John Kline

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, we know this is a procedural attempt, a usual procedural attempt, at the eleventh hour to derail this legislation. It is unfortunate because the American people have waited long enough for Congress to fix the problems plaguing our elementary and secondary education system. My colleagues, because it has been months since we have debated the underlying bill and the challenge we face, I want to remind my colleagues of what is at stake here. It has been more than 7 years since No Child Left Behind expired--7 years. That means, for 7 years, this Congress has failed to meet its basic responsibility to replace the law. Each year we fail to act is another year States are tied to flawed policies and students are trapped in failing schools. No Child Left Behind continues as the law. Education is a deeply personal issue for many Americans. It is a topic discussed around kitchen tables, whether it is a child's report card, a change taking place in a local school district, or perhaps even policy changes being debated by Federal officials. We were reminded of this reality just a few months ago. In February, we were making progress in advancing the Student Success Act, and we witnessed just how frustrated the American people are with the Federal role in K-12 education and how that frustration has grown worse under this administration. Rather than work with Congress to replace the law, the Obama administration has spent years imposing its agenda on schools through pet projects and conditional waivers. Just listen to the national debate raging over Common Core and you will quickly learn about the backlash against the Federal Government that has taken place under this administration. Because of this administration's unprecedented overreach, public anxiety and opposition to Federal intrusion is greater than it has ever been. The simple fact that Congress was considering changes to the law led countless individuals to speak out and raise concerns. Unfortunately, some of those concerns were based on misinformation, but they ultimately stem from a strong skepticism about the Federal role in education, a skepticism that I and many others share. Teachers, principals, parents, and education leaders desperately want Congress to replace No Child Left Behind, but they are not just concerned with getting rid of a bad law, they also deeply care about what replaces it. The public response we witnessed earlier this year made that clear. We are here today because we are listening to the American people. The Student Success Act is a strong proposal to replace No Child Left Behind. It would eliminate dozens of ineffective and duplicative programs, repeal Federal mandates dictating State spending, teacher quality, accountability, and school improvement, and provide parents vital support to hold schools accountable and rescue children from underperforming schools. Throughout this legislative process, we have adopted bipartisan improvements to the bill, thanks to the work of both Republican and Democrat Members. Now it is time to move forward. We have an urgent responsibility to replace a flawed law with bold solutions that will help provide every child in every school an excellent education. That responsibility grows more urgent each day. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and to vote ``yes'' on the Student Success Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take literally a few seconds to say I understand the gentleman's purpose here. I think this improves the bill. I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. KLINE. I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is expressing a concern here of parents, not of schoolteachers and principals who want to put together field trips. There is a great deal of anxiety on the part of some parents, and this is giving them some power. I support the gentleman's amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise today because I believe every child in every school should receive an excellent education. It is a goal that I have worked toward as Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and one I know many in this House share. I would like to especially thank the Committee Chairmen Rogers and Calvert, and Ranking Members Lowey and McCollum, for working with me to address the challenges facing Native American students. Earlier this year I visited the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota. At the school, thin metal walls are all that separate students from harsh winters and blankets hang over the doors in a desperate attempt to keep out the cold air. When winds reach a certain strength at the ``Bug School,'' students are forced to evacuate the building--often in below-zero temperatures. On many cold and windy winter days, Bug School students keep their winter jackets on all day, to save time during evacuation. Mr. Chair, this is unacceptable. These children deserve much better. It's incumbent on the Administration and this Congress to get to the bottom of this. The Education and the Workforce Committee recently held hearings to examine the deplorable conditions affecting Native American schools--an issue that in recent months has received national attention thanks to the investigative work of the Star Tribune. Mr. Chair, the federal government promised to provide Native American students a quality education in a manner that preserves their heritage, and we are failing to keep that promise. Accordingly, I sent a letter to my colleagues on the House Committee on