John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chair, there is an amendment to this bill that should have been made in order, but was not. The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill before us today includes a modest investment of $12 million to provide an educational lifeline to a few lucky disadvantaged students living in our nation's capital. We are all too painfully aware of the challenges facing the public school system in the District of Columbia, where less than half of elementary students are proficient in reading and math. Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee are working hard to turn this around, and I applaud their efforts. But change can't happen fast enough for the District's children. That's why Congress created a three-sector plan to improve education for all students. Students could choose to attend their traditional neighborhood public school, a charter school, or a private school--if they were lucky enough to win a scholarship lottery. Sadly, this Democratic majority and the Obama Administration have backed away from this bipartisan, fair approach that lets District parents decide what school is best for their child. This majority has cut off the scholarship option for any student who is not already in the program. Earlier this spring, the Department of Education actually rescinded more than 200 scholarships from new students who had been told they would be able to attend the private school their parents had chosen for them this fall. Instead, these students will now be forced to attend a D.C. public school--one they did not choose, and one that may be failing academically or expose their child to physical danger. Adding insult to injury, some of these children are being separated from older siblings who were lucky enough to receive a scholarship in the past. This matter is best illustrated by The Washington Post, which featured the plight of one mother, Latasha Bennett, in a July 10 editorial. The Post reports that Ms. Bennett is ``in an understandable panic over where her daughter will go to kindergarten next month. She had planned on the private school where her son (already a scholarship recipient) excels, but, without the voucher she was promised, she can't afford the tuition.'' What the amendment that was rejected by this Democratic majority would have done is help Ms. Bennett and the thousands of District parents who are trying to give their children the opportunities they never had. It's that simple. The parents who are fortunate enough to participate in the program are grateful for the opportunity these scholarships provide their children, and students are taking advantage of the benefits. After three years of study we know parents remain highly satisfied with their children's schools, and participating students are ahead of their counterparts in D.C. public schools in reading. In fact, the lead independent researcher, Dr. Patrick J. Wolf, has called this program a success. In written testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform, he stated the ``D.C. OSP has met a tough standard of efficacy in serving low income inner city students.'' Further, in responding to a question from the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Wolf agreed the D.C. OSP is one of the most effective national programs he has studied. This type of success should translate into an expansion of the program. Instead, this Administration's Statement of Administration Policy on this bill actually praises the Democratic majority for taking away families' choices, stating, ``The Administration also appreciates the Committee's support for continuing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program for only those students currently enrolled in the program.'' The reaction from D.C. residents is telling: More than 7,000 D.C. residents have signed a petition imploring Congress to keep the program alive. Further, seven members of the D.C. Council also have petitioned Education Secretary Arne Duncan to reverse his decision. In their letter, the members say ``we believe we simply cannot turn our backs on these families because doing so will deny their children the quality education they deserve.'' The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has helped thousands of low- income students in Washington go to the school of their choice-- including the exclusive Sidwell Friends School attended by the President's own children. The President obviously chose the school he thought was best for his daughters. Why shouldn't every parent have that opportunity? I am ashamed this majority will not even allow Congress to debate whether or not to continue the program and the benefits it provides to families in the District of Columbia. What a travesty. This Administration has spoken about ``green shoots'' when it discusses hopeful signs in our weakened economy. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is a ``green shoot'' in the weakened school system of this nation's capital city--and we are letting it die.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the actions of two brave men from my district, Mr. Harlan Stokes and his son Charlie. Last August, Harlan, an Eagle Scout himself, and Charlie, who was well on his way to earning his Eagle Scout rank, set out to conquer Longs Peak in the Rocky Mountain National Park. Little did they know they would need all of their scout training before the day was done. As the two reached the top of the mountain, a powerful storm hit, bringing with it gale-force winds, rain and hail. Harlan and Charlie quickly headed down the mountain; but as they went down, they found other less prepared hikers. Bravely staying to help, they gathered those they had found and ran for shelter in a nearby cave. Over the next 2 hours, the father-son duo selflessly cared for 23 hikers while they themselves began to suffer from hypothermia. As a result of their courageous actions, all 23 hikers made it off the mountain safely. To honor their heroism, the two were awarded one of the Boy Scouts' most prestigious awards, the National Medal of Merit. Today we salute their bravery and honor their selflessness. Harlan and Charlie's story exemplifies the qualities of the Boy Scouts of America and represents the best that America has to offer.