John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the gentleman's amendment and impress upon my colleagues the importance of the short takeoff vertical landing capability of the F 35B and its contribution to the continued success of the United States Marine Corps. Mr. Chairman, so many years ago, as a young marine and a young marine pilot, I remember watching a jump jet--a Harrier--hovering over the ground. That Harrier, that AV 8A, went from being a novelty to growing and maturing to becoming an essential, integral part of the Marine air- ground team. That Harrier today is old and getting outdated and needs to be replaced. Similarly, I've watched the magic of the FA 18, a fantastic, top-of the-line, frontline fighter. Terrific aircraft. It can't take off and land vertically. It doesn't have the capability. And we need those capabilities that the ranking member, Mr. Smith, talked about--the stealth capability, the advanced capability--to become that integral part of the Marine air-ground team. So I encourage my colleagues to support the continued development of the F 35B and oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May 2012 as the one hundred year anniversary of United States Marine Corps Aviation. The Marine Corps stands as a symbol of America's strength and honor, and its history serves as a reminder of the commitment and sacrifice so many Americans have made in defense of this nation. What began in 1912 when Marine Corps 1st Lt Alfred A. Cunningham reported for flight training has extended through the ongoing operations around the world. A program that started with less than 40 men now consists of hundreds of skilled pilots, expert engineers, and experienced ground crews. In support of their brothers and sisters on the ground, they have flown over the hedgerows of Europe, the jungles of East Asia, the deserts of the Middle East, and every ocean in between. From transportation of the President, to air-to-ground fire support, to medical evacuation on the battlefield, the capabilities of Marine Corps Aviation are second to none. In honor of Marine Aviators past and present, I have introduced H.R. 1621, legislation that pays tribute to Marine Corps Aviation with a commemorative coin. These coins will serve as a tribute to the capabilities pioneered by our earliest Marine aviators, and refined over the years to make the Marine Corps a force capable of protecting our nation ``in any clime and place.'' As a helicopter pilot and 25- year Marine veteran, I am proud to have borne the title--Marine Aviator--and stand here today to honor one hundred years of Marine Corps Aviation. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, a naval officer, another helicopter pilot, and a member of the Minnesota delegation, Mr. Cravaack.

Mr. KLINE. I have no further requests for time, and I'm going to close by thanking Members on both sides of the aisle. You've heard from members of the Minnesota delegation here tonight, my good friends, the Democrats Mr. Walz and Ms. McCollum, Mr. Cravaack, and Mr. Paulsen. This legislation affects members of the Guard and Reserve all over the country. I'm especially pleased that my friend and fellow committee member and fellow traveler, Ms. Bordallo, was managing the debate on the other side of the aisle. She and I have traveled to some fairly remote corners of Iraq and Afghanistan and places like that over the years, and I must say I've never been anywhere where our Nation was at conflict and where we had men and women serving in uniform that we didn't come across somebody from the Guam National Guard. So I really want to thank her for her support on this legislation and the support of men and women in uniform everywhere. I know from the reaction I see from those soldiers that when they see Ms. Bordallo, there is great affection and respect there--both ways. Again, I want to thank all who weighed in on this. It was clearly an injustice. It needed to be fixed, and this is one of those times when we've come together as Democrats and Republicans working together. We have Senators, Republicans and Democrats, in the Senate working the other body to move this through. Speed counts here. Every day that this is delayed, another soldier loses the opportunity to take advantage of this paid leave. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another member of the Minnesota delegation, Mr. Paulsen.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4045) to modify the Department of Defense Program Guidance relating to the award of Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence administrative absence days to members of the reserve components to exempt any member whose qualified mobilization commenced before October 1, 2011, and continued on or after that date, from the changes to the program guidance that took effect on that date, as amended.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of the bill, H.R. 4045, legislation that would ensure members of the National Guard and Reserve--including members of Minnesota's famed Red Bulls--receive the benefits they have earned. Simply put, this legislation ensures that promises made are promises kept. The bill will grandfather the Minnesota National Guard and more than 49,000 other servicemembers around the country who mobilized and deployed under the Pentagon's original Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence program policy, providing them the benefits they were promised prior to deployment. Since September 11, 2011, members of the Reserve component have been uniquely affected by long deployments, leaving their families and careers to answer their Nation's call. In January of 2007, the Department of Defense instituted the PDMRA program to allow servicemembers the opportunity to spend more time with their families and readjust after multiple deployments in excess of 12 to 24 months. I would ask my colleagues to reflect on that number, 12 to 24 months. That is 1 to 2 years away from their families and their homes, putting their own lives on hold to protect and defend our families and our Nation. Madam Speaker, last year, after more than 2,000 Minnesota soldiers were deployed, the Pentagon changed the PDMRA program, significantly reducing the leave available to the Red Bulls and many others across the Nation. With little notice, many soldiers and their families were forced to cope with unexpected financial challenges, less time at home with loved ones, and an increased urgency to find employment. H.R. 4045, as amended, provides the Pentagon the authority to grandfather members of the National Guard and Reserve whose mobilization and