John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Bucshon.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. KLINE. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, a member of the committee and the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Dr. Roe.

Mr. KLINE. The underlying bill maintains and strengthens Federal support to assist charter schools in accessing credit for facilities construction, as it has in the past and will in this, but it doesn't get into the details of school construction. It doesn't take another step towards getting the Federal Government involved in school construction. I understand there's a great excitement in some areas about putting green in any construction, or in anything for that matter. If it's green, apparently it's better. This amendment, I'm afraid, will actually weaken efforts at the State level to fund school construction. It will dramatically increase the cost of building elementary and secondary charter schools. Where there's already limited funds available, some States, school districts, and charter schools will be forced to use union workers to construct public charter schools and to comply with this need for green schools. Instead of imposing new burdens on charter schools, we should support State and local efforts to raise student academic achievement, stay out of the school construction business. This amendment is not an appropriate role for the Federal Government. I urge opposition to the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, again, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe that the underlying legislation, as Ranking Member Miller alluded to, has language in it that strongly encourages, at the very least, Governors to work with their SEAs. But I would underscore the point that States are different. Some States are set up with different relationships between the different elected officers. They're not all elected the same way they are maybe in Wisconsin or something. Our underlying purpose here is to expand access to quality charter schools, and I believe this amendment gets in the way of that. So I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KLINE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. KLINE. All across the country we've seen Governors and other State and local officials stand up in support of important education reform efforts that put the interest of children first. The underlying legislation before us today expands the number of State entities that may compete for charter school funding, allowing Governors to act on their support for charter schools. It addresses a real concern that has arisen in States that do not have a State education agency which supports charter schools. Today, there are more than 420,000 students on charter school wait lists. And we've all seen the recent documentaries, ``Waiting for Superman'' and ``The Lottery.'' These chronicle low-income students trapped in failing schools, desperate for better education opportunities. Instead of helping States meet this truly incredible demand for more high quality charter schools, unfortunately, this amendment would actually stifle charter school growth by limiting a Governor's ability to support these institutions. At the core of this bill is our desire to see more quality charter schools available for more students. More choice, more opportunity. Less ``Waiting for Superman.'' And so I oppose this amendment because it works in opposition to what the underlying bill is trying to do and what we're trying to do--and that's give the States more opportunities to create and replicate more quality charter schools.

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

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. The severity of our Nation's fiscal crisis cannot be overstated. More than 14 million Americans are looking for work. Meanwhile, Federal spending continues at an unprecedented pace, with an average of $4 billion added to our country's debt every day. We need to encourage economic growth and investment. Instead, leaders on the other side of the aisle are pushing more reckless policies, more redtape, and more taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending spree, leaving job creators frozen by uncertainty and fear, and risking our future prosperity. At a recent roundtable in Minnesota, a small business owner told me, The government is out of control. It's too big, and I don't like it. Well, I don't like it either, and it's costing our country jobs. It's time for Washington to do what's right. We need to make the tough choices necessary to get our Nation's fiscal house in order. No one said it would be easy, but it certainly is necessary. The legislation before us today will end unsustainable spending and put this Nation back on a fiscally responsible path. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1380.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, this legislation that would reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This program was created in 2004 with bipartisan support. This program has provided an educational lifeline and meaningful choices to thousands of District families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Everyone agrees now that our educational system is broken. As we work to craft targeted reforms, we must support existing education programs that improve student achievement. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is one such initiative with a proven track record of success. Over the past 7 years, this program has helped more than 3,000 low- income children receive a high-quality education at the private school of their choice. The Department of Education's own research confirms the program's success in increasing graduation rates to more than 90 percent in the low-income population of students previously trapped in underperforming schools. Additionally, this scholarship program has improved parental involvement in education. Four consecutive studies have shown parents of program participants are more engaged in their children's education and more satisfied with their academic progress than parents of public school students. The evidence is clear, Mr. Speaker. This innovative program works and serves as a real alternative for parents who want to give their children the educational opportunities they never had. Yet, despite this proof, the administration and some in Congress are determined to destroy this groundbreaking program. Without the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, thousands of parents will be denied an opportunity to make decisions about their children's education. Equally troubling, thousands of children will be denied the opportunity to achieve their full potential, leaving them unequipped to succeed in a 21st century workforce. We must put children first and stop a vocal minority from taking vital opportunities away from thousands of D.C. families. The program has received widespread support from Washington residents, including three former Democratic Mayors, several members of the D.C. City Council, and thousands of students and parents. Congress cannot turn its back and deny students a chance, a chance for a better future. As our Nation fights to get back to the path to prosperity, we cannot afford to eliminate critical educational opportunities that will prepare our Nation's youth for tomorrow's workforce. All parents should be empowered to decide what school is best for their child. A quality education should not be a luxury available only to those who can afford it. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KLINE