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding the time. It seems sometimes like only yesterday when I was wearing that uniform and was serving in the Pentagon and in the Office of Secretary of Defense and dealing with the acquisition morass, and that's, in fact, what it was. When you look at the history of how the Pentagon has gone about making these purchases, you see President after President, Secretary of Defense after Secretary of Defense, senior officials, Republicans or Democrats, recognizing that the system was broken. We were wasting money. Cost overruns were the norm. Yet, even recognizing that there was a problem and vowing to fix it, they couldn't do it. Try as they might, panel after panel, effort after effort, hiring different people, firing people, it continued year after year after year, cost overruns, stealing money away from the American people and delaying the delivery of weapons systems that our troops need now in a system that's just not functioning. I know that I sensed the frustration personally as I was sitting there with them as they struggled with how to fix this. They couldn't do it. So when I came to Congress, now going on 7 years ago, and I was fortunate and honored to join the House Armed Services Committee, I started raising that question and pointing out to witness after witness that we couldn't seem to fix this system. So I was delighted, absolutely delighted, when the chairman of the committee and the ranking member, Mr. McHugh, as has been discussed, said, You know what we're going to do? We're going to work on this from Congress, and we're going to do it the right way. We're going to take a blank piece of paper and put it down in front of a bipartisan panel, led by my able friend from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, by my friend from Texas, Mr. Conaway, by a wonderful panel of people, and by great staff, as has already been mentioned and commended by a number of speakers. They said, Go and see what you can do to fix this problem. Focus in on major acquisitions programs, and go fix it. A blank piece of paper. A bipartisan effort. As a result of that, we have legislation that is going to be passed-- I trust overwhelmingly--because I don't know of anyone, frankly, in this body or in the other who doesn't think this is a great idea and that it needs to be done. We're going to pass this legislation and get it to the President, and we're going to change the law and provide some help to the very able people in the Pentagon who have been wringing their hands and who have been struggling on how to fix this for literally decades. So this piece of legislation went through rapidly, as has been pointed out, but not in haste. It was put together the right way. The problem was recognized across the board. We had a hearing, which I thought was a tremendous hearing, with a panel of real experts. They agreed that this was the right way to go. I remember asking a question because I thought it was an important one as we look at legislation like this. I said, Does this do any harm? Absolutely not, was the answer. This is what we ought to be doing. I'm very proud to support it. I hope all of my colleagues will support it. As has been suggested, I hope this is the model for how this House will work in the future--with a blank piece of paper and with a bipartisan effort to draft legislation that comes out to be good legislation that is good for America. So, again, I want to thank those who did the work. I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker I rise today to oppose the rule under consideration. By refusing to allow us to debate pertinent amendments that address some of the many challenges facing our public schools, this rule prevents my colleagues and me from improving upon the good intentions of the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. Similar to legislation passed last summer, the bill we are about to consider commits billions of dollars in funding to public schools for modernization, repair, and renovation projects. I agree with Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee George Miller who said in support of this bill: ``Especially in this economy, with state budgets dwindling, schools have fewer resources to make classrooms top-notch learning environments for students . . . No student should have to learn in a classroom or school that is literally falling apart.'' I couldn't agree more. But I wonder whether there might be a better way to address these challenges than to throw even more federal dollars at the problems and add to our rapidly growing federal debt. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that by fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), we would free up desperately needed resources schools across America could use to address their specific needs--whether it is state of the art classrooms, additional teachers, or new textbooks. In the Education and Labor committee last week, and again before the Rules Committee yesterday, I introduced an amendment that would prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for this bill until Congress fulfills its commitment to provide 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for special education. Unfortunately, partisanship prevailed, and members will not have the opportunity to vote on my amendment. Mr. Speaker, our nation's schools have been waiting patiently for Congress to fulfill its promise to provide full federal funding IDEA for far too long. It is time for government to live up to its promises and provide our schools the resources they so desperately need. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a meaningful solution to the economic challenges facing our Nation. The House Republican economic recovery plan, for example, would have created 6.2 million new jobs, and would have provided critical tax breaks for the small businesses that are the engine of our economy. Unfortunately, today the Senate passed a borrow-and-spend bill that is full of wasteful spending and fails to provide the immediate relief the American people demand. According to Rasmussen Reports, 62 percent of Americans want more tax cuts and less government spending in an economic stimulus plan. Yet only one-third of the Senate's bill focuses on that much-needed tax relief. Madam Speaker, I've been contacted by hundreds and hundreds of Minnesotans who understand the need for meaningful relief. These men and women are frustrated with ineffective legislation that favors the creation of new government programs over new jobs--and saddles our children and grandchildren with more debt and bigger government. One of these Minnesotans owns a trucking company. And he reported that he's had the worst quarter and the worst months in the history of his company, which is a second-generation company. They're having to lay off truckers. It's hard times. He does not support the Senate stimulus package. One of those Minnesotans is another employer, a small businessman, had over 150 employees. They've had no new orders for systems since this summer. They, too, were having to lay off employees. We understand that there are people hurting, but neither of these Minnesotans favors this non-stimulus plan. Madam Speaker, let's listen to these American people. Let's listen to the Minnesotans. They deserve a stimulus that works.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose, yet again, seriously flawed legislation. As you know, we passed this bill just 2 weeks ago, and it is before us once again. Unfortunately, the flaws and the potential damage to our civil rights and our economy remain. The enthusiastic supporters of the Ledbetter Act continue to beat the drum, claiming we are simply voting on a straightforward bill to reverse a Supreme Court decision involving discrimination in the workplace. Despite the passage of time and continued requests by my colleagues and I in the minority party, however, they are no closer to telling the whole story. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would reverse a court decision for the benefit of Lilly Ledbetter, but perhaps more significantly, it would dismantle the long-standing statute of limitations established by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And this is the reason that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. They held that the statute of limitations is an important part of our society, of our government, of our way of doing business in this country, and we need to preserve that statute of limitations. While I can understand the pain that Ms. Ledbetter felt, can you imagine as an employer trying to keep track of decisions going back 20 years and more and trying to defend those in a court? It is not practical, it's not fair. This bill would set into motion unintended consequences that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge, including radically increasing the opportunity for frivolous and abusive litigation. This is, indeed, another boon for trial lawyers. Further, this bill would also permit individuals to seek damages against employers for whom they never worked by allowing family members and others who were never directly subjected to discrimination to become plaintiffs even after the worker in question is deceased. Just this weekend our new President said our economic troubles are worsening. We should heed his caution and recognize that in such a climate we cannot afford to enable endless litigation and potentially staggering recordkeeping requirements on employers. We are trying to get employers to create more jobs to hire more people. We must also be wary of the devastating effect this bill could have on pensions by exposing employers to decades-old discrimination claims that they have little--or I would argue no--ability to defend. This legislation could risk the retirement security of many hardworking Americans. Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that this legislation amounts to a significant change in our civil rights laws. And despite a delay, we have had no more debate or deliberation, leaving unanswered many relevant questions that deserve to be addressed through the normal legislative process. My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy created through a poor legislative process. I urge my colleagues again to vote ``no.''

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we yield the remainder of our time to the ranking member on the Education and Labor Committee (Mr. McKeon) to control the time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this seriously flawed legislation before us. Not only would it amount to a radical change to our civil rights laws, it has come to us without the benefit of the serious consideration and debate due such a significant policy shift. The enthusiastic supporters of the Ledbetter Act want us to believe that we are simply voting on a straightforward bill to reverse a Supreme Court decision involving discrimination in the workplace. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that isn't the whole story. While this bill would reverse a Supreme Court decision for the benefit of Lilly Ledbetter, it would also dismantle the longstanding statute of limitations established by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That statute of limitations was deemed to be critical in that Supreme Court decision. In so doing, this bill would set into motion unintended consequences that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge, including radically increasing the opportunity for frivolous and abusive litigation and exposing employers to open-ended lawsuits indefinitely. Further, this bill would also permit individuals to seek damages against employers for whom they never worked by allowing family members and others who were never directly subjected to discrimination to become plaintiffs, even after the worker in question is deceased. In the current economic climate, as the gentleman from California said, especially in this economic climate, we cannot afford to enable endless litigation and potentially staggering record keeping requirements on employers. We also should be wary of the devastating effect this bill would have on pensions by exposing employers to decade-old discrimination claims that they have little ability to defend. This legislation could risk the retirement security of millions of hard-working Americans. Madam Speaker, it is very clear that this legislation amounts to a significant change in our civil rights laws. What is less clear are the answers to a number of relevant questions, many of which remain unanswered because of a complete disregard for the normal legislative process. As you may know, not one legislative hearing was conducted on this bill in the last Congress. This bill has instead been brought to the floor in haste, completely bypassing any deliberation by me and my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor. Surely such a monumental change to our civil rights laws deserves more reflection. My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy created through a poor legislative process. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, once again I find myself rising in opposition to ill- conceived legislation before Congress. Closely related to the Ledbetter bill we debated earlier today, the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act is yet another attempt to hamstring our Nation's businesses by limiting their ability to make hiring decisions based on the merits of their individual employees. Despite the misleading title, this bill isn't about paycheck fairness. As my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee know very well, multiple existing laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Civil Rights Act, already make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, and rightly so. Rather than curbing discriminatory employment practices, as its supporters claim, this bill vastly expands the likelihood of discrimination lawsuits by making it easier and more lucrative for trial lawyers to bring such cases. In fact, a more apt name for this bill would be the Plaintiff Bar or Trial Lawyer Expansion Act, and I can understand why some of my colleagues who may have law schools in their districts or have the opportunity to perhaps build a new law school might, in fact, be in favor of this legislation. This bill would allow discrimination claims to be made on very thin grounds and expose employers to unlimited claims made under the Equal Pay Act, far beyond what is available under any other civil rights law. The bill also exposes employers to unlimited punitive and compensatory damage awards, without requiring proof of intentional discrimination. It eliminates key employer defenses for pay disparities, and it prohibits employers from disciplining or discharging employees for publicly disclosing sensitive wage information. Madam Speaker, we all can agree that wage discrimination is unconscionable. It is prohibited under Federal laws that are already strongly supported and aggressively enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. Congress should not be in the business of making employment decisions for individual businesses. In times of economic uncertainty, we should instead focus on improving conditions for individual workers and enabling our Nation's businesses, large and small, to continue to create jobs and drive our Nation's economy. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, for 5 weeks, all during the month of August and September, Republicans were on the floor of this House with the microphones off and the cameras off demanding a comprehensive all-of-the-above energy plan. We were demanding that we have open debate and that we have a vote, the very thing that then-minority leader Nancy Pelosi demanded, saying that the minority party should have the right to present its alternatives, have a debate and have a vote. That's what we've been asking for for weeks and weeks and weeks. We believe that we need a comprehensive all-of-the-above energy plan. This is not a comprehensive, all-of-the-above energy plan. This is not. Just for example, in the American Energy Act, the Republican bill, we call for emission-free nuclear power. This is the one place in the world I can think of where the French actually have it right. They get 80 percent of their electrical power from nuclear energy. We haven't built a new nuclear energy plant in this country in years, and we never will if we adopt this plan. We need a comprehensive all- of-the-above plan.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the anniversary of a tragedy still fresh in the minds of many Minnesotans. Just 1 year ago today, thousands of men, women and families were on their way home from work and school when calamity struck. Without warning, the bridge that so many of us took for granted on our daily commutes failed, causing physical and emotional pain that lingers even today. But this anniversary is not entirely solemn. Today we also recall the heroic actions of the men and women who came to the aid of those injured in the collapse. The first emergency personnel on the scene responded without hesitation, risking their health and safety to rescue victims and provide medical care to the injured. In the weeks and months following the collapse, scores of ordinary people became extraordinary citizens by rushing to the aid of those in need. Madam Speaker, on this somber occasion, as we remember the victims of this collapse and their families, we also celebrate the selfless service of the heroes who came to their rescue. Our thoughts and prayers remain with all who were affected.