deployment commenced before the Pentagon's PDMRA reduction policy took effect in October of last year. The legislation does three things: First, for servicemembers still on active duty, the bill provides DOD the authority to immediately restore their PDMRA leave days lost and gives them the option of selling their leave in lieu of taking the PDMRA day if they determine that that is in their best interest; Second, for servicemembers still in the service but off active duty, the bill provides DOD the authority to award a leave payment in lieu of the days they would have received for their service during the change; and Finally, the former servicemembers who have left the military altogether but were affected during the PDMRA policy change, the bill provides DOD the authority to reward a leave payment in lieu of the PDMRA days they would have received for there service during the change. In short, we're making these soldiers whole again and keeping our promises. The legislation is critical to ensuring our sons and daughters in uniform receive the benefits they were promised and have rightfully earned. Sergeant Matthew Hite recently returned home to Minnesota after his third deployment with the Minnesota National Guard. While he's been in Kuwait the past 11 months, his 7-year-old son, Charles, has learned to play T-ball. Sergeant Hite wasn't there to see Charles get his first hit or make his first catch. ``It's frustrating'' Sergeant Hite told the Star Tribune, ``frustrating that the time we thought we had to spend with family is being taken away.'' Every day, members of the reserve component are stepping off planes, beginning the process of reintegration, and returning to their civilian lives. Every day, units are receiving their final orders specifying an end date to their mobilization. I am hopeful that this commonsense effort to do right by our men and women in uniform will become law. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4045, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. There are multiple sources of funding of programs that can address women's needs. I think it is cynical to suggest that we are somehow attacking women and their health by going at a slush fund that has no control, no oversight, irresponsibly given. The President himself has already proposed taking $4 billion from the slush fund. This is the way to go. Let's address the immediate needs of our students and then work together on a long-term solution.

Mr. KLINE. There has been a lot of discussion here about the pay-for, and the words ``cynical'' and ``cynicism'' have been used. We have got proposals from the other side of the aisle, from our friends in the Senate that want to tax small businesses, the job creators, at the very time when our economy is in such trouble. Then there are other proposals that say let's tax oil companies, let's drive up the price of gas. You can talk about cynicism. What we're talking about is using a slush fund that is provided to the Secretary to spend as she sees fit, and that is perceived as an attack somehow on women. What a surprise in this election year.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding the time, and for introducing this legislation. I rise in support of H.R. 4628, the Interest Rate Reduction Act. We seem to be in pretty strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that we've got an economy in shambles. We've got an unemployment rate above 8 percent now for over 3 years. We've got college graduates who graduate from college and can't get a job--half of them can't get a job or get the right job. They're underemployed or unemployed. And we've got, by law, the interest rate on subsidized Stafford student loans going from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, by law, a law drafted, crafted, passed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. It was entirely predictable when this was passed in 2007 that this was going to happen. We were going to get to the point where interest rates were going to double. Nevertheless, it's the law. And so what do we do about it? It seems to me--and I think that we get some agreement on this--we ought to have a long-term fix so we're not doing this again next year and the next year and the next year, making a political decision. We need a long-term fix. So, today, we're trying to step up and address the immediate concerns of our students, our graduates, as they go into this shaky economy. So we're moving the interest rate in this legislation, keeping it at 3.4 percent for 1 more year. I look at this as the opportunity for us to then get together and make a long-term fix, a fix that is much more driven by the market rather than the politics of the day or by an election year. We need a long-term fix. This is going to give us the opportunity to do that.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentlelady, Ms. Foxx, for yielding. Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2117, the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act. The legislation before us today is driven by a simple goal: to ensure Washington isn't adding to the burden of rising college costs by imposing burdensome regulations. Last year, tuition and fees at public 4-year colleges and universities increased over 8 percent. The average 4-year public college student now graduates with roughly $22,000 in debt. Helping more students realize the dream of an affordable higher education is a shared goal. However, solving a problem like rising college costs starts with recognizing that, as is so often the case, Washington is part of the problem. Each year, the average higher education institution spends a significant amount of time and money complying with Federal regulations and reporting requirements, costs that can trickle down to students' tuitions and fees. H.R. 2117 will eliminate two unnecessarily burdensome regulations advanced by the Department of Education in late 2010. The credit-hour and State authorization regulations were part of a so-called ``program integrity'' package that significantly increased Federal intrusion in academic affairs. The credit-hour regulation attempts to measure student learning at the Federal level, and restricts colleges from offering outside coursework and creative learning opportunities that could help students save money and graduate early. The State authorization regulation is even more troubling as it will lead to thousands of dollars in additional costs for colleges and universities across the Nation. In my home State of Minnesota, schools must spend between $2,000 and $3,500 per program, depending on the level of degree offered, to comply with this extreme regulation. In order to best prepare today's students to join tomorrow's workforce, we must not overwhelm schools with poorly conceived regulations that lead to wasted time and money. H.R. 2117 will repeal two particularly problematic regulations, protecting academic institutions and prospective students from significant financial and bureaucratic burdens. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting Academic Freedom in Higher Education Act.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The legislation we are considering today is straightforward. It reaffirms workforce protections that have been in place for decades. Across the country, the American people are asking: How can we get this economy moving again? What will it take to finally put people back to work? And Washington is responding with a number of answers. Some think we should support more spending, more taxes, and more regulations. In essence, they are asking the country to double down on the same failed policies of the past. My Republican colleagues and I believe we should chart a different course, one that includes removing regulatory roadblocks to job creation. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is part of that effort. The legislation says we shouldn't allow unelected bureaucrats to dictate policies that make our workplaces less competitive. In June the National Labor Relations Board proposed sweeping changes to the rules governing union elections. Under the board's radical scheme, employers would have just 7 days to find an attorney and navigate a host of complicated legal issues before confronting an NLRB election official. Employees will have as little as 10 days to decide whether they want to join a union, denying them an opportunity to gain valuable information and make an informed decision. The NLRB is already telling employers like Boeing where they can and cannot create jobs. Now the board wants to take away a worker's right to make a fully informed decision in a union election. This proposal largely prohibits employers from raising additional legal concerns, denies answers to questions that can influence the vote, and turns over to union leaders even more personal employee information. Let's get something straight: The board's scheme isn't about modernizing the election process. This is a draconian effort to stifle employer speech and ambush workers with a union election. Less debate, less information, and less opposition--that's Big Labor's approach to workers' free choice, and it is being rapidly implemented by the activist NLRB. For 4 years Democrats controlled this Congress. To my knowledge, not once did they try to streamline the union election process. Not once. They did champion a failed effort to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot, but they didn't bother to offer any solutions to the alleged problems they now say plague the election process. Today, union elections take place in an average of 31 days, giving workers a month to consider the monumental question of whether or not to join a union. One month. Are there cases where delays have occurred? Yes. But without a doubt, these are the exceptions to the rule. And former and current members of the NLRB have cited partisan shifts on the board as the leading cause of such delay. A broken board is no excuse for trampling on the rights of American workers. I'm aware the board recently revised--recently being yesterday--its earlier proposal and set aside some of the more egregious provisions. However, the latest iteration still denies employers access to a fair election process, still deprives workers of the opportunity to make a fully informed decision, and still perpetuates the threat of more punitive measures in the future. The board seems utterly determined to finalize a flawed proposal, regardless of the damage to the integrity of the board and our workplaces. We must act now. The Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act reaffirms workforce protections our Nation has enjoyed for decades. Employers currently have a fair opportunity to prepare for a preelection hearing. The bill ensures employers have at least 14 days--2 weeks--a fair opportunity to prepare for the hearing. Employers and unions can currently seek board review of issues raised before the election. The bill preserves their right to seek board review before the election. Workers currently have an average of 31 days to decide their vote. The bill guarantees workers at least 35 days. Before the board's reckless Specialty Healthcare decision, a commonsense standard determined which employees would participate in the election. Once again, H.R. 3094 takes steps to restore a traditional standard, ensuring employees continue to have freedom and opportunities in the workplace and employers can effectively manage their labor costs. Despite the heated rhetoric we will hear from opponents today, the bill is a responsible effort to set in law, Mr. Chairman, protections workers and employers have long enjoyed. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is similar to amendments we have seen earlier today. We had an amendment sort of trying to capitalize on the Occupy Wall Street movement and limit workers' rights because of behavior of executives. This motion attempts to rewrite existing rules regarding union access to employer property. Mr. Speaker, the point is the current system has been providing fair elections, as the distinguished minority whip said, for employers and employees. The NLRB's job is to see that employers and employees have fair union-organizing elections. At a time when millions of Americans are searching for work, the Democrats have introduced yet another proposal that will make it more difficult for job creators, employers, to put Americans back to work. Rather than promoting a balanced election process, this motion to recommit will further tilt the playing field in favor of Big Labor bosses. It's time for the Democrats here to stop standing in the way of the Nation's job creators and work on commonsense solutions that will allow job creators to put Americans back to work. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill protects employers' free speech and employees' opportunity to make an informed decision. This motion to recommit undoes that. We need to defeat this motion to recommit for what it is and support the underlying legislation. Let's vote ``no'' on this motion. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the motion.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the points of order.

