John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The speakers on my side of the aisle have expressed concern, as indeed I did, about the pay-for here. This bill proposes to take money from the SNAP program to pay for this, and we have expressed some concern that this is something of a shell game for two reasons. One, it's borrowed money, and if we really want to do some positive things for our children, we should look at not adding billions and trillions more to the debt that they're going to have to pay. But we've had speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle come down and say things like, The President has assured me that we're not going to actually spend this money or that they're going to work tirelessly to make sure that this pay-for is not in fact the pay-for. So I think the debate has confirmed our suspicion that in fact the promised pay-for is really not there. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, a member of the committee, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume here to address this issue of a floor on school lunch prices that can be imposed. I have got a couple of quotes here I would like to read. One is from the bill and one is from the letter from the Governors Association where there's a paragraph that says, ``Federally mandated paid meal price. The bill would establish a Federal mandate for every paid meal in every school in the country for the first time ever. Governors join with the school community to strongly oppose this Federal mandate. The provision will dramatically destabilize fair market pricing of school meals'' and so forth. And they get that from the language of the bill itself. In section 205, it says: ``Lower price, in general, in the case of a school food authority that established a price for a paid lunch in the previous school year that was less than the difference between the total Federal reimbursement for a free lunch and the total Federal reimbursement for a paid lunch, the school food authority shall establish an average price for a paid lunch that is not less than the price charged in the previous school year.'' So the Federal Government is coming in and saying, you can't charge any less; you cannot lower the price of your paid school lunch unless its meets our requirements. It is, in fact, saying that you can't lower the price of food even if you would like to do so. It doesn't meet this requirement. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to address an issue that we have talked about a number of times. Both sides have referred to organizations that support or oppose this legislation. For a moment, I just want to go to a letter that has been referred to from the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of the Great City Schools, and the National School Boards Association. They represent the State and local officials who actually have to implement this law that we are preparing to pass here in Congress. There are just a couple of excerpts from the letter which I will quote: ``The bill adds multiple new requirements while failing to reimburse these additional costs.'' ``School districts continue to financially subsidize the Federal meals program at the expense of our primary responsibility, our students' educational program.'' ``The numerous new requirements in S. 3307 will exacerbate these operational concerns and drive school districts' budgets further in the hole. Notably, none of the interest groups or celebrities promoting this bill bear the governmental and legal responsibility of school district officials to deliver services with an annual balanced budget,'' and so forth. This bill will drive up costs and complexities for school districts, and that is not the direction in which we should be going. American Association of School Administrators; Council of the Great City Schools; National School Board Association, November 15, 2010. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: All of the national organizations representing the nation's public school districts do not support the Senate version of the Child Nutrition reauthorization bill (S. 3307) pending before the House. The bill does not provide sufficient resources to cover the local cost of providing the federal free and reduced-priced lunches and breakfasts. Moreover, the bill adds multiple new requirements while failing to reimburse these additional costs. The Senate bill is actually less supportable than the House version of the child nutrition bill. As a result, the nation's school administrators, school boards, and big city school districts recommend passing a simple extension of current law. School districts recognize the importance of providing healthy meals and snack options for school children, and support updating the nutritional standards for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. But, school districts continue to financially subsidize the federal meals program at the expense of our primary responsibility, our students' educational program. U.S. Department of Agriculture studies document that school districts' cost of providing free lunches exceeds the federal reimbursement by over thirty cents per meal, or an annual cost of $54,000 for school districts serving 1,000 students daily--the equivalent cost of retaining a teacher. In high cost areas, the un-reimbursed cost can be significantly more. The numerous new requirements in S. 3307 will exacerbate these operational concerns, and drive school districts' budgets further in the hole. Notably, none of the interest groups or celebrities promoting this bill bears the governmental and legal responsibility of school district officials to deliver services with an annual balanced budget. School districts simply request that Congress pay for the costs of the federal free and reduced priced school meals, and refrain from imposing new federal requirements particularly in this economic environment. Much attention has been directed to the use of food stamp funds (SNAP) to pay for or offset the cost of the Senate's Child Nutrition bill. Unfortunately, little attention has been focused on the drain of local school district funds to pay for or offset the continuing un-funded costs of the federal free and reduced- priced school meals. We, therefore, recommend a ``no'' vote on S. 3307 and passage of a simple extension of the current programs. Sincerely, Noelle Ellerson, American Association of School Administrators. Jeff Simering, Council of the Great City Schools. Lucy Gettman, National School Boards Association. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from east Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 3307, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The American people have spoken, and they continue to speak loud and clear. I have been listening, and I know what I have been hearing in the Second District of Minnesota is being repeated from coast to coast: Stop growing government. The people are telling us, Stop spending money we do not have. It's a simple request and a sensible one, yet it continues to be ignored. Today's vote will be among our final acts as we move through the few remaining days of the 111th Congress. As we cast those votes, we have a choice to make. Will we continue spending more and increasing the role of government in Americans' lives, or will we listen to the people and begin to step on the brakes? Each of us must make that choice as we cast our votes on the bill before us. Everyone recognizes the importance of extending child nutrition programs, but extending these programs does not mean expanding them. We could extend these programs and improve them with no added cost to taxpayers. We could listen to our constituents and do right by our children. In fact, my Republican colleagues and I tried to do precisely that, but the Democrats on the Rules Committee denied us the opportunity to offer such an option on the floor today. Instead, this bill spends another $4.5 billion on various programs and initiatives and creates or expands 17 separate Federal programs. It imposes a tax on the middle class by empowering the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to require schools to increase--that's right--require schools to increase the price they charge families for school meals. This is a dangerous foray into Federal price controls, and it's one of many concerns outlined by the National Governors Association and leading school groups. In fact, the school leaders who would be responsible for implementing these new requirements have urged us to vote ``no'' on S. 3307 because of its higher cost for local districts and its rigid mandates. Earlier this month, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of the Great City Schools, and the National School Boards Association told us, ``All of the national organizations representing the Nation's public school districts do not support the Senate version of the Child Nutrition reauthorization bill pending before the House.'' This is a strong statement that should leave every Member questioning the wisdom of imposing these added costs and mandates on our school systems. In fact, the cost of this proposal has been a sticking point throughout the process. The majority claims this bill is paid for. They want us to believe we can grow government with no cost or consequences. But the American people know that's just not true. More spending is more spending whether or not those dollars are offset elsewhere in the massive Federal budget. But one offset in this bill is particularly questionable. The truth is, at least some portion of the billions the new program costs is deficit spending. This money was borrowed from our children and grandchildren in 2009 when it was put in the stimulus; that borrowed money is simply being redirected today. It was borrowed then; it is borrowed now. This bill, with its so so-called pay-for, is merely a stalling tactic. It obscures government expansion in the short term so this bill can become law and its spending can become permanent. So here we stand, playing a shell game with the Federal budget and hoping the American people do not notice that government continues to grow, spending continues to expand, and our children continue to fall deeper and deeper into debt. Mr. Speaker, I support extending and improving child nutrition programs. I believe we can do so in a bipartisan way, but that opportunity is lost with this bill, and so I must oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, with the clock winding down on the 111th Congress, there seems to be a rush to push through as many bills at the last minute as this majority can manage. Unfortunately, this sprint to the finish means the sacrifice of the deliberative process. This bill was sent to us from the other body with the demand that we accept it as is; that we cannot change a single comma or period, much less improve the policy. This is a bill that never received a hearing or vote in the Education and Labor Committee. Not a single amendment was made in order for debate, which means here on the House floor Members were not permitted to even discuss possible improvements to the bill. This motion to recommit is our last chance to improve the bill, our last chance to remove some of its most harmful provisions and insert stronger protections for our children; and that is exactly what we are attempting to do. First, to protect the safety of children receiving meals in a