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, day after day, we come to this floor to address the important issues facing our Nation. A quick review, however, of the last few weeks shows we have voted on new names for post offices and to congratulate our sports teams. But Congress has not taken any real steps to address the rapidly rising price of gasoline and ease American's pain at the pump. And apparently, House Democrats again are not going to let Members vote to ease that pain. This month, I have been touring energy facilities in Minnesota's Second District that highlight a variety of new, clean and reliable sources of energy being produced right there in Minnesota. I visited a hydropower plant on the Mississippi River in Hastings, a nuclear power plant in Welch, an energy-from-waste in Red Wing, an oil refinery in Rosemont, a wind turbine in Northfield, and an electric-generating facility in Faribault. Madam Speaker, I visited all of these energy producers to learn more and to illustrate that we need an ``all of the above'' energy plan and we need to enact it now. Congress should not adjourn for 5 weeks of vacation and politics without dealing with the number one issue in the minds of the American people, high energy prices.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I too rise today in support of House Resolution 1332, which recognizes the importance of connecting foster youth to the workplace. This resolution also encourages employers to employ former foster youth. On any given day, Madam Speaker, there are more than 500,000 youth in foster care in the United States. Children are placed in foster care when their parents are no longer able to ensure their essential well- being. These children need stable loving care until they can either safely reunite with their families or cultivate other lasting relationships with nurturing adults. Foster youth possess unique qualities and skills that make them ideal candidates for employment. But compared to youth nationally and youth from low-income families, they are less likely to be employed or employed regularly. Foster youth experience challenges based on the instability in their home and school environments. Just over half of all foster youth complete high school. 30 percent continue to rely on public assistance into adulthood, and 25 percent will experience homelessness at one point in their lives. Without positive intervention, youth who age out of foster care often have bouts of homelessness, criminal activity and incarceration. However, when afforded comprehensive support, the resilient foster youth population excels in the job market. Foster youth who begin connecting to the workforce prior to release from foster care maintain the highest probability of employment. By addressing job readiness early in the transition to adulthood, employers are helping to shape the future trajectories of these youth. This resolution encourages employers of all sectors, including Federal, State and local government agencies, to increase employment of the young men and women who have been discharged from foster care in the United States. By connecting foster youth to the workforce through internship programs, employers can assist in building the foundation for these youth to become successful members of the workforce and to build successful careers. That is why I stand in support of this resolution and ask for all my colleagues support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers on this side, so I will just yield myself a moment, if I might, to say well done to my colleague from California, and to urge all my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I just want to extend my congratulations to Head Coach Pat Summitt, all the hardworking players, the fans and the University of Tennessee. I am very happy this evening to join my friends and colleagues, particularly the gentlemen from Tennessee who spoke so eloquently about their school and honoring this exceptional team and all of its accomplishments. I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1151, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, many of us have been discussing the role God and faith have played in the development of our great Nation and how this foundation is ever present today in our Nation's capital. Washington is replete with examples of how our founders viewed faith as an integral part of our culture. The subtle manner in which our faith history is portrayed in our monuments and landmarks underscores the fact that faith is a part of who we are. That these references often go unnoticed is simply a testament to the fact that faith in God has been inextricably woven into the fabric of our Nation. As a Nation and as a people, we believe in God. The Washington Monument, a tribute to our first President, contains in its very cornerstone a copy of the Holy Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. The symbolism is simply profound. From the beginning of our founding, we have paid homage to the ideas of freedom and liberty under God. The presence of these sacred documents, housed together in what can be viewed as the metaphorical cornerstone of the United States, transcends the simplicity of separation of church and State, and reclaims for us the fact that our Nation was indeed founded with faith as our guiding light. As a Member of Congress and a man of faith, I am encouraged by the presence of faith in our daily rituals. We here in this body, as we enter the Chamber of this House, we are greeted by the