John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

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

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer this motion to recommit on H.R. 1424 with instructions forthwith, to substitute the Kline amendment for the underlying bill. Last night the Rules Committee issued its 50th closed rule of this Congress and did not allow consideration of the Wilson-Kline-Camp substitute amendment. This motion to recommit gives us the opportunity to pass a mental health parity bill that has both bipartisan and bicameral support, and it does so immediately, allowing the House to approve a real mental health parity bill this very night. My motion is a viable, commonsense alternative that, contrary to H.R. 1424, achieves real parity in the treatment of employer-sponsored coverage for mental and behavioral illnesses. The motion to recommit substitutes H.R. 1424 with the version similar to the mental health parity legislation S. 558 that passed the U.S. Senate last year under unanimous consent. During the markup of H.R. 1424 before the Committee on Education and Labor, I offered a version of the compromise Senate bill as an amendment, believing that if Congress intends to move forward with mental health parity legislation, this compromise language is the most sensible alternative and our best chance of enacting legislation on this issue this year. Unlike H.R. 1424, this motion is a product of over 2 years of bipartisan negotiations between mental health advocates, health care providers, and business groups representing virtually all sides in this debate. The motion accomplishes what it sets out to do. It provides parity for mental health and substance abuse benefits. It provides parity while preserving the foundation of the ERISA benefit structure, protecting the ability of group health plans to medically manage their claims and providing plans with the flexibility to determine and administer on a voluntary basis the benefits provided to working men and women and their families. By steering clear of the benefit mandates and litigation traps contained in H.R. 1424, this motion makes it possible for employers to continue to provide high- quality affordable benefits, and it does so while responsibly offsetting the cost. This motion to recommit includes an important provision that will save the American taxpayers billions of dollars by reducing the fraud in the Medicaid system by requiring all States to implement an electronic asset verification program within their Medicaid eligibility systems. Many States have balanced budget requirements and thus have limited dollars to allocate for the Medicaid programs. These new State- level Medicaid asset verification systems would ensure that Medicaid applicants are not intentionally hiding significant amounts of funds in undisclosed bank accounts in order to fraudulently enroll in a State's Medicaid program. This is a responsible way to pay for mental health parity benefits. Finally, this motion to recommit includes language to clarify that the bill does not require a group health plan to cover abortion as a treatment. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and vote in favor of this commonsense alternative. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, al Qaeda and their terrorist allies are America's number one enemy. We all know that. They are constantly updating the way they communicate and dodge our intelligence networks. We should be doing nothing short of providing our intelligence officials with every tool necessary to always stay a step ahead of these radical extremists. Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, when asked about the Protect America Act, said this, ``We must be able to continue effectively obtaining the information gained through this law if we are to stay ahead of terrorists who are determined to attack the United States.'' House Republicans have led the way in delivering 21st century intelligence collection to protect our citizens. The law now gives enforcement the tools and flexibility needed to quickly respond to terrorist threats because House Republicans acted to close a dangerous loophole in an outdated intelligence law. But the law is threatened today by the House Democrat majority who are more interested in getting it for partisan reasons than to provide this country and our allies abroad the protection necessary as we continue to fight terrorism. A short-term extension is not enough. We need a permanent fix now.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, this is a huge topic that we are talking about tonight of tremendous personal importance to every American. My dear friend and colleague from South Carolina said that we want to talk a little bit tonight about budgeting and about things that are broken in Washington and about spending and all manner of things. You know, when we budget, whether the President sends over a budget and then Congress works its will on that budget, we are assigning priorities on how we spend taxpayer money, how the government is going to spend that money, and that ought to be a deliberative process, and it is a deliberative process. But then we throw it out the window. We have a couple of things that I wanted to touch on tonight which break the system. One of them is a subject that has been much in the news lately, and that is porkbarrel spending, earmarks. This is a system that is completely broken in Congress and in Washington, DC. Spending for pet projects for Members of Congress has nothing to do with an orderly, reasoned system for setting priorities on how we set spending. Decisions are made not on the merits of a proposed project. No, not at all. Decisions are made based on how long a Member has been in Congress, perhaps what committee they are assigned to, perhaps what party they are in. It has nothing to do with