Appropriations this year requesting an increase of nearly $60 million more than last year's budget for Bureau of Indian Education schools. I am pleased the Department of Interior appropriations bill, through the hard work of the Chairmen and Ranking Members, reflects my request and recognizes that we cannot continue to fail meeting our commitment. While additional resources are certainly important, they are only part of what is needed in a long-term solution. We still must work together in a bipartisan manner to untangle the maze of bureaucracy that continues to plague BIE schools and students. Mr. Chair, these unique, vulnerable children have waited long enough for the federal government to live up to its promises and I urge my colleagues to support this bill which is an important step toward our goal of providing an excellent education for all our children.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment aiming to expedite cleanup within a neglected category of defense sites in my state and nationwide. During World War II, while our troops were fighting abroad, facilities across the nation here at home were busy creating the supplies and provisions that fueled our efforts. One such site is Gopher Ordnance Works in my district. The Gopher Ordnance Works site was built and operated by the federal government during World War II for the production of smokeless gunpowder and nitric and sulfuric acids. The then-existing War Department acquired approximately 12,000 acres of farmland near Rosemount, Minnesota for the construction of the plant. After the war was won and the efforts at home wound down, the Department of the Army declared the Gopher Ordnance Works to be surplus property, and the facilities on the land were partially deconstructed. Unfortunately, some of the structures and many of the contaminants remain to this very day, more than 60 years later. Over the years the federal government realized sites like Gopher Ordnance Works must be cleaned up. Accordingly, Congress created the Formerly Used Defense Sites--or FUDS--program as part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program in the mid-1980s. The goal of the FUDS program is to clean up these sites so they can be put back into productive use and no longer pose a potential health threat to our constituents. Mr. Chair, the site in my district is not unique. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maintains an inventory of FUDS properties nationwide, and per the Army Corps, there are almost 10,000 potential properties that could qualify, with up to 2,700 of those requiring some sort of cleanup. Every single state in our nation, the District of Columbia, and our territories all have sites within their respective borders. This issue affects all of our constituents. It is unacceptable to take so long to make so little progress in addressing these sites. It is worse if the cleanup delay is due to legal disputes over FUDS properties or simple lack of knowledge about what contaminants are present. This is the case in one subset of the FUDS program categorized as Potentially Responsible Party--or PRP-- sites. PRP sites are locations where the Department of Defense as well as other parties potentially contributed to the contamination. Instead of acting on these sites and putting them back into productive use, PRP sites get mired in extensive site studies and disputes over who left what at the site. Mr. Chair, Gopher Ordnance Works in my district is a PRP site that has not received appropriate attention from the federal agencies delegated with the authority to resolve liability and move forward with cleanup. For more than a decade, I have advocated tirelessly to the Army Corps in an attempt to facilitate cleanup and navigate its backlogged bureaucracy. Enough is enough. I am asking the Army Corps to prioritize PRP sites and move forward expeditiously toward a solution for environmental investigation and pollution cleanup costs at Gopher Ordnance Works. I am here, ready, and available to offer what assistance is necessary in Congress on behalf of my constituents. I expect the Army Corps and the Department of Defense to fulfill their mission, committing to their responsibilities toward real, productive solutions. The underlying bill funds environmental restoration for all FUDS properties. My amendment would have required no less than $10,000,000 of the Environmental Restoration--Formerly Used Defense Sites funds to be available for remedial investigations on the too often neglected PRP sites, removing one obstacle that is preventing these sites from becoming usable. While it is regrettable the House Parliamentarians ruled that procedures and protocols of the House prevent this particular bill from being a vehicle to fix this problem, I will continue my efforts so these sites can finally be cleaned and restored, resolving this issue once and for all in support of our communities.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out an absurdity that my constituents have long realized--and communities in Minnesota have had to deal with--but one that remains lost on the Administration. Xcel Energy's Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant sits on an island in the middle of the Mississippi River in Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District of which I proudly represent. This plant provides 30 percent of electricity for Xcel Energy customers in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Michigan making it an important part of the region's energy infrastructure. However, without Yucca or a comparable solution, all fuel generated in its 42 years of operation has been stored on-site. That equates to 2,550 used fuel assemblies and close to 1000 metric tons of nuclear waste sitting on an island in the middle of the Mississippi River. Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. In 2009, the Administration ended the Yucca program without any alternative strategy and after taxpayers already spent 15 billion dollars to ensure the safety and security of the Yucca Mountain site. The dereliction by the Administration leaves us open to both environmental and national security risks. Minnesotans know too well the threat of home-grown terrorism with recent threats made to the Mall of America. We need a safe and secure site to store our nuclear waste out of the reach of potential terrorists. We need to move forward with Yucca Mountain. Mr. Speaker, my constituents and all Minnesotans deserve better and I join my colleagues today in urging support for the Yucca Mountain site.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), another new member of the committee and someone who has also been engaged since the day he walked in.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 8.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 8. In just a few short weeks, a regulatory scheme that many Americans never heard of will become a reality in almost every private workplace across the country. Today, workers and employers rely on a fair process for union elections. Under the current process, employers have time to raise concerns and, more importantly, time to speak with their employees about union representation. Under the current system, workers have an opportunity to gather the information they need to make the best decision for their families. But unless Congress acts, Mr. Speaker, that will all change. Under the guise of streamlining union elections, the National Labor Relations Board is imposing draconian changes that will undermine the rights workers, employers, and unions have long enjoyed. The Board's rule arbitrarily limits the amount of time employers have to legally prepare for the election, and it denies workers a reasonable opportunity to make informed decisions about joining a union. The rule also delays answers to important questions--including voter eligibility--until after the election, which means the integrity of the election results will be compromised before a single ballot is cast. To add insult to injury, the Board's rule will also force employers to provide union organizers with their employees' personal information, including email addresses, phone numbers, work schedules, and home addresses. Instead of advancing a plan to help stop union intimidation and coercion, the Board is actually making it easier for labor bosses to harass employees and their families. Are there times when delays occur under the current system? Of course. But delay is the exception, not the rule. In fact, right now, the median time between the filing of an election petition and the election is 38 days. Yet under the Board's new rule, a union election could take place in as little as 11 days. Eleven days. This is a radical rewrite of labor policies that have served our Nation's best interests for decades. Unfortunately, this is what we have come to expect from the National Labor Relations Board. Let's not forget, this is the same Federal agency that tried dictating where a private employer had to run its business. This is the same agency restricting workers' rights to secret ballot elections. This is the same agency ignoring the law by asserting its jurisdiction over religious institutions. This is the same agency tying employers in union red tape and empowering labor leaders to gerrymander our Nation's workplaces. This is a Federal agency that is simply out of control, and it is our responsibility to do something about it. This resolution, which I am proud to sponsor along with Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, invokes Congress' authority under the Congressional Review Act to block the NLRB's ambush election rule and anything substantially like it. If the Board or my Democrat colleagues want to pursue responsible reforms to improve the union election process, then I stand ready to work together on that effort. But if you believe employers should be free to speak to their employees during a union organizing campaign, then support this resolution. If you believe workers should be free to make an informed decision about whether to join a union, then support this resolution. If you believe we should protect--rather than threaten--employee privacy, then support this resolution. Finally, if you believe workers, employers, and union leaders deserve a fair election process, then reject the Board's ambush election rule by supporting this resolution. I encourage my colleagues to stand with America's workers and job creators by voting ``yes'' on S.J. Res. 8. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, somehow I am not surprised that the Obama administration supports the administration's National Labor Relations Board's actions. At this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 152, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 8) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to representation case procedures, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the committee.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell), a new member of the committee and someone who has been actively engaged in the major debates since he has walked into this body.

