John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield now 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, I would like to yield myself a minute. My friend from Illinois was just here. I'm sorry that he left. He underscored for me one of the many problems with this legislation. It turns out that Illinois is one of those States that actually has a very strong seclusion and restraint law. They passed it in 2001. It went into effect in 2002; and in 2006, there was an incident, one of those reported by the GAO, where a teacher restricted a child inappropriately. The teacher was prosecuted, found guilty, and yet I find it interesting that even today, or the last look that we had at this, she still has a teacher's certificate to be a substitute teacher in Illinois, something which this bill doesn't address either. We need to get these teachers out of the teaching business. It just makes a point that when you pass a law, it doesn't automatically keep kids safe. You have got to enforce that law. You've got to educate folks, and you've got to have people locally take an active interest. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I will be yielding to Mr. Souder momentarily, and then I will close. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I wanted to touch on a couple of things that we have talked about in the course of this debate that I find to be interesting. We have heard an appeal from one of the Members here on the floor, I think it was the gentleman from Illinois, who said he was applauding this evidence-based approach. And yet we have heard other Members say we have insufficient data. I must admit that I fall in the latter category. We really don't know the extent of the situation. We have heard the numbers quoted. California, for example, is quoted as having 14,000 incidents. We really don't know what is in those 14,000. These include emergency interventions. So we don't know if that's the case of a teacher breaking up a fight or stopping an argument. It is certainly not 14,000 cases of taping children to their chairs, and I don't think anybody in this body believes that is the case. But the point is we don't know. We don't know, and yet we are using numbers as though they were gospel. Look, on this issue let's start with what we agree on. We agree students and teachers should be safe at school. We agree children with disabilities are especially vulnerable because they may struggle with behavioral and communication problems that are difficult for teachers to control. As a result, children with disabilities have been more likely to be restrained or placed in seclusion when, in many cases, positive behavioral interventions could be much more successful and pose a lower risk to students. We also agree that teachers must be able to protect students with serious behavioral problems from injuring themselves or their classmates or their teachers. The only real disagreement, outside some dispute over the data and the evidence and the GAO report, and I find the GAO report particularly interesting because it cited 10 incidents of really egregious behavior in seclusion and restraint. Of course, one of those incidents was 18 years ago, two were 12 years ago, and the most recent was 4 years ago. It just seems to me, when we are going to enact this kind of legislation, this sort of Federal overreach, in my judgment, we ought to have better data. So our only real disagreement is who should address the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. I believe States and local school districts have an obligation to keep their classrooms safe. I have seen real progress from the 46 States that have or will soon have their own policies to train teachers on how to handle difficult behavior and to ensure seclusion or restraints are only used to protect children from harming themselves or others. I believe the Federal Government has historically limited its reach into private schools, and it would be a mistake to start applying new Federal mandates to independent schools that do not receive taxpayer funding. I also believe that we do not protect schools by empowering trial lawyers. For all of these reasons, I continue to oppose H.R. 4247. Through hearings and public outreach, Members of Congress have successfully spurred a national dialogue about the dangers of these strategies for controlling student behavior. That dialogue is a positive step, as is the action it has prompted at the State and local level. Let's not discard the work of these States and districts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with the chairman. This is a technical amendment. It changes the short title of the bill and some other technical and clarifying changes to the bill. While I still cannot support the underlying bill, we have no objection to this. I will vote for it and encourage my colleagues to vote for it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at a town hall meeting in Faribault, Minnesota, just this past Friday night, a small business owner shared his frustrations that I am certain every Member of Congress is hearing from their constituents. And certainly, we heard the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) describe the frustrations he heard from small business owners in his great State. Whether it's the stimulus that failed to create jobs, or the job- killing national energy tax, or this massive government takeover of health care, small business owners are worried. My constituent said, ``I've had small businesses most of my life, so I understand when you would feel like hiring more people. Businesses want to know the rules, and they want a consistent future where they can project and plan. ``What's going on in the White House, with all these different bills and health care, it's a big unknown out there. Businesses are scared, and they have no idea what the future is. They don't want to invest, they don't want to hire. The economy's not going to rebound if they badger businesses the way they are right now.'' I say ``Amen'' to that, Mr. Speaker. Let's push these job-killing bills off the table and get together and work in a bipartisan way.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we have before us today more than 2,000 pages of legislative text that will give us public policy that costs more than $1 trillion and creates a huge morass of government bureaucracies. Over a hundred new offices, bureaus, commissions, and programs. Let's look briefly at just one of these new offices. The Democrats empower a new super bureaucrat with unprecedented authority over personal health care decisions, the health choices commissioner, heading up the Orwellian health choices administration. In the short time we have had since this legislation was made public, we have combed these pages--in the first part of these 2,000 pages--to see if we could get a picture of the responsibilities, authorities, and powers that were granted to this individual. As you can see, Madam Speaker, we actually had to go back to the supply store to get enough of these tabs. This super bureaucrat, this health choices commissioner, it turns out will have powers to define, deny, deem, determine, assess, administer, and establish our health care benefits for all Americans. It is no wonder that millions of Americans are afraid of a government takeover of our health care. How can they not fear such a thing? This is unprecedented, this amount of power granted to one bureaucrat. And, of course, there are other bureaucrats in this bill. I don't believe that this bill should see the light of day. It certainly should not pass. It is a recipe for job losses. It is a clear power grab by Washington bureaucrats. It is a power grab. We ought to discard it altogether. Press the reset button, start over. We can do better. The American people deserve better. Let's vote ``no'' on this power grab by Washington bureaucrats. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). (Mr. LEWIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, certainly a member of the committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Price).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from North Carolina, a former member of this committee and now a member of the Rules Committee, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. At this time, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to a very important member of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and the former ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). (Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I am now pleased, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the ranking member on a subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to someone who tells me that he is, in fact, very proud he doesn't have a section in this bill, a member of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).