the merits of the project. So we spent last year over $15 billion, that is the entire yearly budget for the State of Minnesota, $15 billion on these pet projects, and done in a way that had nothing to do with an orderly system for assigning priorities on how we spend money. I don't think I ought to be asking the people of the Second District of Minnesota to spend money on a project for the LA fashion district. I am sorry, I just don't think that is the right set of priorities. We ought to establish those priorities through the institutional system that is here in Congress. We don't do that. We award money based on an entirely arbitrary system. My friend, our friend, my friend from South Carolina, Mr. Barrett, and others that are here with us tonight know that we have a friend, Congressman Jeff Flake from Arizona, and every time we have a spending bill he brings up six or eight or 10 or 12 examples of this porkbarrel spending and tries to shed some light on it and get a debate and give us a chance to vote on whether or not we think that is the right priority for how we spend taxpayer dollars. But do you know what? It is not a debate. It is not a debate. It is not going to have anything to do with the merits of the project. Mr. Flake's amendments almost, I can only think of one exception, never pass. And why is that? Because the system is broken. Members of Congress don't want to vote against that earmark, because they are afraid that somebody will vote against their pet project. It is a broken system. We need to check it. Is it a lot of money? Well, the entire annual budget for the State of Minnesota, we think that is a lot of money, and we ought to get that under control. And it is symptomatic of problems we have here. Another problem that is symptomatic of a broken system is what happens after we go through the process of debating the budget, deciding on a budget, deciding on how much money we are going to spend for defense, for education, for transportation and roads, setting priorities in the way we should be setting priorities. Then what happens? The system here in Washington, in Congress, says that we have to have a spending bill, an appropriations bill that dictates how much money we are going to spend in theory in keeping with that budget. But what happens? These bills come up. They are loaded down with this porkbarrel spending. We get to the end of the fiscal year here in Washington, which is the end of September, and we don't have these bills passed. We get to the end of October, we get to the end of November, and suddenly there is pressure to get the spending bills passed, and the system that has been in place here for a long time is to do what? Take all of these spending bills and roll them up into one great big monstrous bill of spending which they call an omnibus. This omnibus ends up breaking every rule, every priority of spending. It is just one big, huge massive spending bill. That is part of what is broken in Washington. Now, my friend Mr. Barrett is talking about entitlement spending, and I am sure we have colleagues here tonight that are going to talk about that and other issues that are trillions of dollars, but we can't even get the relatively small pieces right here. I am very pleased to say that many people in my party, in the Republican Party, have stepped up and said we have had enough of this porkbarrel spending. We need to take serious action to stop this nonsense. Some of us have said we are not going to participate, me included, until it is fixed. Many of my colleagues have done the same thing, some of them here in this room tonight. But as a party we have taken the position that we need to fix this. I was very pleased to see that one of our Democrat colleagues today was in the paper saying no more earmarks, because the system is broken, and we welcome that sort of bipartisan support and recognition of a system that is completely, absolutely broken and needs to be fixed. I know it is symptomatic of some bigger problems. It is not huge money, but it is big enough money that we ought to step up and fix it. And then we ought to fix these other underlying problems like this gigantic omnibus mess, because the green line that my friend showed of this increased spending has got to be brought under control. Even in the wildest dreams of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they can't raise taxes enough to fix that. We have to get the spending part of this equation under control. I believe, as I know Mr. Barrett does and some of our other colleagues here tonight, that keeping the tax burden low and allowing American families and businesses to spend money according to their priorities will keep this economy growing and tax revenues will continue to flow. We just have to get the spending side under control. I thank my friend for yielding some time to me and letting me address a couple of the issues in this big picture that he has been trying to lay out for us tonight. I know we have other colleagues, so I yield back.