John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Trillions now. If you just take the next 10 years, the current debt, which is a staggering number in itself, it is approaching $12 trillion right now. The Secretary of the Treasury is asking us to lift the cap, the statutory cap on the debt, and you add the $9 trillion of projected deficits--I ask the gentleman, what does the number $21 trillion of national debt in the next 10 years do? And that's without counting the cap-and-trade bill which passed so early in the House and shouldn't have passed at all. It doesn't count this health care bill, which already we know, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the bill that's in front of us, H.R. 3200, almost $240 billion of deficit spending, and it doesn't count for the out years where the deficit runs over $60 billion. Yes, it's a staggering amount of money.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Well, if the gentleman would yield one more time, I hate to interrupt, but you have got a depiction there of the unfunded liabilities, how much more we expect to spend on those programs than we expect to bring in. And that goes out for a number of years, I see out there, 2008, 2052 and so forth. And we do need to look out there, we do need to recognize those unfunded liabilities. We do need to address that. But you don't need to look that far. Right now, with the latest projections that have come out of the White House, taking the projected deficit spending, how much more we are going to spend than we are going to take in over the next 10 years, increasing that from $7 trillion to $9 trillion. Trillion dollars. It used to be hard to say that. But now, we just talk about trillions.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. And it should, because that's the way to solve the problem. You cannot take behind closed doors, one party, go write a bill, an 1,100-page bill, at a cost that, oh, it depends on what given moment you are looking at it, but it's somewhere well over a trillion dollars, and present it and say, frankly, as the President did, Well, I am open to suggestions. Well, the best suggestion I would offer to the President and to my colleagues, the majority party here is, let's set that aside and sit down and see if there is something we can't agree on here. And don't do as the lady did, a wonderful lady when I was back in Minnesota said, Congressman, is there some piece of this that if you took it out, it would be okay. And it's back to your wonderful example of pulling the strings on a rug. Pretty soon it doesn't function at all. You can't reach in there and take out one little piece and say, Well, yes, I could support that if we just took out the Health Choices Administration. If you take the Health Choices Administration out, it collapses. That's important.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. It actually solved some problems. You will recall when they finished they had a pretty good bill, experts agreed it would help, and it passed that committee unanimously.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Well, let me pick up on this point of a bipartisan effort. I serve also on the Armed Services Committee, as the gentleman knows. You will recall that earlier this year, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the then-ranking Republican member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) said we ought to see if we can do something about the defense acquisitions system. Everybody knows that it is a mess. Hundreds of dollars for hammers, huge cost overruns. We need to fix that system. And, if you will recall, the approach was to get some Republicans and some Democrats to sit down. And our friend from New Jersey, Rob Andrews, was chosen to represent the Democrats and our friend, Mike Conaway, from Texas was chosen. They sat down together and they wrote legislation.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman. That's an excellent point. It seems to me that we should not be at a point where we are competing the Democrats' 1,100-page bill with, presumably, the Republicans' 800-page bill, 900-page bill or 1,000-page bill. What we should do to get a bipartisan solution is take that whole 1,100 pages and push it off. We should set aside the bills that have been introduced, and we should sit down and see where Republicans and Democrats could actually agree on something. A Republican proposal we've discussed many times is allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 25 years old. If you just did that one thing, if we sat down, Republicans and Democrats, and said we're going to push all this aside and we're going to push a reset button and we're going to agree on this one thing, you would take 7 million of the uninsured and they'd be insured. There are many things we could agree on, but not dealing with that.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. That's really too bad. There is not a drop of Republican ink on the 1,100-page bill. That bill moved through three committees in this body, in this House, and Republicans tried repeatedly to make amendments but without success. The amendments failed largely on a party-line vote. So we have a Democrats' bill.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Well said. Let me make one more point before you move on. I think you made another very important point. You said this is the Democrats' health plan.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Exactly. Exactly. It is over a 1,000-page bill, and it is complicated. The reason I asked the gentleman to put it back up is that I've been struck by a number of proponents, the supporters of this bill, including, frankly, the President of the United States, who've said, Well, the public option is just a little slice. It's not everything. It's a little slice of this reform. So, one time, I tried to look at that and ask, Well, where is that little slice? Can I take the public option out of this, off that chart? Can I find that little slice? It turns out that you cannot find that. It is interwoven. There is a Bureau of Health Information; there is a Health Choices Administration and a Health Choices Commissioner. You can't just go and remove one of those little squares and say, Well, that's the public option, and we're left with a simpler bill of reform without this government-run option. It's an integral, woven part of that whole 1,100-page package.