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

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal, President Obama laid out his plan to conduct a comprehensive regulatory review to ``remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive.'' I have pledged to be a partner in that effort. Job creation and American competitiveness are our top priorities. That's why I am offering an amendment to deny funds from being used to implement and enforce a job-destroying Department of Education regulation. More than 3 million students attend proprietary schools. These schools, also known as for-profit schools or career colleges, provide students with skills that can be applied immediately to specific jobs in the workforce. With more than 6 million workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks, proprietary schools address a critical need in today's economy. These schools also help address the needs of local communities. Proprietary institutions are nimble and easily adapt to the demands of an ever-changing local economy. If a community lacks trained nurses or qualified auto mechanics, proprietary school can quickly develop programs to fill those needs. For years, proprietary schools have served young adults, single parents, first-generation college students, and low-income individuals. They have opened doors to bright futures and strengthened our economy. That's why recent efforts by this administration have been so troubling. Last year, the Department of Education put forward regulations that will deny students access to many of these institutions. The regulation includes a number of provisions, including unprecedented reporting requirements placed solely on the backs of these proprietary schools. The regulation also requires schools to seek preapproval from the Department of Education before creating any new program, tying down in bureaucratic redtape the flexibility that has benefited communities and workers. The public outcry to the regulation has been resounding. More than 90,000 public comments were sent in to the Department during the rulemaking process. A strong bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress has voiced their concerns to the administration, but those concerns seem to be ignored. In 2008, Congress had an opportunity to define ``gainful employment,'' yet it chose not to. It recognized such a definition would limit student choice and stifle employment. Instead, the administration is barreling ahead with bad policy. We all support transparency and accountability. We should empower students with good information about all institutions so they can make the most informed choice about their education. We should do our part to root out bad actors. We can do that while opposing an outright attack on the private sector. That's what this is: an attack on the private sector of education. Colleges that planned to expand their campuses have put those plans on hold. This effort will force schools to turn away students and close their doors. Some have already laid off workers. Capella, based in my home State of Minnesota, announced just yesterday they will lay off 125 staff members. The regulation is destroying jobs today and will continue to do so. Make no mistake, this isn't just another regulation that will destroy jobs. This is an assault on students' ability to find an institution that best meets their needs. The President has laid out a goal to lead the world in college graduates in less than 10 years. This goal represents the reality that far too often our workers are unprepared to succeed in a highly competitive global economy. But we cannot lead the world if we follow the path this regulation would force us to take. Let's support our students. Let's support their right to choose a college that meets their needs. Let's support a strong and competitive workforce. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, budgeting is about making tough choices. Congress has a responsibility to outline a budget the country can afford that sets priorities to live within those means. Too often in recent years Congress failed in this basic duty. I'm pleased to see us beginning to move in a new direction. The choice we face today is whether we will begin to uphold our commitments or continue to kick the can down the road for another debate another time. That's why I'm proud to support this amendment. This amendment will move Congress closer to meeting its commitment to students with disabilities and help schools, all schools across the Nation. It adds to our effort to set the right priorities. In 1971, a landmark decision was handed down by a Federal judge that ruled the U.S. Constitution prohibits schools from denying access to education based solely on a child's disabilities. While this represented the judgment of one court, states soon followed. Four years later Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. That law, now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, was designed to help states meet their obligation to provide a quality education to students with disabilities. It is a law that has been improved over the years, most recently, in 2004. We've worked to strengthen the law's focus on academic achievement, empowered parents to take greater responsibility for the direction of their child's education, and helped to improve the critical relationship between local school leaders and the parents and students they serve. Despite our efforts over the years, more work remains to strengthen the law to ensure students with disabilities receive the education they need. That's why we're here today. Over the past 35 years, while states have worked to follow the letter of the law and serve these students, the Federal Government has failed to deliver on its promise to fund 40 percent of the additional costs of educating students with disabilities. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we've never funded 20 percent. We haven't made it halfway. This amendment reallocates resources at the Department of Education to improve our commitment to meet this important need. It makes tough choices we were sent here to make. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina, I feel compelled to respond for just a minute to the remarks of my good friend from New Jersey that underscores the fundamental difference here. We believe that the issues that we have been talking about and are talking about today and will be talking about next week strike directly to the problem of unemployment and the lack of jobs in this country. Without fiscal responsibility, without addressing the exploding debt, without addressing the job-killing health care plan, which we've done, and without addressing the blizzard of regulations that are coming out of this administration and every industry, we're not going to be able to create those jobs. It's a fundamental difference. The debate will go on, but clearly we believe, and I believe, that we are directly addressing jobs because we found out over the last few years, certainly the last 2 years, that spending billions and hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars does not, in fact, put America back to work. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today's effort is driven by a simple goal: to ensure every area of the Federal Government is dedicated to job creation. If we are to get the Nation back to work, we all must work together to remove barriers to economic growth and prosperity. Every job matters, and every effort to help create a new job matters. The American people have demonstrated a relentless determination to make the difficult choices necessary to get through these tough times. We should do no less. Employers need certainty, flexibility, and freedom to expand their businesses and hire new workers. Red tape should not tie down economic growth, and onerous regulations should not be roadblocks to job creation. Congress can no longer accept sweeping changes that affect the lives of students and workers without first determining whether it is good for our long-term competitiveness, good for job creators, and good for our economy. We were sent here to focus on getting the economy back on track and the American people back to work. Today we are moving forward with our commitment to do just that. In my conversations with constituents, I have seen the desperation that follows months of searching in vain for work. I also have witnessed the hope that is renewed at the prospect of future employment. Everyone agrees you need rules of the road and commonsense protections; bad actors will always exist, and they must be held accountable for breaking the law. But we shouldn't accept lost wages, lost jobs, and lost opportunities as inevitable consequences to advancing fairness, accountability, and responsibility. The Education and Workforce Committee oversees a broad range of policies that affect the Nation's workplaces and classrooms. A number of those policies will be discussed by other leaders of the committee in a few moments. In the time remaining for myself, I would like to discuss one area in particular that deserves closer examination. Is the Federal Government using its authority fairly and on behalf of American workers, or is it pursuing a partisan agenda that makes our workplaces less competitive? The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created by Congress more than 75 years ago. The NLRB is charged with preventing and remedying unfair labor practices and establishing whether employees desire union representation. Its responsibility is to fairly protect the rights of workers against unlawful encroachments by employers and unions. Unfortunately, the board has recently shown an eagerness to tilt the playing field in favor of powerful special interests. A culture of union favoritism has seized the board, with consequences that reach into virtually every workplace. Stripping workers of their right to a secret ballot through a backdoor card check scheme is just one looming threat. The board also has threatened legal action against States seeking to protect the secret ballot, and it has diminished safeguards for employers. We cannot allow the board to rewrite the rules of the game to circumvent the will of Congress in pursuit of its own job- destroying agenda. This same culture of union favoritism has also swept across the administration, expanding protections for big labor at the expense of rank-and-file workers. Project labor agreements and high road contracting sound innocent enough, but they put small businesses and the vast majority of their workers at a disadvantage--at the expense of the taxpayers, I might add. These are the kinds of policies that should be examined to determine whether they undermine economic growth. Our efforts will not be blinded by partisanship. If we learn of a rule or regulation that stands in the way of a strong workforce, regardless of the Congress or administration that put it in place, we will take a look at it. This is a critically important responsibility, and I look forward working with every Member of Congress to get it done. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we're spending this time talking about real job creation. For the last 2 years, we've watched the Democrats spend literally trillions of dollars in failed efforts to create jobs, with more government spending. We need to get the private sector back to work. We've heard examples here today, and we'll hear more this afternoon, of how this blizzard of regulations is getting in the way of that job creation and preventing Americans from getting back to work. We need to step up to our responsibility, and this is just the opening of that discussion as we step up to do our jobs in oversight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the chair of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).