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. The bill under consideration today is a product of a multiyear, bipartisan effort by the Education and Labor Committee. Democrats and Republicans worked together to craft this legislation. Now the Rules Committee has thrown this bipartisan effort to the wind and revealed their true partisan colors that are flying there. By allowing 20 Democrat amendments and only four Republican amendments, the Rules Committee has effectively announced that the minority party is not to be a player. Folks, it isn't fair. It's not a democracy. I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee earlier this week. But my colleagues will not even have the chance to consider its merits because it was not made in order by the Rules Committee. It is a particularly sad statement, given the nature of my amendment. On January 29, the City of Berkeley passed resolutions that, among other things, state that the United States Marine Corps recruiting office ``is not welcome in'' their ``city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.'' I am appalled. My amendment addresses this action by denying Federal funding to colleges that contract with an entity that takes action to discriminate or condones discrimination against the military by denying equal public access. The amendment essentially holds colleges and universities accountable for maintaining agreements or contracts with entities that allow this open discrimination. Mr. Speaker, during the Vietnam era, and I'm old enough to not only remember but to have experienced it, many of our servicemembers and veterans received shameful treatment at the hands of those who opposed our Nation's foreign policy. We must protect our current servicemembers from the same treatment by showing that the Berkeley City Council's appalling behavior is unacceptable in this great Nation. Demonizing the men and women serving our country in the military, as demonstrated by the Berkeley City Council, has no place in our Nation's political discourse. As a graduate of the ROTC program and a 25-year veteran of the Marine Corps, I am profoundly disappointed with the appalling actions of the Berkeley City Council. Institutions that continue to maintain contracts and agreements with this city are, in effect, condoning this discriminatory and unjust treatment of our servicemembers. They deserve better from us, Mr. Speaker. This structured rule excluding my amendment denies this body the opportunity to reaffirm our strong support for the men and women who so honorably and bravely defend our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. If the gentleman will yield for just a minute, I think that they are. I don't understand where that air is supposed to come from. The SCSRs are not available. Those are on back order. Refuge chambers are not available. They are on back order. What are these miners supposed to do?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, like my colleague from South Carolina, I rise today in strong support of mine safety and in opposition to the base bill. Rather than supporting this flawed bill, I would ask Members to support the Wilson/Kline amendment. This amendment is a sensible alternative that will enhance mine safety without undoing the significant reforms already underway. During the numerous hearings we have held in the Education and Labor Committee on mining issues, one thing we have heard frequently from miners themselves and from their family members and from their representatives is that when it comes to mines and mine safety, it is the men and women who go into the mines every day that know best. I would like to focus my comments today, first, on one particular aspect of our amendment, and that is to engage miners in their own safety. Our amendment recognizes that miners themselves do know best and seeks to ensure that mine owners and operators are allowed to avail themselves of the knowledge, experience, and talents of their employees. To that end, this amendment would allow mine operators to incorporate meaningful employee involvement in safety committees, which include representatives of workers and mine operators, and work together to ensure that the safest workplace conditions are possible. Although cooperation between miners and mine operators seems obvious, if not imperative, it is, unfortunately, not always a reality. Under archaic provisions of Federal labor law, too often employer-employee safety committees that actually do something have been found to run afoul of Depression-era mandates. Mr. Chairman, we are no longer living in the 1930s, and neither should our laws. Nearly 2 years ago, we began to bring the mining industry into the 21st century by considering and enacting the MINER Act. Though it is not yet fully implemented, that law is already working. Today, my colleague Mr. Wilson and I are offering an amendment that builds on the MINER Act, rather than tearing it down. A key element of our plan is to ensure that antiquated laws don't get in the way of mine worker safety. In fact, our amendment is based on the eminently sensible TEAM Act which was considered by this Congress some years ago and would have provided for safer workplaces for all employees, not just miners. I don't know that anyone can argue that safety committees in mines should not make full use of their workers' wisdom and experience. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the Wilson/Kline amendment as a commonsense, pro-miner alternative. Use of miner-involved safety committees is just one element of our substitute, but I believe it accurately captures our goal of enhancing safety while maintaining momentum of the MINER Act. I have been interested today to listen to the proponents of the bill and the opponents of our amendment talk about the importance of breathable air and getting these containers into the mines, but I don't understand if the chamber is not available, what is the mine supposed to do while we are waiting what is admittedly 6 months or 12 months for the chamber to arrive? The base bill is so prescriptive, it prevents any alternative to the prescribed chamber, and those chambers are simply not available. I really wish we had the answer to that question.