't totally let emotion guide our decisions. We have to make good law, sound law, and I think we're worried about losing the statute of limitations. I think that's something we really need to protect against. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this rule. Last Thursday night, Members received notice of an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee on the following morning, with no deadline given for Members on either side of the aisle to submit amendments to this badly flawed legislation. Even though I was able to file two of them because they had already been drafted for an Education and Labor Committee markup last month, this extremely short notice and lack of amendment instructions effectively shut both Democrat and Republican colleagues out of the Rules Committee's increasingly undemocratic process. I say increasingly undemocratic because last Thursday night and Friday morning's turn of events was just one of several occasions this year in which I've found the Rules Committee acted in a wholly unfair manner. For example, in my first appearance before the committee this year, before the House considered the minimum wage legislation, I was told by the panel's Chair that the Democrat leadership had already decided the rule would be closed. Again, this was announced before I had even testified before the committee on my substitute for that bill. There was also an occasion several months later, prior to consideration of student aid legislation through the budget reconciliation process, when the Rules Committee announced the bill's amendment filing deadline would fall during the Independence Day district work period. In other words, this deadline fell when Members were absent and staff was scattered, making amendments extremely difficult to file. So last Thursday and Friday's ``emergency'' was hardly surprising, yet still very disappointing. It rendered nearly 400 Members of this House, meaning those who do not sit on the Education and Labor Committee, powerless to change or even consider a change to this bill. And by doing so, the Democrat leadership of the Rules Committee, and yes the Democrat leadership of the Education and Labor Committee and the House, has done a disservice to this institution and to the voters who sent us here. That's because the measure before us is not a minor tweak of labor law meant to reverse a single Supreme Court decision. Rather, it guts the statute of limitations and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charging requirements contained in current law. And it effectively would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer decades after an alleged initial act of discrimination occurred. Such a wholesale change should be made only after close, appropriate and deliberative examination. But H.R. 2831 has been exposed to none of that. Rather, it was poorly drafted, rushed through committee with practically no input from outside stakeholders or from committee Republicans and, now, sent to the floor under an airtight, closed rule. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to continue my opposition to it, both for policy and process reasons. Shortly, I will be proud to manage time in opposition to it, but before then, I will vote against this undemocratic rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON. Ronald Reagan led the Mule Days parade in 1974, riding a mule in the Mule Days parade.

Mr. McKEON. If the gentleman would continue to yield, one final thing.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman very much. As you can see, when I start talking about my district, I get pretty excited. I have a lot of good things to say about it. Bishop is a classic western frontier city. It has been squeezed out of all other big industries by all of the other public lands that are owned around them, and they have to survive on tourism. So if they can add this museum, it will help their tourism and it will help bring people there year-round, which will benefit their economy. In closing, let me say that this is a partnership. It is not just Federal dollars, even though there is no such thing as ``Federal dollars.'' It all comes out of our pockets, and the people in Bishop pay those Federal dollars back here. But as I mentioned earlier, the City of Los Angeles is going to participate by donating the land which is worth $2 million. Inyo County will spend an additional $1.5 million to work on the project, and local people will raise the difference. The final thing I wanted to say is that there are 480 separate economic development projects in this bill. According to current law, that is what the law required. The chairman and the ranking member have gone through, their staffs, they have evaluated all of the projects requested. Bob Tanner and his friends in Bishop that requested this project wrote up their project. They sent it to me and Senator Feinstein. We included it in the request. They were one of the ones chosen, one of the 480. These projects range from $50,000, this is the smallest, to $500,000, with the majority falling between $100,000 and $200,000. The projects, with few exceptions, are for planning, land purchase, construction or renovation of facilities deemed to be