child care setting, the motion to recommit requires comprehensive background checks for all child care providers. A comprehensive background check searches various criminal databases housed at the State and Federal levels, as well as the National Sex Offender Registry. With taxpayers subsidizing these programs, parents need the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their children are not being left in the care of individuals with a history of violence, child abuse, or other criminal behavior. In fact, many parents today may wrongly believe these child care providers have been given a background check because of the tacit seal of approval that comes with being a federally funded program. Unfortunately, Federal law contains no comprehensive background check requirement for child care providers that receive funding under these nutrition programs. Currently, only 10 States have a comprehensive system that includes a check of the Child Abuse and Neglect Registry, a check of the Sex Offender Registry, and a State and Federal fingerprint check. Simply checking the fingerprint of a current or future child care worker will help advance the safety of countless children. Next, the motion to recommit eliminates the middle class tax included in this proposal. Any time the Federal Government forces a private citizen to reach into his or her own pocket and pay more for a good or service, it is a tax by any commonsense definition of the word, and that is exactly what this provision would do. It creates a Federal price floor for paid school lunches, a floor for paid school lunches, forcing many schools to increase the prices they charge the children who do not receive free or reduced price meals. The National Governors Association and leading school groups have spoken out in opposition to this provision because it will drive up costs for families and punish schools that have worked hard to hold down costs while providing higher quality meals. In a letter to Congress, the NGA wrote, this provision ``would establish a Federal mandate for every paid meal in every school in the country for the first time ever.'' They went on to say this will, ``price out some low-income families from paid school meals and punish school districts that in good faith have worked to increase the quality of school meals, while simultaneously holding down the paid meal prices.'' Allowing the Federal Government to create price mandates is a dangerous precedent and should not be set. By approving this motion to recommit, we can block this harmful tax on working families. We have thoroughly debated the broader objections to this legislation today, arguing against the spending and mandate, but that is not the debate we're having now. This motion to recommit is a modest pair of corrections that will make the bill better. It will make our children safer and protect working families, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. I yield back my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3940. With great fanfare, this Democratic majority increased the federally mandated minimum wage as one of its first acts. At the time, many of us warned that without adequate financial relief or transition time, especially for small businesses, workers would be harmed by a proposal that was intended to help them. We warned that teens seeking their first job and the chance to build work experience would have fewer opportunities. We warned that unskilled workers would be replaced by a smaller number of more highly skilled workers. And we warned that regions with comparatively low wages and living expenses would be especially hard hit because of the added cost to job-creators. With nearly 15 million Americans searching for work, it's a terrible time to have to say we told you so. In July 2007, when the first phase of the wage hike took effect, the national unemployment rate was 4.6 percent. For teenagers, the unemployment rate was 15.3 percent. Today, while the overall unemployment rate stands at an unacceptably high 9.6 percent, the figure for teens is far worse: more than one- quarter of all teens are unemployed, a total of 26.3 percent. Young African-American men perhaps bear the greatest burden from this irresponsible tinkering with the free marketplace. At the time Democrats passed their minimum wage hike, 31 percent of African- American teen males were unemployed; today, these same young men have a 50-50 chance of being unemployed. No one would suggest federal wage mandates are the sole cause of this spike in unemployment. But the difference between the overall jobless rate and the number of teens who cannot find work is startling and should not be ignored. Economists from the University of California, Irvine and the Federal Reserve reviewed more than 100 academic studies on the impact of the minimum wage around the time these increases began. They found overwhelming evidence that the least skilled and the young suffer a loss of employment when the minimum wage is increased. Similarly hard hit by the wage requirement are the territories of American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. A major tuna cannery in American Samoa closed its doors last year, laying off some 2,000 workers--roughly 12 percent of the territory's workforce. The second cannery has already laid off hundreds of workers and its future remains in doubt. In April of this year, the Government Accountability Office reported on the how the wage rate harms these territories: In American Samoa . . . Many employers reported having taken cost- cutting actions, such as freezing hiring and cutting worker benefits, since the increases began. Employers also reported planning actions such as leaving American Samoa or