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in favor of mine safety but in strong opposition to the S-MINER Act. Unfortunately, the bill as written does little to improve safety in our Nation's mines. As someone who voted for the MINER Act, I am concerned that this legislation derails much of what has already been achieved. I appreciate that there is concern about the speed of implementation, but the answer is not to call a halt to the work that has already been done and completely turn direction. We have heard from mine engineering academics that this bill is flawed. We have heard from over 28 industry groups that this bill interrupts the progress being made in mine safety, while the Mine Safety and Health Administration's opinion has been dismissed by the other side, apparently until today, when we are going to turn over to MSHA the issue of drug testing. The President has issued a veto threat citing safety concerns. The statement of administration policy specifically states, ``The requirement to use boreholes to sample behind mine seals weakens existing safety standards since boreholes have metal casings that could introduce an ignition source, such as lightning, into an area of the mine that may contain explosive methane. The S-MINER bill would weaken current regulations requiring a mine operator to contact the Mine Safety and Health Administration within 15 minutes of a serious accident by creating a two-tiered notification system of 15 minutes or 1 hour depending on the severity of the incident.'' I question how in good conscience we can be considering legislation that, according to the very people who enforce the law, weakens current regulations. This bill is going to mandate the use of refuge chambers, examples of which were demonstrated on Capitol Hill. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, tested several of these units and found serious deficiencies. In a letter to the State of West Virginia, NIOSH expressed concerns stating, ``Since findings from our field testing raise issues about the performance of such refuge chambers, NIOSH believes it is imperative to inform you of our findings as soon as possible before deployment of refuge chambers.'' Mr. Chairman, later today I will join my committee colleague, Mr. Wilson, in offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is a Republican substitute that does not upend the mine safety progress currently under way. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the S-MINER Act.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues in strong support of this legislation. At a time when our Nation is at war on multiple fronts, we must maintain a strong commitment to these brave men and women in uniform who stand in defense of our Nation. This legislation takes a responsible, forward-looking approach to the funding of our current operations and provides for the needs of our American heroes. In addition to the things already mentioned by my colleagues, such as an increase in end strength and the very important pay raise, I am particularly pleased at the inclusion of two important legislative provisions that I introduced earlier this year, the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program and authorization for assignment incentive pay for National Guardsmen unfairly denied this benefit. The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program nationalizes a program created by the Minnesota National Guard. Through experiences drawn from the deployments of smaller units to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Minnesota Guard developed a unique combat veteran reintegration program with a focus on supporting servicemembers and their families throughout the entire deployment cycle. With this focus, the Minnesota Yellow Ribbon program has proven an effective means to prepare every combat veteran and their family for a safe, healthy and successful reintegration. This multifaceted program includes workshops and training events at 30-day, 60-day and 90-day intervals for servicemembers following their demobilization. This bill also moves us toward fixing a major disparity among Minnesota National Guardsmen. Congress created assignment incentive pay to recognize the hardship of prolonged mobilization periods for Reservists and Guardsmen called up under partial mobilization authority. The military services, however, deploy Guardsmen and Reservists under other mobilization authorities. Through no fault of their own, many Minnesota National Guardsmen who served in Bosnia and Kosovo were mobilized using different authorities. When these same soldiers, many of them senior non-commissioned officers, were asked to deploy with their fellow Guardsmen to Iraq in 2006, those who had served in Kosovo were given $1,000 a month in assignment incentive pay while those who had served in Bosnia were not. Clearly this is not fair. I am very pleased that this legislation recognizes that and rectifies this disparity. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues to join me today in voting for this important legislation that supports our troops.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his kind words. I, like the gentleman from California, have a son serving in uniform and I am very proud of his service, proud of Mr. Hunter's son's service in the Marine Corps and my son's service in the Army in Iraq. I understand that on January 1 my son is heading to Afghanistan. So I do feel a certain personal importance to what we are discussing today and to the funding for our troops. But collectively we have all sent our sons and daughters into combat, into dangerous theaters in the world, and we need to make sure that we are giving them every chance for victory. My good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, said that we have learned some things not to do and some things to do. I would argue that the thing not to do is to take a strategy which is clearly working, which is bringing increased security to a dangerous spot in the world, to a strategy that is producing more electricity, more oil, opening schools, shops. You don't take that strategy and pull the rug out from under it. Last July, Madam Speaker, I and other Members stood on this floor to ask our colleagues not to snatch the possibility of victory away from our soldiers and marines. In an atmosphere filled with overblown