important to economic development in both rural and urban areas. This is a very rural area. The construction of a museum celebrating local history is a common theme throughout many of these projects. We followed the law. We did the things that are asked of us. I think this is a worthy project. I thank the chairman and ranking member for including it in this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman. Let me tell you a little bit about mules because this is one of the things that they are going to honor in this museum. George Washington introduced mules into our country. He received a jack donkey in 1786 from the King of Spain, and he started breeding and using mules. Within a few years, he had 58 mules working on his plantation a few miles south in Mount Vernon. Since then, mules have been used to develop the West. All across the Nation, they helped the pioneers move. They could go 30 miles a day where wagon trains could only go about 5. They were an integral part of the development of this country. Even today, we have 600 mules on special assignment serving in Afghanistan helping the Army do the things that they helped the Army do 100 years ago. I think $50,000, you know, is a good contribution to give to these people, the money that they have sent back here. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the gentleman from Arizona for the opportunity to come to the floor to discuss the American Mule and Packer Museum and the economic development impact it will have on my district. Let me first start by saying that this $50,000 is not included in this bill to laud the humble and noble mule. These funds will be used to boost tourism dollars in the small city of Bishop, CA by helping to build a local heritage museum. The city of Bishop is located in Inyo County--which is geographically one of the largest counties in the country and is 95 percent owned by the federal government. Bishop is a classic western frontier city and has been squeezed out of all other industries by the encroachment of federal land, which literally surrounds it and limits the community to survival on tourism dollars. Those vitally important dollars come from visitors eager to see the great Wild West, ride out like our forefathers into the Eastern Sierra, enjoy the natural beauty on a hike, or hire a mule packer to explore the federal forests in the area. The $50,000 dollar grant contained in this bill for the American Mule Museum is a modest federal investment in a worthy economic development project and a good example of how federal seed money is leveraged to develop local projects. Every year, at the fairgrounds on Main Street, the small city of Bishop hosts a famous and popular heritage festival known as ``Mule Days.'' Some communities have an Apple Harvest festival, some have Frontier Days. In Bishop, we celebrate ``Mule Days.'' My friend from Arizona may not be familiar with the essential role Packers and their trusted mules had to the settlement of the west, but California's home state President did. Next to me is a picture of then-Governor Ronald Reagan acting as the Grand Marshall to the Bishop Mule Days parade in 1974. Mule Days is the single largest draw to that community, bringing fifty thousand Californians and tourists interested in frontier life into downtown Bishop, where they shop, dine and stay during the festival. In addition to honoring their history, this museum would help expand that tourism by drawing folks in year-round, rather than just during the long Memorial Day weekend Mule Days celebration. The City of Los Angeles, a longtime landholder in our northern county, is going to donate an estimated 8 acres, valued at $2,000,000 for the project. Inyo County will spend an additional $1.5 million with the hook-ups, parking lots and access roads. Finally, this federal grant, directed to National Forest and Recreation Association, in Woodlake, CA (the non- profit overseeing the project) and private fundraising will be used towards the excavation and reconstruction of the famed Livermore Packing Station, and the surrounding corrals in Bishop. There is a federal interest in preserving the history of how the West was settled. There are many residents in the city and surrounding areas who are direct descendants of those pioneers who headed west. A museum dedicated to local heritage and mule packers that were so important to the founding of the area will be a proper place to preserve their artifacts and documents into the future. The residents of the City of Bishop, my constituents and federal tax payers are dependent on tourism dollars for their city funds. There are 480 separate EDI projects listed in the THUD bill ranging from $50,000 up to $500,000 with the majority of projects falling in the $100 K to $200 K range. The projects, with a few exceptions, are for the planning, land purchase, construction or renovation of facilities deemed to be important to economic development in both rural and urban areas. The construction of a museum celebrating local history is a common theme throughout many of the projects. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and help preserve a piece of American history in a place that is deserving of federal assistance.