closing by the end of 2010. More employers attributed their actions to the minimum wage increases than to other factors. . . . In discussion groups, workers generally said that their support for the wage increases had dwindled because of concerns about issues such as the cannery closure, job insecurity, and loss of benefits. Today, the House is voting on a measure to temporarily suspend the destructive federal wage mandates. Another increase is scheduled to take effect tomorrow, which makes immediate action imperative. But we can't pretend the negative consequences of the minimum wage hike wreaking havoc on businesses in American Samoa aren't equally damaging to businesses in Muncie, Indiana. Or Le Center, Minnesota. Or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Or anywhere else a business is struggling to meet its payroll and provide opportunities for its workers. I certainly support this small measure of relief for the territories. Congress should do everything it can to right any wrongs it imposes on the people we are here to serve. However, I hope we do not fail to learn the larger lesson: Federal laws that force one-size-fits-all mandates on vastly different workers, workplaces, and communities often do far more harm than good.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank my colleague. I thank my colleague for his words here this evening and for his leadership on this and on so many issues. I just found it striking, Mr. Gingrey, that what you are talking about here is not only staggering debt, as the current chart indicates, but that you are talking about taxes. I want to take just a minute to put this into context. We have been suffering with a struggling economy. We have watched the gross domestic product decline each quarter for the last three quarters. As you know very well, we have been looking at unemployment above 9 percent for 16 consecutive months, and this is after the passage of the trillion-dollar stimulus bill that the President said would keep unemployment below 8 percent. We have been at 9 percent or more and at 9.6 percent most recently, and now there is a proposal to impose the largest tax increase in American history on January 1, which is, of course, what will happen unless Congress takes action, unless the majority party in this body brings forth legislation that will keep that from happening. I just wanted to join with my colleague, with Leader Boehner, with everybody on this side of the aisle, and with a growing number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say let's don't do that, who say let's don't raise taxes on any American. Particularly to the point you were making earlier, let's don't raise taxes on the job creators. We are trying to create jobs. We are trying to let the private sector create jobs at the same time the majority party here is talking about imposing a crushing tax increase on the very people on whom we are relying to create those jobs. So I just wanted to stop by to applaud your efforts here, to thank you for doing this today, and to add my voice to a growing number in this body who say let's don't do this. Madam Speaker, let's don't do this. Mr. President, let's don't do this. Let's do not add to the tax burden of those who are creating the jobs in the private sector. Let's don't increase taxes on anybody in America. I think we need to say that loudly and clearly, and I have increasing hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize that that is a terrible thing to do in this economy and that we must move quickly. As my colleague knows very well, there is an election coming. Congress will go into recess again here in 3 weeks or maybe 4 weeks or sometime, and I don't think we should leave and go into recess until we have taken care of this issue. Again, I thank my colleague, and I yield back my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying measure. Madam Speaker, 18 months ago, we gathered in this Chamber to debate economic stimulus. Republicans wanted to help job creators, but the majority said, ``No, let's borrow and spend.'' And borrow and spend they did, to the tune of $862 billion. Back then, the Democrats sent nearly $100 billion to States and districts to prop up school budgets. It would save 300,000 jobs, we were told, and improve public education. It was a one-time investment, we were told. They would not be back for more. Yet here we stand. They are back for more. I know my schools, I know there are challenges, and I understand the difficult budget decisions our governors, superintendents, and school boards are being forced to make. And I know a Federal bailout is not the answer. Spending another $10 billion we do not have will not improve public education or protect the very best teachers. Earlier this year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told us, ``Today, the status quo clearly isn't good enough.'' Yet the status quo is exactly what this $10 billion will perpetuate. Schools will continue to operate on last-hired, first-fired policies that ignore student achievement when deciding which teachers to keep in the classroom. These dollars are not targeted based on jobs at risk or student needs. This is nothing more than an across-the-board inflation of State spending. Spending another $10 billion we do not have will not balance State budgets or bolster our economy. Because of major increases in the number of school personnel in recent years, States are operating education budgets they cannot afford. At best, inflating State education spending for another year will kick the can down the road, merely postponing the tough decisions and allowing States to overextend themselves for another year. At worst, another bailout will make States more dependent on the Federal Government and more susceptible to Washington's political whims. Finally, spending another $10 billion we do not have is not good for our children and grandchildren. This bill is not ``paid for.'' We are looking at a Washington shell game of tax hikes and deficit spending gamesmanship. It dips into stimulus spending we could not afford 18 months ago to pay for even more stimulus spending we cannot afford today. I oppose this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this rule and against the underlying legislation. I give this whole effort an ``F.''