Mr. KLINE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from my neighboring State of Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), another new member of the committee. We have got an almost embarrassment of riches of hardworking new Members.

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

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

Mr. KLINE. I am.

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is always interesting--isn't it, Mr. Speaker?--to listen to the debate and to the claims that are made and to the claims that are refuted. I found it a little bit interesting in listening to some of the comments on the other side of the aisle that, apparently, this Congressional Review Act S.J. Res. 8 action and all of those who support it are anti-union, antilabor, antiworker, and--I was a little shocked to hear--even anti-American. I am not called ``anti-American'' very often, Mr. Speaker, and I do resent it a little bit, but that is the way this debate kind of goes. Let's get a couple of things, I think, straight. I know that everybody can have his opinion and not the facts, but there are some things that, I think, are pretty clear. According to the National Labor Relations Board, itself, more than 94 percent of elections occur in less than 56 days, which is less than 2 months, Mr. Speaker, and the median time is only 38 days. Unions, Mr. Speaker, win over 60 percent of those elections, so there is a voice for union organizers, for workers, and for employers, because there is time. There is not a rush. Now, we just heard some discussion about whether 11 days is probable--we all agree, I think, it is possible--or maybe it would be 12 or 13 or something like that, but it is not in question that you only have 7 days under this rule. This is the rule, by the way. This is the rule that we are talking about. The law that is affected is many times thicker than this. My colleague from Wisconsin talked about whether or not you have a labor lawyer on staff. Certainly, if you are a small- or middle-sized company, you don't. You can't afford that. So you have 7 days to go out and find a lawyer who can help you comply with this rule and with the law, the much thicker law. You have 7 days to get your position down in writing, and then you are stuck with it. Then you could have the election 4 days later. That is not an opportunity for informed discussion, debate for either the workers or for the employers. This is called an ``ambush'' election because it is, indeed, an ambush. We heard one of the speakers talk about: Would you rather have somebody have your email address or your home address? Under this rule, you get it all. Mr. Speaker, clearly, there are many instances of intimidation during these exercises, and often that intimidation comes from union organizers, not from your fellow workers usually but from outside union organizers, who are trying to push this onto the workforce. So I am very pleased to be supporting S.J. Res. 8, which is to provide congressional disapproval. I am not surprised, as I mentioned earlier, that the Obama administration supports the Obama National Labor Relations Board's position here, but it doesn't mean it is right, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be standing up for the voices that we have heard about--for employers and employees--so that they can make informed decisions. The NLRB's rule, Mr. Speaker, stifles the right of employers to speak to their employees during an organizing campaign. It also cripples the right of workers to have the information they need to make a very important decision about whether or not to join a union or even that union. That is a big decision, and it shouldn't be jammed into 11 days or 2 weeks. You need the time to be informed in order to make such a decision. A ``yes'' vote on the resolution will help rein in this activist National Labor Relations Board, and it will ensure workers, employers, and unions can participate in a fair union election process. I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 8. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the attached copy of the rules of the Committee on Education and the Workforce for the U.S. House of Representatives for the 114th Congress:

Mr. KLINE

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I do want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi for bringing this amendment forward, although I do oppose it. The Student Success Act, the underlying bill, requires--requires-- States and school districts to establish academic standards consistent with current law and requires States to establish statewide accountability systems that result in students being prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce when they graduate high school. The proper role of the Federal Government, Madam Chair, is to support and empower State and local innovation so that education leaders are better equipped to meet the needs of our most vulnerable students. It is back to the fundamental question of who do we trust here. We believe very strongly that parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, school boards, and States have a much better understanding of the needs of their students--and this is about students--than Washington does. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Thompson amendment and support the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE. Madam Chair, I think the gentleman has underscored the very issue we are talking about. What we have now under current law is the Secretary of Education's deciding what the Secretary of Education likes or doesn't like, what to certify or not to certify, whether to give away or not to give away, whether to provide money or not to provide money. We believe, with the language that is in the underlying bill of giving the authority and the responsibility to the States and requiring them to establish standards and assessments to those standards that meet their needs, that you will get a much better result than what we have seen now in year after year after year with the current law, No Child Left Behind, which we have been living under. Republicans and Democrats all agree that No Child Left Behind is not working and must be replaced. We want to put our faith--we want to put our trust--in the people closest to the students. That is what this legislation is about. That is what this debate is about. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment and to support the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.