Mr. McKEON. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in opposition to this amendment. As Mr. Hastings said earlier, there is in current law the Office of Economic Development, which has the responsibility of working with public and private sectors, as well as not-for-profit organizations, to provide financial and technical assistance to local communities to develop and implement their own economic development in their community. That's current law. If we want to change that, I agree with much of what the gentleman has to say, I just think this is not the right time and place to be covering it in this manner. But it gives me a little bit of a chance to talk about my district, and all 435 of us, I think, love to have the opportunity to talk about our districts. I have a map here which shows my district. It is the second largest district in California, a little over 21,000 square miles. I live down here. This is Nevada. This is central to northern California. It is about 450 miles this way, a couple hundred miles this way. A little perspective: eight States would fit within this county, one of the largest counties. In this county, the town of Bishop, some of the community people have every year for the last 40 years celebrated what they call Mule Days, and about 50,000 people come to this community of 3,500 people. In this whole county that I said eight States would fit in, about 17,000 people live, and about 3,500 people live in the town of Bishop. They are great people. Here are the eastern Sierras, Death Valley. We have the lowest spot in the 48 States and the highest spot. Death Valley is 280 feet below sea level, and we have Mount Whitney that is about 15,000 feet above sea level. It is a great district, just as each of your districts are. Several years ago, and actually they have been working on this for a few years, Bob Tanner and some of the people in Bishop thought that they should have a museum to celebrate the mules. Ninety-five percent of this county is owned by Federal and local governments. They don't have any room. There are only a few acres in this town that could even be developed. They don't have the land to develop for economic development. They rely totally on tourism, restaurants, motels, packers that take people up into the mountains. Mules have been an important part of this, and they want to establish a museum. They are asking for $50,000. L.A. City is going to donate $2 million worth of land, 8 acres. The county and the city are putting up a little over a million and a half dollars, and the people that live there are going to raise another hundred, $250,000. One thing that I think we forget is that the people in Bishop pay taxes. They pay Federal taxes, and I guarantee you that during the time that Jerry represented them and the time I have had the opportunity to represent them, they have gotten very little back from the Federal Government for the taxes that they have sent here to Washington.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his clarification and again appreciate his continued support for charter schools. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all your efforts in bringing this bill forward and thank you for your continued support of the Nation's chartered schools, which increase the academic achievement of our Nation's most low-income students. I wanted to clarify the committee's intent to fund the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program, which received $36.6 million last year. This year, the committee chose to increase funding to the Charter School Grant program and folded the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program into this larger program. Charter schools are public schools created by teachers, parents and other community stakeholders to educate students of all backgrounds and educational abilities. In exchange for greater accountability for student achievement, these schools are free from many local and State regulations. This flexibility and accountability has allowed individuals with nontraditional backgrounds to create cultures that have made charter schools top academic performers, often in some of the Nation's largest urban centers. Because of this unique approach to education, demand for these schools has been remarkable over the last decade. Unlike other local school districts, however, public charter schools cannot levy property or other taxes for building and infrastructure. Thus, public charter schools must pay for their facilities from their operating budgets, which are smaller than those received by their conventional K-12 peers. In fact, locating suitability facilities remains the greatest challenge faced by charter schools. The Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program provides vital assistance to help charter schools meet their local facility needs. Under this program, funds are provided on a competitive basis to public and nonprofit entities, and consortia of those entities, to leverage other funds and help charter schools obtain school facilities through such means as purchase, lease and donation. Grantees may also use grants to leverage funds to help charter schools construct and renovate school facilities. Was it the intent of the chairman to continue funding for the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program, as part of the Charter School programs and at their fiscal year 2007 levels?

