John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I continue to reserve.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, whistleblower protections are a longstanding part of our Federal safety and health laws. Simply put, they protect workers' ability to speak freely about dangers in the workplace. They allow working men and women to protect themselves and their coworkers. The ultimate goals of our worker safety laws should be that no worker ever needs to blow the whistle. We need a culture of safety in our workplaces, a system in which employers have the information and resources they need to comply with the law and avoid unnecessary risks to workers' health and safety. But in those rare instances where employers are not following the law and workers' safety is at risk, we offer protections to those individuals who speak up. These protections are widely available to workers and enforced by the Whistleblower Protection Program at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. However, we recently became aware that a gap may exist in those protections. Safety on offshore oil rigs is overseen by the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, unlike most workplaces where safety is overseen by OSHA. As a result, it is not clear whether these workers are covered by the OSH Act's whistleblower protections or any of the 17 other statutes enforced by OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program. Some might argue oil rig workers are covered by the Maritime Transportation and Security Act, while others point to a 1983 agreement in which OSHA retained whistleblower authority for these workers. In the few days since this legislation was introduced, we have found confusion and conflicting information. This confusion was illustrated in recent news accounts detailing the experiences of workers on the Deepwater Horizon who were concerned about safety practices on the rig but were afraid to voice those concerns. If workers themselves believe they can be fired or otherwise retaliated against for identifying safety concerns, we must create or restate those protections. It is as simple as that. Yet the bill before us is not so simple. H.R. 5851 creates a brand-new whistleblower framework for any individual directly or indirectly involved with a company that drills on the Outer Continental Shelf. We all agree on the need to clarify protections for workers on the rigs, but what about other workers, those who are already covered by other law? H.R. 5851 adds a new layer of legal processes, deadlines, and remedies for workers who are already covered. It creates legal confusion, particularly for those workers who would now be covered by parallel and possibly conflicting statutes. I'm also troubled by the differences between these new whistleblower protections and those existing under current law. This bill seems to prioritize resolution by the Federal courts, adding costs and delaying results for workers who simply want to remain on the job. These are the types of questions normally addressed through hearings and committee votes. Members weigh the opinions of Federal regulatory officials, legal experts, industry personnel, and workers themselves. We evaluate which agency would be best suited to enforce protections and remedies under the law, and we prevent duplication and confusion by clearly defining which workers are covered. Unfortunately, we did not use that process for H.R. 5851. It was never given a committee hearing. It was never given a committee vote. Last month, the committee held a hearing to examine broad jurisdictional questions about which Federal agency is ultimately responsible for worker safety on offshore oil rigs. We heard from the Coast Guard, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Those agencies told us they did not know which Federal whistleblower laws, if any, applied to workers on oil rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf. There was confusion. Since that time, the committee has heard no further testimony, received no further information, and considered no legislation. Yet, on Monday of this week, the majority introduced H.R. 5851 and promptly announced Members of the full House would be asked to cast a vote on whether these are the best protections for workers on oil rigs. And, as has become all too common, we are here under a closed rule with no amendments being considered. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue and it deserves a serious process, one it has not been given. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the generosity of a benevolent donation to benefit the community of Lonsdale, Minnesota. The Lonsdale public library is now home to a text enlarger that returns the gift of reading to those whose eyes aren't as sharp as they once were. Estimated to cost $1,800, this gift was made possible by Joseph Schiprett, a Lonsdale resident. Joseph purchased the machine for his wife who was losing her eyesight due to Diabetes. Helen, who never lost her love for reading, passed away in 2007, at which time Joseph shared this gift with the entire Lonsdale community. As the Senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, I commend Mr. Schiprett for his selfless donation and investment in the continuing education of the Lonsdale community.