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I am, in its current form.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, like every Member of Congress, I am deeply concerned for the safety of offshore oil rig workers. No worker who sees a hazard to health and safety in violation of the law should fear reporting the violation to the proper authorities. Effective workplace safety starts with compliance, and is enhanced by alert workers who help ensure appropriate safety rules are being followed. That is why I am asking all my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. This proposal extends the whistleblower protections in the Occupational Safety and Health Act to workers on offshore oil rigs. As I noted earlier, there are a number of concerns with the Democrats' proposal. It creates an entirely new whistleblower protection framework for workers directly or indirectly involved with offshore oil drilling, departing from the long-standing protections in existing health and safety laws. The majority also fails to focus on oil rig workers, extending their untested form of whistleblower protections to various workers on land who are already protected by existing, and possibly conflicting, statutes. Legal confusion and uncertainty are never good when it comes to workplace safety. Last month, the Education and Labor Committee heard from Federal officials who could not answer whether offshore oil rig workers have access to basic whistleblower protections. To date, the committee has not received a response to a request for clarification. Virtually every American worker enjoys these important protections, yet Federal officials did not know whether maritime law, Federal safety and health law, or some other law was fully protecting oil rig workers. Despite this confusion, not a single followup hearing was heard in the Education and Labor Committee. Certainly there was no committee vote on this legislation. Just last night, the House Rules Committee held the first and only hearing this legislation has ever received. In fact, Members of Congress and the public have had less than a week to examine the bill and determine what effect it may have on the safety of oil rig workers or to what extent it may even be necessary. If the majority is determined to rush this bill through Congress without examining the full consequences and context of the issue, I would, instead, suggest a straightforward approach that more fully relies on current law. We believe offshore oil rig workers deserve whistleblower protections and the OSH Act offers us an opportunity to extend those protections immediately. The OSH Act has been the law of the land since 1978, more than 30 years. It has improved over time through congressional and administrative action. And by incorporating oil rig workers into existing protections, they will automatically be included into any future changes of the law. In short, the Republican motion to recommit provides parity in whistleblower protections. The Democrats' bill creates confusion. Our approach gives certainty. The Democrats' bill creates legal conflict. Our approach has established case law. The Democrats' bill will take time to implement and understand. Our approach will provide immediate protections in a manner Federal authorities and workers already know and understand. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this motion. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the best way to keep our workers and our workplaces safe is through compliance. We write workplace safety laws for a reason, and we expect employers to follow those laws. This is true for factories and family-run businesses, and it is true for offshore oil rigs. We never want to see a workplace where laws are not followed and worker safety and health is put at risk. But if that happens, workers must be able to report those risks without fear of being discriminated against or losing their job. This is where whistleblower protections come. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforces 18 separate Federal whistleblower statutes for workers who report violations of worker safety, airline, commercial motor carrier, consumer product, environmental, health care reform, nuclear energy, pipeline, public transportation agency, railroad and securities laws. Yet somehow, in this maze of whistleblower protections, it seems that workers on offshore oil rigs may not be fully protected. When we asked the agencies responsible for overseeing rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf, they told us they did not know which statute might apply. This is unacceptable. I fully support the effort to ensure workers on offshore oil rigs have access to whistleblower protections. But I have concerns and questions about how H.R. 5851 approaches this goal, and I have serious objections to the manner in which this legislation was brought floor. There has been no hearing, no markup, no committee report. There has, quite simply, been no legislative process, and it's no way to treat the oil rig workers we are supposed to be protecting. I yield back the balance of my time.