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, my amendment would restore much-needed funding to the highly successful Reading First program. In 2001, Members of both parties committed to implementing scientifically based reading instruction, through Reading First, as the foundation of an effort to provide a high-quality education in every school. Six years later, it is clear that the program is working, but not without some internal challenges. Indeed, Reading First has received a great deal of attention over the last several months, and for good reason. An investigation into the program by the Department of Education's Inspector General uncovered real problems in the agency's implementation and management of the program. And the Education and Labor Committee has followed with appropriate, thorough, and bipartisan oversight to ensure that those problems are addressed. In spite of this, we have heard from the majority that it intends to cut some $600 million from this program, roughly 60 percent of its overall annual budget, until problems identified by the Inspector General have been addressed. That's particularly interesting since these problems have been and are being addressed both by the Department of Education itself and through proposed legislation. Since last September, the Department has responded to the investigation of its Inspector General and to our committee's oversight of Reading First by making a number of significant changes to improve the administration of the program. In fact, at the committee's oversight hearing of this program, the Inspector General acknowledged that the Department has accepted his recommendations and begun implementing them to reform the program. Among the steps taken by the Department in the wake of this investigation include: Replacing the internal Reading First program management; reconstituting a key peer review panel used in the program to ensure fairness and more openness in its review processes; and providing additional guidance to contractors and subcontractors to enhance the objectivity and effectiveness of their services. In order to codify many of these recommendations made by the Inspector General and reform steps taken by the Department earlier this year, I joined my committee colleague, Mr. Castle, in introducing the Reading First Improvement Act. Instead of slashing funding for this highly successful program, I call on my friends on the other side of the aisle to enact this legislation to ensure permanent and long- standing reform to Reading First. To date, the bill has seen no action, not in subcommittee, not in full committee, and not on the floor. To think that we are cutting this program's budget by more than 60 percent when a measure to reform it is sitting right before us demonstrates how truly politically driven the majority's actions are on Reading First and continue to be. Nonetheless, it is clear to any fair-minded person that the management problems of Reading First are in the past. What is equally clear is that Reading First, despite past problems, has been an unqualified success for the students it is intended to serve. Indeed, my friend, the distinguish chairman of our committee said during our oversight hearing of Reading First earlier this year, ``The purpose of this hearing is not to evaluate the effectiveness or strengths or weaknesses of the Reading First program. I support the Reading First program, as do many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.'' Statistics bear out the chairman's and my own continued support for Reading First. For example, data released earlier this year shows that in Reading First schools, the percentage of first graders meeting or exceeding proficiency on fluency outcome measures increased by 14 percentage points, from 43 to 57 percent, from 2004 to 2006, with the percentage of third graders increasing by 7 percent during the same period of time. And a 2006 Center on Education Policy survey found that 97 percent of school districts which reported increases in student achievement indicated that Reading First was a key reason for this progress. Madam Chairman, rather than taking into consideration this data and the improvements that the Department has made in its implementation of Reading First, the majority has decided it is better to make a political statement against the administration than to provide the critical resources needed to continue to address the needs of our most disadvantaged young students. By finding some $75 million in savings through reducing administrative costs at the Department of Health and Human Services and implementing programs for prisoners that the President did not request funding for, while keeping intact his faith-based prisoner reentry initiative, my amendment restores some of these resources. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Kline's amendment to restore funding for the Labor Department's Office of Labor Management Standards to its fiscal year 2007 level. A column published in Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal noted today that Congress has added $935 million to President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Labor. Within that budget increase are individual funding increases for every single enforcement agency within the agency; that is, except for one. The appropriations measure before us cuts the Office of Labor Management Standards' budget $2 million below its fiscal 2007 funding level and more than $10 million below the President's budget request for the office this year. Identifying OLMS as the only enforcement office at the Department of Labor to have its budget cut is significant. In fact, it was clearly singled out by design. Why? Perhaps it's because the office has had such great success in protecting rank-and-file union members. Consider this, since 2001, OLMS has helped obtain over 750 convictions and restitution of over $70 million in criminal cases of embezzlement, election irregularities and violations of union members' rights. Last week, for example, a union financial secretary in Michigan pleaded guilty to falsifying union reports. Earlier this year, a former union president in Texas was sentenced to 6\1/2\ years in prison for embezzling dues paid by hard-working union members. These are the types of results Congress expected when it passed the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. This law makes clear that a union member must have access to union financial records and has the right to recover misappropriated union assets on behalf of the union when the union fails to do so itself. Nearly 50 years later, and with more than 15 million American workers contributing a portion of every paycheck they earn to labor organizations, we should demand nothing less than what we demanded in 1959. Indeed, Congress expects the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect the interests of shareholders, and so too must we expect the OLMS to protect the interests of rank-and-file union members. The amendment before us would restore $2 million to the OLMS budget, bringing it back to the fiscal year 2007 level and ensuring it has the resources its needs to safeguard union transparency and accountability. Indeed, if my colleagues believe, as I do, that transparency is the key protection against financial misconduct, then we should take OLMS off the political chopping block by restoring its funds. I thank my Education and Labor Committee colleague, Mr. Kline, for offering the amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of it.