inscription, ``In God We Trust,'' inscribed above the Speaker's desk. We seek favor in His grace and pray His blessings upon our work each day, and we open with the Pledge of Allegiance, acknowledging ``one Nation under God.'' The universal nature of faith and the acknowledgment of our goals as a Nation of faith are often the unifying force that brings Republicans and Democrats together. Across the table, we bow our heads in prayer, and we readily accept the spirit of the Almighty working through us. Throughout Washington, we can easily find examples of our Judeo- Christian roots. If we step across the street to the Supreme Court, we are presented with the image of Moses bearing the Ten Commandments, often considered the basis for much of modern law. Its presence within the halls of the Supreme Court recognizes the origins of our modern day laws and serves as a reminder that we are a Nation seeking justice in the eyes of God. One of my favorite buildings is the Library of Congress. As you enter the Great Hall, you are greeted by two permanent displays. The first is the handwritten Giant Bible of Mainz. The second is the Gutenberg Bible, the first mass printed book. These Bibles are coupled with the inscribed scripture passage from Proverbs 4:7, ``Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore, get wisdom and with all thy getting, get understanding.'' Mr. Speaker, last week one of my constituents, a young high schoolgirl, came in and expressed her concern that she had heard there was an effort underway to remove God from these walls. And I told her I certainly prayed that was not the case, but I was concerned because we are about to open the new Capitol Visitor Center which, in many respects, is an extension and a reflection of the Capitol that it will be the entrance to, in many ways, in many respects, but not in its reference to God, as part of our founding. Faith is the underpinning of this great Nation. Thomas Jefferson's words, seen in the Jefferson Memorial, remind us of the importance of that underpinning: ``God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a Nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?'' That, Mr. Speaker, is the question.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of workplace safety, but in opposition to H.R. 5522, the Combustible Dust Explosion and Fire Prevention Act. We all share, I believe, the common goal of working to protect employees from hazards in the workplace. The accident at the Imperial Sugar refinery in Georgia is a tragedy. It must be fully investigated. The Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has undertaken the investigation that, by law, must be completed within 6 months. The results of this investigation will help identify the cause of the Imperial Sugar accident. I appreciate the concern about workers' safety, but as lawmakers, we have the responsibility to debate and enact laws that are reasonable. The bill before us today is an impulsive attempt to rush into action before OSHA can complete the investigation. Under this bill, OSHA will be required to adopt an interim rule within 90 days of enactment and a final rule within 18 months. This accelerated time frame is not only unrealistic, but would also deny stakeholder input ranging from industry, to academia, to organized labor, and other groups who could provide important and insightful contributions. By undermining the process, this legislation could have negative consequences and actually undercut workers' safety. In a letter to the committee dated April 8, 2008, the Department of Labor's Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, Edwin Foulke, states: ``The time constraints of this legislation would give OSHA no choice but to ignore other statutory and regulatory requirements for rulemaking under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, numerous executive orders, and Office of Management and Budget bulletins and guidelines.'' H.R. 5522 also disregards the preventive efforts that have been under way well before the tragic accident in Georgia. Last year, based on the recommendations by the Chemical Safety Board, OSHA initiated a National Emphasis Program that aims to identify any gaps that may exist among the standards that currently apply to workplaces with combustible dust. While OSHA's opinion has been dismissed by the other side, yesterday the President issued a veto threat, reiterating serious concerns with this hasty regulatory proposal. Again, we should not rush to legislative action. Rather, we should take the time to thoroughly and thoughtfully review all the facts. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, the Protect America Act expired on February 16. It has been almost a full month since the majority allowed this important element of our national security to lapse. President Lincoln once told this Nation, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' Madam Speaker, for this past month, Democratic leadership has needlessly attempted to divide this Congress on a national security matter. A bipartisan majority of this House wants to adopt the Senate version of the bill to restore our intelligence teams' ability to protect us, but we have been denied a chance to even vote on the Senate measure. The leadership has kept this House divided, and for what reason? This morning the newspapers are full of reports that we are jeopardizing our national security in order to benefit the trial lawyers, who stand to gain billions of dollars in suits against the telecommunications companies. These are the companies that reportedly responded to pleas from our government for help, and now they are subject to potentially crippling lawsuits. A house divided against itself cannot stand. The people of this great Nation expect bipartisan action, and the time is long overdue to come together.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. In its current form I am.