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I very much appreciate his leadership and his taking the time to do this. I wonder if the gentleman would mind putting up that first chart, because it strikes me that it's a pretty complicated chart, as the gentleman said. I found that, when I was back in my home State of Minnesota and when I was traveling around, talking to groups, I used that chart a number of times. I want to point out that it was, indeed, prepared by the Republican staff, but there is nothing on that chart that isn't in the bill. That is a best-effort depiction to describe what this bill does.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take a moment, reflecting on the debate that we just had with Mr. Hoekstra's amendment, because it strikes to the underlying bill. And that's the problem here: Not this amendment--the underlying bill. The chairman of the committee, the distinguished chairman, pointed out that there was a broken promise. And I'm sad to say it was entirely predictable that President Bush would be blamed for breaking a promise. But I would point out that we have had Presidents going back for years and Congresses going back for years and this Congress today that is failing to live up to a promise made many years ago, and that's to provide its share, its full funding of special education under IDEA. And so whether we're talking about green, high-performing schools as a new program or many of the new programs introduced in this legislation, it seems to me we ought to fulfill that promise first rather than starting new programs which will be chronically underfunded and will be competing for that essential funding under IDEA. So, again, the problem here is not this amendment. I'm going to support this amendment. It's the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Miller for the improvements that his manager's amendment has made to the bill. As I stated earlier, the fundamental flaws with this legislation still remain, even though there are parts, which as he correctly stated, that some members of the community certainly support, some members of the business community. Many of us support, for example, Mr. Platts' amendment to assist the children of fallen public safety officers, and I'm glad those are included in the manager's amendment. But it doesn't change the fact that the underlying bill is still flawed public policy. We have heard again and again from speakers tonight that this is going to put money back into the Treasury and reduce the deficit, and yet we have provided information from the Congressional Budget Office that shows that's not the case. This is going to increase the deficit; it's going to increase the debt. I was staggered the other day, Madam Chair, to look and see that we are now projecting, with the latest numbers from the White House, that within the next 10 years, the national debt will have grown to $21 trillion. And this bill, the underlying bill, adds new programs, programs that will be chronically underfunded, will nevertheless compete for money, will grow that deficit spending. So while I appreciate the improvements that the manager's amendment has made, I still must oppose this. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam speaker, I rise today to congratulate the community of Chanhassen, a town I am proud to say is part of Minnesota's Second Congressional District. In naming Chanhassen one of the top 5 ``Best Places to Live in America,'' Money magazine confirmed what many of us in the great state of Minnesota already knew; Chanhassen is an outstanding city. As the nation's economy has faltered, Chanhassen has flourished. From 2000 to 2008 Chanhassen averaged a 28 percent job growth rate, providing its residents with the economic security necessary to raise their families. Along with providing economic security, Chanhassen's 11 freshwater lakes and 34 parks offer a pristine wilderness retreat that epitomizes the land of 10,000 lakes. With its strong economy and Minnesota beauty, it is no surprise Chanhassen was named the second best small town in America. Congratulations, again, to the entire community of Chanhassen for earning this prestigious distinction. You are second in the nation, and first in our hearts.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, as we all know here today, the Democrat leadership in this House is bringing forth a health care reform bill with a public option for the stated purpose of instituting competition with the private sector and making the private sector insurance business better. At the same time, they are bringing forward legislation to reform student lending. Today, there is a private option preferred by 80 percent of the colleges and universities in this country and a public option, where the government takes over the student lending business. The legislation that we are going to bring up perhaps this week in this House eliminates the private option and leaves only the public option. It kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it, about the designs on the future of the public option in health care?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I also have no more speakers. So, again, I want to thank my colleague from Missouri and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 483, and I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, for his very kind remarks. I'm a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and a proud one at that, and a member of Post 210 in my hometown of Lakeville. The VFW is not just a gang of old guys sitting around. These are real patriots, real Americans who have sacrificed for our country. The VFW traces its roots all the way back to 1899 when veterans of the Spanish-American War and the Philippine Insurrection founded local organizations to secure rights and benefits for their service. Before that time, as has been mentioned, many of our veterans would return home wounded or sick and there was no medical care or veterans pension for them. They were left to care for themselves. The founders of the VFW sought to remedy that and provide support and encouragement to all of our veterans who had served in foreign wars. Their mission statement, ``To honor the dead by helping the living.'' Over time, their mission expanded to ``ensuring rights, remembering sacrifices, promoting patriotism, performing community services, and advocating for a strong national defense.'' Mr. Speaker, some of these veterans go down to the cemetery, the national cemetery, Snelling, in Minnesota every day to perform services to honor those who have passed, to fire the salute, to fold the flag, and they do it sometimes when the temperature is way below zero. And some of these