John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I'll take about 10 seconds to respond to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, about the $250. It's not contemplated in the legislation, nor is it our understanding of the scoring that there is any intention of that $250 being brought back from those seniors. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I actually don't know anybody who is supporting the red tape of the insurance company. What I find interesting is that we think it is a better solution to add thousands of pages of new government regulations and thousands of new government bureaucrats on top of that system and think somehow it is going to be better. Let me address a couple of things that have come up in this debate and some things that we discussed in the past. One of them is the cost of this bill. Other committees have talked about it and will again. There have been claims today that repeal will cost the taxpayers variously $230 billion or a trillion dollars based on what the CBO has said. We find that incredible that repealing this job-killing legislation is actually going to cost us money. So the question comes why are these things different. It turns out there is a wonderful piece in The Wall Street Journal today that addresses that specifically. I will just quote it. It says: How then does the Affordable Care Act magically convert a trillion dollars in new spending into painless deficit reduction? It is all about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline. We heard some words today addressing that fact. Some of our physicians pointed out that in order to get the numbers to add up, you have to assume that we are going to continue to punish physicians who are providing Medicare services. And there is nobody in this body who believes we are actually going to do that. Nor did they believe that we were going to do it when that sort of gimmicky accounting was used to justify the cost in the first place. We have heard discussions about how this is a very good deal for businesses large and small; and yet if you look at associations, organizations that represent businesses across America, they are saying today, not just 6 months ago or a year ago, but saying today that they support repeal of this job-killing legislation. And a short list, just some of them are the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the International Franchise Association, the America Bankers Association, American Hotel and Lodging Association, the National Stove and Gravel Association, and on and on. Businesses do not like this government takeover of health care, and they support repeal. This is not a good deal for businesses. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose to focus their remarks on a handful of provisions included in the law that are more attractive than tax hikes, penalties imposed on employers, and higher health care costs. And no one is disputing that such provisions exist, but it is wrong to suggest that the only way to reform health care is to bankrupt our Nation with this albatross. I believe we can improve health care without orchestrating a government takeover. That is why I look forward to casting my vote to repeal this law so we can move forward to carry out the wishes of our constituents. Repeal is the first step toward the right kind of reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that any minute or two that I have left be granted to the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee during that portion of the debate.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I had two more speakers en route. They are not here. So I plan to close, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, then at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Long).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire again as to the time remaining on each side, please.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another new member of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, in an effort to balance the time here--we have an embarrassment of riches in numbers of speakers; that's what happened in November--I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, Saturday was a dark day for the residents of Tucson, Arizona, and our Nation. In the blink of an eye the lives of men, women and children who were going about their daily routines were forever changed. One troubled, twisted soul robbed six innocent individuals of their lives and cast a dark shadow over a fundamental right of our democracy, the exchange of ideas between a Representative and the community she represents. Madam Speaker, in an effort to find meaning in this tragedy, it is tempting to assign blame or to draw conclusions in support of a larger pattern, but what we witnessed this weekend is void of rationale. We must recognize the disaster for the senseless act it is, but we should not stop there. As the men and women we represent mourn those who were lost and rally to support a brave public servant who is battling for her life, we in this body have a responsibility to lead the way. We must demonstrate our resolve to continue the important work of listening to our constituents and legislating on their behalf. We must press on, undeterred by panic, in carrying out the work we have been elected to do. We must demonstrate that America is strong, her institutions are unshakeable, and her people are brave and determined. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to the family and friends of the victims of this tragedy and sending my prayers to our colleague, Gabby Giffords, in her time of need. May she find the strength to recover and join us in leading the way forward.