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, those of us privileged to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives do not do our jobs alone. We rely on the expertise and tireless energy of staff members who share our commitment to serving our constituents and our nation. As one of my staff members prepares to depart, I recognize and applaud his years of service to this, The People's House. James A. Paretti, Jr. first came to Capitol Hill in 1987, and has served on the staff of the Education and Labor Committee since 2003. As Workforce Policy Counsel, Jim has helped reform and modernize employment policy with the overarching goal of protecting workers and fostering innovation among American employers. As an attorney, his dedication to and understanding of the law has been the hallmark of his service. Jim's quick wit and powerful intellect have served members of the Education and Labor Committee well. He has proven to be a deft negotiator able to put principle above party and craft legislation in the best interest of the nation. Jim's contributions to the House are many, and we wish him well as he enters the next phase of a career dedicated to upholding, interpreting, and improving the laws that affect American workers and employers.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, across the country, countless families and small business owners are making the tough decisions needed to weather this difficult economy. Many may have hoped to put off for another day the choices they were forced to make, but the American people realize the path to renewing our economic prosperity comes through courage and sacrifice. They also realize the difficult work must start today. It is a dereliction of public duty for this Congress to deliberately fail to pass a budget. More than a year ago, the American people ignited a national debate about the future they see for the country. They have demanded that Washington get spending under control and spend taxpayer money wisely. It is shameful that here in the people's House, the Democrat majority's avoiding that same debate. We are failing our children by failing to produce a budget. It is time to get our priorities straight and our fiscal house in order. Mr. Speaker, let's join this debate taking place around the country and begin to make the tough choices the American people expect from their leaders.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 959, the Officer Daniel Faulkner Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act of 2010. I'm sure we're going to hear from my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy) something about Officer Daniel Faulkner. He represents a profession where the men and women serving put their lives on the line every day. And H.R. 959 honors this ultimate sacrifice that fallen heroic police officers and firefighters make by providing their children with a helping hand that they cannot be there to provide in furthering their education. Children of fallen Active Duty service men and women are already afforded this same assistance. This act ensures police officers and firefighters are honored in the same manner as our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines for giving their lives to protect our safety. Every year hundreds of police officers, firefighters, and other public safety officers die in the line of duty. Their jobs are inherently dangerous, and they accept this risk to protect America's citizens. It is important that we recognize their sacrifice and honor their lives. The Officer Daniel Faulkner Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act provides a fiscally responsible way to convey our gratitude and respect for those who sacrifice their lives to protect us. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 959, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I don't have any other speakers at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1261, recognizing National Nurses Week. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) explained in some detail the history of this week and the importance of nurses to our communities, to our States, and to our Nation. I strongly endorse and identify myself with her remarks. I want to just take a personal moment. This is an especially important week in my house and my life. My wife, Vicky, has spent her entire adult life as a nurse, as a registered nurse. She did a career in the Army as an Army nurse and worked for years in emergency rooms and trauma centers literally around the country as I was transferred from duty station to duty station. And so I feel the importance that comes with this very noble and important profession. I know the care and compassion that comes with this profession, the lifesaving skills and the dedication. In my family, literally in Vicky's family, the nursing profession has long been part of that family. Her mother was a nurse. I have a niece, her niece is serving as an Army nurse. I have a sister-in-law who spent her adult life as a nurse. This is a profession that is, indeed, lifesaving and so important to our families. I want to extend my grateful congratulations to all those nurses, men and women, who have dedicated their lives to serving those in need here and around the world. I ask that my colleagues support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers and I encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 1261, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1333. This resolution supports and honors Children's Book Week, which is in itself a celebration of the written word. And as my colleague so aptly said, today our children are immersed in a multimedia world. I know my grandchildren are unbelievably expert at video games. And I can't tell you how happy I am, how thrilled I am, when I see them sitting with a book. I was so pleased to see that my oldest grandson followed in the line of his father and grandfather and great grandfather of seeking every available minute to get into the world of literature, to get into the written word, to read these books, going to the point of getting under the covers with a flashlight way after lights out time for bed. I think that's an important part of our children growing up. I am concerned that many of our children are losing this touch with the written word. So I believe that the Congress expressing our support for the goals and ideals of Children's Book Week, the written word, is an important statement. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my constituents' concerns and frustrations over the health care bill that unfortunately is now law. Last night, I hosted a telephone town hall meeting; thousands of my constituents participated. I invited them to discuss any issue that they chose; every single one spoke about this new health care law. And they had concerns. One man who called in said, I'm 72 years old, I'm retired, and I get my health insurance from my company. Are they still going to provide prescription drug coverage? That's a fine question. The wife of a family practitioner said, My husband is 62, and his patients are asking whether he will be able to stay around. And he tells them it will all depend on the government. It's sad to me that he doesn't even get to make his own choice about whether or not he retires. Last week, the Obama administration's own experts confirmed what we've been saying for a year: this bill costs too much. Mr. Speaker, it's time to repeal this law and replace it.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues to honor the memory of the 29 miners who lost their lives in the Upper Big Branch Mine, and to express our gratitude to the rescue teams who bravely pursued a tragic recovery mission. The Nation watched in collective apprehension last week as mine rescue teams rushed from the coal fields of Appalachia to the small town of Whitesville to help their own. For a week we all clung to the hope that four missing miners might have found refuge. It was not to be. Over the weekend, the mine rescue teams performed a more solemn duty, bringing these men out of the mine one final time. Under the best conditions mining is dangerous work. After an explosion the mines are even more treacherous. Mine rescue teams undertake rigorous training and exercise valiant resolve. Today we recognize their bravery in the face of danger and tragedy. H. Res. 1236 honors their commitment to service. Chairman Miller has announced our intention to investigate this tragedy and seek answers on behalf of the families and the entire mining community. Our focus must be to determine what caused this devastating loss so we can prevent it from ever happening again. The cameras have gone elsewhere and this tragedy has faded from the hourly broadcasts. For the families, however, the devastation of the Upper Big Branch Mine will never disappear. With this resolution we offer our condolences, we honor their loved ones, and we pledge our commitment to get to the bottom of this.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished Republican leader, can I ask the chairman of the committee to confirm that he is the last speaker and will be closing? All right. Then, at this time, I am very pleased to yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Republican leader, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 2 minutes. It has been suggested that today's action will be the final word on the health care debate that has consumed the attention of Washington and America for more than a year. I would suggest instead that much remains to be said and seen. The ink is hardly dry on the Democrats' government takeover of health care, but already we are seeing its devastating real-life consequences. We discovered a loophole that leaves many young adults out of the reach of their parents' insurance coverage, despite the President's pledge that they will receive care today. We learned there is a gap in the law that allows insurance companies to continue denying care to children with preexisting conditions. Again, despite the President's claim to the contrary. And reports continue to document what this legislation has in store for workers at companies like Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon, and many others. Here's what they're telling us to expect: $100 million or more in compliance costs this year alone for just one of these companies, major changes to workers' current health care coverage, and higher taxes, which will mean higher costs for consumers. These announcements arrived just days after the President signed his health care plan into law. We can only imagine what's in store for the American people as the weeks and months unfold and we begin to experience the full impact of the government control over one-sixth of our economy. These revelations are the obvious consequences of jamming a flawed bill through a flawed process. Mr. Speaker, a flawed bill jammed through a flawed process guarantees the health care debate will go on. The American people have rejected a government takeover of health care, so let's reject this latest fix of the bill. Let's show the American people we will not accept even more job-killing tax hikes at a time when almost 15 million Americans, 15 million Americans are looking for work. Let's show the American people we will not accept even steeper cuts to Medicare that will leave millions of seniors less secure. Let's show the American people we will not exploit this economic crisis to launch a government takeover of student loans or take $9 billion from students to help fund government-run health care. Let's show the American people we're ready to do better. Let's vote ``no.'' And now, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Chair of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, the ranking member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee, Dr. Price.