Mr. KLINE. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think there is some confusion here. The other gentleman from Minnesota says that these are talking about veterans who have chosen to have a union. The point is we don't know if they've chosen to have a union. We don't know that. That's what the election is for. And they deserve the time and the opportunity to ask questions, get answers, hear from all sides and make an informed decision. What the underlying bill does, it says you get at least 35 days. And I would remind my colleagues that the current mean time, average time, is 31 days and the median time is 38 days. It's not out of line. But we think a month, 5 weeks, ought to be time for workers to be able to receive the information, ask the questions, challenge information from the employer and from the union organizer, and then make an informed decision. While it's true, certainly, sometimes in combat that you have to make split-second decisions to save your life or the lives of colleagues or to achieve the mission, you shouldn't be required to do that here in making this decision for you and your families. You ought to have time to do it. Because an employer has misbehaved, in the example of this amendment, the employer should be punished for that if he's a broken law, but the employees should not be deprived of the opportunity to make an informed decision, and that's what this amendment would do. So, again, reluctantly, I oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for keeping track of the Minnesotans here as well. I'm sorry, but again we just have a fundamental difference here. If an employer is liable, has made mistakes, has broken the law, they should be punished under the law, whichever law they have violated in violating the rights of employees, veterans or not. But this amendment is an attempt to dismantle a successful union election process that is fair to veterans and nonveterans, to employees and to employers. This amendment, in an attempt to punish employers who have misbehaved, who ought to be punished under the law under another law, is simply going to deny the rights of workers to have the opportunity to make an informed decision. I oppose this amendment and support the underlying legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to another member of the committee, the gentleman from Nevada, Dr. Heck.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, this clearly, in fact, in the language of the motion, is designed to kill the bill. I understand the gentlelady doesn't like the bill, but the characterization of it is incorrect. We heard today on this floor some distinguished Members of the other party say that the NLRB ought to be fair, that employers and employees ought to get a fair election. We agree with that. We have heard today that the majority party has done nothing to improve the economy and help job creators create jobs. Clearly we disagree. Member after Member has stood up here and said we have a plan, we've been advancing legislation, we continue to advance legislation, we have over 20 bills passed by this House sitting over in the Senate waiting for Majority Leader Reid to take them up, jobs that will clear the way for job creators, the private sector, to put Americans back to work. Clearly there is a blizzard of regulations that is descending on the workplace. The Speaker got a letter back from the administration some 2 weeks ago that said there were some 219 regulations in the pipeline, each of which would have an impact on the economy of over $100 million, and I think seven that would have an impact of over a billion dollars, regulations coming from every direction. My colleagues pointed out that even the President of the United States said we shouldn't be having more regulations that don't directly affect the safety and security of the American people, or words close to that effect. The gentlelady, my friend from Wisconsin, said that there was an unfolding plot. Well, I agree, there does seem to be an unfolding plot. It's coming from the administration through the NLRB to advance the special interest of Big Labor bosses. We don't think that's right. That's not giving employers and employees a fair election; that's advancing the special interest of big union bosses. It's not protecting the rights of workers, whether they're in a union or not. Employees and employers ought to get a fair election. The NLRB should not be slanting it, handing it to Big Labor bosses. So this is an effort to kill the bill. I believe it is a good bill that restores practices that have been in place providing fair elections for decades. I would encourage my colleagues to support the underlying legislation and vote against this motion to kill the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.