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I offer the following statement in support of Senate Bill 3036, expressing support for the National Alzheimer's Project Act. The effects of Alzheimer's disease are devastating. An estimated 5.3 million Americans live with this disease, and millions more are directly affected through caring for loved ones and sharing the surmounting costs of this terrible disease. Unfortunately, the devastation of Alzheimer's disease will only become worse as the Baby Boom generation grows older. It is estimated that if we are unable to change the trajectory of this disease, as many as 16 million Americans will have Alzheimer's by the middle of this century. The economic impact of Alzheimer's is also staggering. We are currently spending an estimated $172 billion annually on Alzheimer's disease and other dementia care in America. As the nation faces a growing aging population, we must look at how to reduce costs while improving outcomes. The National Alzheimer's Project Act will help achieve this goal through the establishment of the Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services, which facilitates public and private coordination on research and services across all federal agencies. As my mother is currently suffering from the advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease, I would welcome news of a research breakthrough that would slow, stop, or reverse this degenerative disease. The National Alzheimer's Project Act is an important step toward addressing a devastating and deadly disease. I am pleased to support legislation that will help improve the quality of life for the millions of Americans affected by Alzheimer's disease.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues who today recognize a faithful public servant and proud Minnesotan, Congressman Jim Oberstar. Jim has dedicated his career to the people of Minnesota's 8th Congressional district--serving as their Representative since 1974 and as a staff member to his predecessor, former Representative John Blatnik, for more than a decade. During his tenure in Congress, Jim was a passionate and unapologetic advocate for the causes he believed in. He rose to prominence as Chairman of the Transportation Committee, where he worked to ensure the safety and security of our nation's transportation infrastructure. While we found ourselves on opposite ends of most political arguments, I respect Congressman Oberstar's accomplishments and the legacy he leaves behind in this House and the great state of Minnesota. I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. We're told that in a few minutes we will resume the debate on child nutrition where we left off yesterday before we were abruptly interrupted by the majority's strategy to prevent legislators from legislating. I urge my colleagues, if you support these sensible and important protections for children and working families, support our commonsense motion to recommit. Listen to the National School Boards Association, who in a letter today wrote, ``The motion to recommit recognizes that Federal regulation of the paid meal price is not in the best interest of school districts implementing school meal programs.'' They are urging Congress to support the motion to recommit. Listen to child care experts with the National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies, who today announced strong support for the motion to recommit to require a background check on all child care providers who participate in Federal child nutrition programs. Mr. Speaker, I support the suspension. I ask my colleagues to support this suspension. But please, support the motion to recommit and provide the real protections our children and families need and deserve. National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies, Arlington, VA, December 2, 2010. Hon. John Kline, Senior Republican Member, U.S. Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Kline: The National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) strongly supports your Motion to Recommit to S. 3307, Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act of 2010, to require a background check on all child care providers who participate in federal child nutrition programs. NACCRRA works with more than 700 state and local Child Care Resource and Referral agencies (CCR&Rs) throughout the nation. These agencies help ensure that families in 99 percent of all populated zip codes in the United States have access to high-quality, affordable child care. NACCRRA has released several reports that examine state laws and regulations with regard to child care centers and family child care homes. The most recent state requirements reveal that only half the states conduct effective background checks on child care workers--state and federal fingerprint record checks, a check of the sex offender and child abuse and neglect registries. A name check alone leaves children to chance. Without a comprehensive check, parents have no way of knowing whether their child care provider has a criminal history. In fact, NACCRRA's 2010 nationwide poll of parents shows that 92 percent of parents support a background check for child care providers. Parents want their children to be safe. The reality is that background check requirements vary greatly by state and most fail to ensure that providers with a criminal history are not caring for children. NACCRRA commends your leadership on this issue. Your efforts to ensure that all children are safe in child care and that no one with a violent criminal history is paid to provide child care with federal funds is a testament to your dedication to helping parents know their children are safe while they work. Sincerely, Linda K. Smith, Executive Director.