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. I came to Congress 7 years ago to do my part to make this country better. Every vote I cast and every policy I help shape must be judged by whether it achieves what my constituents sent me here to accomplish. As each Member of this, the people's House, prepares to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' tonight, we should all take a moment to remind ourselves of why we are here. Our job is to ensure American employers have the tools and the freedom they need to sustain jobs and create jobs. Instead, this bill will destroy jobs at a time when we need them the most. Our job is to ensure freedom, security and prosperity for future generations. Instead, this bill will be paid for by our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. Our job is to legislate openly with integrity and fairness. Instead, this bill is full of back- room deals negotiated behind closed doors. This bill is not what the American people want. They are imploring us to start over with reforms that will bring down health care costs while preserving the relationship between patients and their doctors. This is our last chance to stand up for the people who sent us here and display the courage to prove that we can do better. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month President Obama said, ``Everything there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everyone has said it.'' Perhaps he is right. Perhaps everyone in Washington has said all there is to say. The lines have been drawn, and the number of undecided votes is dwindling. But perhaps it is time for Washington to stop talking and start listening. I am listening to the calls coming into my office, 13-1 against this legislation. I am listening to residents of Minnesota's Second Congressional District, who told me during a town hall last week 72 percent of them are opposed to this bill. I am listening to small business owners in my State and around this Nation who are paralyzed by the fear of new mandates, job-killing taxes, crushing Federal deficits, and more government control. I am listening to the thousands of citizens who traveled to our Nation's capital this weekend to tell us in no uncertain terms they want us to kill the bill. I am listening, and what I am hearing is the American people shouting ``stop.'' They want us to start over. They want health care reform we can afford. They want reform that will bring down costs without sacrificing quality or personal freedom. Mr. Speaker, they want us to say ``no'' to this bill today so we can come back and do better tomorrow. There is no question that there are Members in this body, Republicans and Democrats, who are ready to go to work on a much improved bill. The die has not yet been cast. It is not too late. I urge my colleagues: Listen to the American people. Vote ``no.'' Vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, then at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois, a senior member of the Education and Labor Committee, Mrs. Biggert.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, the ranking member of the Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness subcommittee, Mr. Guthrie.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, we have been talking all day about this bill that is that 2,700-page Senate bill, this bill that increases bureaucracies and bureaucrats and gives more government power and more government control. We know the American people don't like it, and we are speaking against it. But that is not bad enough. At the same time, using this convoluted parliamentary procedure, our Democratic colleagues want to have the government take over the student lending business, build up bigger bureaucracy, wipe out 30,000 private sector jobs, make the Department of Education one of the largest banks in the country lending $100 billion a year of money that we don't have, money that we have to borrow from China before we can lend it to students. So whether it is health care or it is student lending, we are watching a massive growth of government power, size, and spending, and I deem that unacceptable.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4247, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me begin by stating unequivocally that the incidents uncovered by the GAO are unacceptable. No child should be put in physical danger by the use of seclusion or restraints in school. The tragic stories just related by the chairman of Cedric and Paige are unacceptable everywhere. In each of the cases reviewed by the GAO, there was a criminal conviction, a finding of civil or administrative liability, or a large financial settlement. In other words, everyone agrees that what happened is simply wrong. We do not need a change in Federal law for such behavior to be condemned. Sometimes the most powerful tool we have as elected officials is the bully pulpit, and Chairman Miller and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers have certainly availed themselves of it. They have worked hard to call national attention to the misuse of seclusion and restraints in our schools. States clearly recognize the need to proactively limit the use of these disciplinary tools. Today, 31 States have policies and procedures in place to govern when and how seclusion or restraint techniques may or may not be used. Another 15 States will have such protections in place in the near future. Many, many independent school districts and school boards have such procedures in place. The question today is: Who is best equipped to create and enforce those policies? To answer that question, I would point to a letter from the Council of the Great City Schools, which States, ``Every injury to a student in school is a matter of serious concern, but all such incidents are not necessarily matters of Federal law.'' In fact, until recently, the U.S. Department of Education was not even collecting data on the use of seclusion and restraint tactics in schools. The Department has no experience or expertise regulating in this area. Yet, H.R. 4247 would establish a new, one-size-fits-all Federal framework that overrules the work of these States. I will include the letter from the Council of the Great City Schools in the Record, along with letters from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council for American Private Education, the American Association of Christian Schools, the Association of Christian Schools International, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. American Association of School Administrators, Arlington, VA, March 2, 2010. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: The American Association of School Administrators, representing more than 13,000 school administrators and local educational leaders, would like to express serious concerns with HR 4247, the Preventing Harmful Restraint and Seclusion in Schools Act, which is expected to be considered in the next few days. We ask that the voices of rank-and-file teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members be heard and that HR 4247, as reported from Committee, be defeated. The need to establish these particular federal regulations for seclusion and restraint has not been established by objective, carefully gathered and analyzed data. For example, the report by the National Disability Rights Network upon which HR 4247 partially relies mixes data from regular public schools with data from schools for children with serious behavioral disorders and institutions for students who are regularly violent. Further, the incidents took place over an unknown period of time--perhaps a decade or more. It seems to us that most of those cases took place in settings serving either the small percentage of students with serious behavior disorders or the even smaller percentage of students who are a violent danger to themselves or others. Finally, the NDN report counts incidents of seclusion and restraint without noting whether those events took place over a decade or some other time period. The Office of Civil Rights within the U.S. Department of Education is preparing to gather more objective information this coming school year. We urge the House to await objective, uniformly reported and analyzed data from OCR before acting. Based on experience, we are sure that a student in a regular public school is extremely unlikely to be physically harmed, secluded in a windowless room, taped to a chair or handcuffed to a fence by a teacher or administrator. Just how unlikely such events are is unknown because objective, uniformly gathered and analyzed data simply are not available. In addition, the report recently released by the U.S. Department of Education states that 31 states currently have policies in place to oversee the use of seclusion and restraint and 15 states are in the process of adopting policies and protections. Given this massive state action, AASA questions the need for federal involvement on this issue. Reviews of HR 4247 by state-based teacher, administrator and school board associations have identified a number of serious flaws, which they have raised to their congressional delegations, but so far their voices have not been included in the discussions. HR 4247 includes a prohibition against including seclusion and restraint in the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or behavioral plan. The IEP and behavioral plans are the communication platform for parents and school staff to discuss the students' needs and corresponding school interventions. Prohibiting the inclusion of seclusion and restraint in the IEP or behavioral plans where past behavior clearly indicates a need will only lead to further conflicts and misunderstandings between parents and school staff. The Protection and Advocacy agencies are given broad undefined authority to enforce the new law. P&A agencies have long monitored and investigated on behalf of disabled students, but enforcement is new. Enforcement of federal law has been the sole responsibility of state or federal agencies. A bigger problem for school systems is that the meaning of enforcement is undefined. For example, does the enforcement authority permit P&A staff to enter schools without checking in with appropriate school personnel? Arrest authority? Authority to change school policy on the spot? HR 4247's prohibition against mechanical restraints is too broad and could prevent appropriate use of restraints in emergency situations where students must be restrained to protect themselves and others. This legislation applies to both the special education and regular education populations, and thus raises mandate training and reporting costs for school districts. These increased fiscal and operational burdens are accompanied by minuscule authorization and few prospects for an appropriation. A huge, new, unfunded mandate is difficult to justify at a time when schools are cutting teaching staff and stretching resources to balance budgets. HR 4247 also prescribes a debriefing session for school personnel and parents within 72 hours of the use of seclusion or restraint, to address documentation of the antecedents to the restraint or seclusion and prevention planning (although it cannot involve the IEP). School staff are already over- committed in their daily schedules. Imposing short, mandatory timelines for extensive meetings will likely result in the cancellation of other instructional commitments or missed timelines and new litigation. Finally, the tone of HR 4247 is relentlessly negative toward teachers and administrators. This tone indicting all teachers and administrators is unwarranted by plain observation, is unsupported by any credible data and should be eliminated. AASA is certain that every member of the House knows at least one teacher or administrator who has dedicated his or her professional life to the education and development of children and who has never restrained or secluded a single student, even if his or her career spanned over 40 years. Thank you for your consideration. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me for further discussion of this important issue. Yours truly, Dan Domenech, Executive Director.