veterans now are in their late seventies and eighties, but there's a dedication here that I think we should all be aware of. The VFW has a rich history of advocacy, playing an instrumental role in establishing the Veterans Administration, creating the GI Bill, developing the National Cemetery System, and fighting to ensure combat- wounded veterans from all wars receive proper compensation. In addition, the VFW has been a powerful force behind the creation of the Vietnam, the Korean War, World War II, and Women in Military Service Memorials; and aren't they fantastic. There's nothing that lifts your spirits like taking a group of veterans down to the World War II Memorial and seeing the joy in their faces as they get that fantastic experience. Today, the VFW has grown to more than 2.3 million members worldwide, and it continues to advocate for all of our veterans of foreign wars. I applaud the members of the VFW for their continued commitment to one another and to this great Nation. I am humbled by their work on behalf of our veterans, and I am honored to speak on behalf of this resolution. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 483. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for offering this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of amendment which should have been made in order during today's debate. It is completely germane. It is all about priorities in education funding. As Mr. Tiahrt said, this motion to recommit would increase funding for IDEA by $1 billion. We have for over 35 years fallen short of our commitment, the government's commitment, to fund special education and provide relief to every school in America. This bill would provide relief to every school in your districts. Even with the one-time spike in IDEA funding provided by the stimulus bill, we fall short of reaching the 40 percent threshold that Mr. Tiahrt discussed. What this motion to recommit would do would increase that percentage of funding from the 17 percent where it sits to 18.3 percent in the base. We need to get that base up and let our superintendents, our principals, our teachers, our parents, our families know that that money is going to be there for the long term. We take money from some other programs, absolutely. I am arguing that those programs, some of them brand new, some of them with hundreds of millions of dollars, may be important, but not as important as this. This is the debate that we should have had this morning. It's the debate that we are having now. I am asking my colleagues to help us start to meet our obligation. Let's help our children with special needs.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition of this rule. Yet again, this majority is stifling debate, and it is limiting opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle to have a say in how we fund vital and some not so vital spending programs. Unfortunately, this time, it comes at the expense of some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Mr. Speaker, I am here because I had hoped to debate an amendment that would benefit every school in America and would begin to fulfill a commitment that has been slighted by Congress for far too long. This amendment, offered by Mr. Tiahrt of Kansas and myself, would have provided critical support for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This act was created in 1975 to help States provide a free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities. At that time, Congress told the States that Congress would provide 40 percent of the excess costs of educating these students. Now, almost 35 years later, that funding stands below 17 percent, and even with the onetime spike of the stimulus bill, we fall far short of the 40 percent. We are overdue in keeping our promises here. We must fulfill this commitment. Our amendment would have taken a small step toward that goal by giving the IDEA an additional $1 billion this year. Had it been ruled in order, this amendment would have increased funding for IDEA to 18.3 percent, and it would have put us on a course toward meeting this obligation for the long term. This may be seen as a small step, but Mr. Tiahrt and I believe it is time to put first things first, and that means living up to our funding commitments under IDEA before we create and expand unnecessary programs that are contained in this bill. If we were to fully fund IDEA, our local schools would have more of their own money to use for their specific needs, whether that is recruiting new teachers and the best new technology, reducing class sizes, or encouraging community service. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of amendment that should have been made in order. It is 100 percent germane. It addresses priorities within the confines of the jurisdiction of this bill. Should we spend more money on a new program or should we meet our commitment? We, the Members of this body, all of us, ought to have the chance to say where those priorities lie. Do they lie with our schools across the board, with every school in America? Do they lie with our children's special needs or do they lie with some new program? That is a fair debate and one we ought to be having. What has happened is, perhaps the chairman, perhaps the Rules Committee chairman, perhaps leadership on the other side has decided what those priorities ought to be, and the rest of us will have no say in making that determination. This body is supposed to have the opportunity to represent our constituents, to represent our best judgment and to give us a say in where those priorities are, and this rule denies that.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, people are asking where are the jobs. As my friend from Indiana said moments ago, we just came out of amending a bill in the Education and Labor Committee where we wiped out the private sector in the student lending business, tens of thousands of jobs just erased. As all my colleagues know, this House, this Congress, passed a stimulus bill which was supposed to create jobs. Instead, we've been losing millions of jobs. I find it interesting that the Republicans offered an alternative to that stimulus bill which would have cut taxes and created twice as many jobs, and now Christina Romer, the President's economic adviser, when she's been pressed on news interviews on two separate occasions in May and again in July about where are the jobs and why isn't the stimulus working, she said, well, the tax cuts in the stimulus bill are working. How ironic. We should have done it right the first time.