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Members on the other side of the aisle talked a great deal yesterday--and even again today--about playing politics and gotchas here on the House floor, so I feel compelled to take a moment to set the record straight. Yesterday, the House was supposed to debate and vote on a bill to reauthorize Federal child nutrition programs. Rather than allowing Members to offer amendments and fully engage in the legislative process, the majority decided the U.S. House of Representatives should have no say in these programs that affect childhood health and wellness. Members of the House would have no involvement in writing initiatives to spend an additional $4.5 billion in hard-earned taxpayer dollars on legislation that imposes significant operational and financial costs on our local school districts. They brought this massive child nutrition bill--$4.5 billion in new spending and 17 new or expanded Federal programs--to the floor under a closed rule. For the record, it was the 97th closed rule in the 4 years Democrats have controlled the people's House, 97th closed rule. Apparently it's easier to dictate the outcome when you prevent legislators from legislating. Talk about a gotcha. That's why I offered a motion to recommit, the one and only chance we had to remove some of the bill's most harmful provisions and insert stronger protections for our children. My modest amendment included a pair of noncontroversial changes to the underlying bill that should have passed the House overwhelmingly, but that did not fit in the majority's plan. You see, as I said less than 24 hours ago, the clock is winding down on the 111th Congress, and there is a rush to push through as many bills at the last minute as this outgoing majority can manage. As we witnessed yesterday, the sprint to the finish means the sacrifice of a deliberative process. I don't know about anyone else, but this seems all too familiar. Perhaps that's because it was just this year when the Democrats passed a massive government takeover of health care under a closed process. They denied Members an opportunity to offer their ideas or amendments. They promised the country a fiscally responsible plan while cutting backroom deals to hide the true cost of the legislation. All this was done in an effort to pass a partisan bill the American people have rejected. Instead of letting lawmakers do our job and pass the best bill we can, the majority shut down the legislative process to defeat improvements to legislation while pretending to support them. Talk about playing politics. Members will come to the floor shortly to support this bill, and why shouldn't they? This proposal, taken from my motion to recommit, the child nutrition legislation, protects children by requiring background checks for child care providers participating in Federal meal programs. It's a good proposal, which is why it belongs in the child nutrition legislation. Instead, we understand the majority party plans to execute a stunning same-day flip-flop, voting for these background checks now only to oppose them when they really count, as an improvement in the broader bill. They will be for it before they are against it. This procedural gimmick may fix the political problem but leaves the policy broken. For anyone still wondering why the American people hold their elected representatives in such low regard, I believe this is it. Notably absent from this so-called cover vote is the other piece of our motion to recommit. The Republican plan would eliminate the middle class tax hidden in the child nutrition legislation. The Democrats' bill imposes an unprecedented Federal price mandate for paid school meals. As a result, many schools may have to increase the prices they charge children who pay for their meals. The National Governors Association and leading school groups oppose 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. Our proposal would have blocked this harmful tax on working families. We proposed, during the one and only opportunity we had to do so, a modest pair of corrections that would have made the bill better, our children safer, all while protecting working families. The majority party wants to defeat those corrections, but they cannot do so without political cover. So here we stand. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I am.

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the argument that we have been making in the debate today is that this really isn't about dietary guidelines or even school nutrition strategies. The point was made there are a lot of people caring, from local school boards to Members of Congress and certainly the First Lady. It's not a debate about keeping our children healthy and active. We all want to see our children healthy and active. This is a debate about spending and the role of government and the size of government, a debate about whether we're listening to our constituents or not. Reauthorizing child nutrition should be easy. We should be able to extend these programs and approve them. We should be able to do that without adding to the cost. I'm confident Members on both sides of the aisle would welcome the opportunity to do just that at no new cost to taxpayers. Unfortunately, that option is not on the table today. Instead, we are voting on yet another bill that calls for the government to grow, expand, to spend more and intrude more, and I am arguing that this bill is in fact not paid for. It's an argument that I made minutes ago. I would quote from an article, the newspaper yesterday, I think Congress Daily. It says: ``Antihunger advocates opposed House consideration of the bill before the election because part of the offset for the bill is a cut in future food stamp benefits. But the Food Research and Action Center said last week that its member groups would support the bill as long as Congress and the Obama administration plan to restore the food stamp cut in future legislation.'' We don't know where the pay-for is going to come from. We've got something on paper that says it's going to come out of food stamps, which was money borrowed in the stimulus bill, and yet we really don't know where that's coming from. So, Madam Speaker, I am arguing that this bill is not what the people want. They want our children to be healthy and active, but they do not want to see government grow. They do not want to see the creation or expansion of 17 new programs. They do not want to see $4.5 billion of new spending. This is not what the people want. It's not what they can afford. This is not a bill I can support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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