rhetoric predicting the failure of surge operations before they had begun in earnest, General Petraeus and those under his command pushed forward into the streets of Baghdad and into the tribal-dominated areas of al Anbar province. They engaged and destroyed al Qaeda cells while working closely with tribal leaders to establish a lasting stability in once hostile Sunni areas. Just a few short months ago, critics in this body and the Senate declared defeat, declared defeat before giving success a chance. They did not believe our fighting men and women, implementing General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy, could rout al Qaeda and insurgent forces and win over the Iraqi population. I am proud to say that they were wrong, and that is what has happened. As we proceed with conference negotiations on this National Defense Authorization Act, I would urge my colleagues not to repeat the mistake we have sadly made many times before. We must not declare defeat while our military forces fight for victory. This motion to instruct conferees is just a small step to ensure that the position of this body is not to accept a strategy which will produce a failed state in Iraq. In a letter to his troops before commencing the surge operations, General Petraeus noted that, ``Success will require discipline, fortitude and initiative, qualities that you have in abundance.'' The question before us today, Madam Speaker, is the same one I asked in July: Do we in Congress have those same qualities?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased now to yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Texas, a former appellate judge, Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the Republican whip, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Today, we're considering a truly far-reaching modification to civil rights policy. There are some here who want this proposal to go even further, and we've heard that, while many of us believe that it already goes too far. The free exercise of religion is fundamental; yet this bill could infringe upon it. The right of States to define and protect marriage is fundamental; yet this bill would undermine it. When enacting new Federal mandates, we should be seeking policies that employers can successfully implement; yet this bill is vague and subjective and invites costly litigation. We heard a discussion earlier about the concerns in employment law around a hostile work environment and what this newly protected class, how this would fit into that. It was asked, could an employee have a quote from the Bible that soundly condemns homosexuality, would that in itself create a hostile work environment. I would say we do not know the answer to that question. This is a boon for trial lawyers and court cases stacked up like cordwood. Because of these concerns, Madam Chairman, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that if this bill were to reach the President's desk, his senior advisers would recommend that it be vetoed. The administration identified a number of concerns, both on a constitutional level and with the underlying policy. Unfortunately, these concerns have not been given the full attention they deserve in this debate. The number of amendments has been seriously limited. We have seen an extraordinary step of putting in the rule a mandatory withdrawal of a proposed amendment. This deserves a fuller examination. Republicans were prevented from offering key amendments that would have highlighted and attempted to correct some of the more glaring problems which we see in the underlying bill. As a result, Madam Chair, H.R. 3685 remains fatally flawed. I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this overreaching proposal. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Very well, then I will continue to reserve my time to close.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, could I inquire how many speakers my friend has?

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California, for yielding the time. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, H.R. 3685. As the ranking member of the Health, Employment, Labor and Pension Subcommittee, I have reviewed this legislation in several different forms over the last several weeks. I've participated in debates and conversations that have brought this bill to the floor, and I have to report that this legislation is still flawed. The bill before us is drafted in such a way that it creates confusion and uncertainty. My colleagues offered a number of amendments to correct the inherent problems in this bill. Unfortunately, one critical amendment offered by Mr. Souder removing the word ``perceived'' was not accepted by the majority. My colleague has already introduced that point of confusion; I would like to expand on it. This bill, and I quote, ``prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual because of an individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation.'' What does that mean, ``perceived sexual orientation''? We do not know because the bill fails to provide a definition. This raises a number of practical and legal concerns. The term ``perceived'' is overly broad, vague, and will inevitably lead to increased litigation, lots of increased litigation. We cannot abdicate our constitutional duty by knowingly creating a law that is so vague that the courts must necessarily determine a definition. This is, frankly, a trial lawyer's dream. I would point out that in the course of our hearings one of our colleagues did express faith in ``Attorney World'' to clarify this issue. Well, it is kind of funny; I just don't think that's a theme park that we want to visit. Employers may have difficulty in identifying noninherent characteristics of a person but could still be liable. Under the statute, employers would be accountable to prove that they did not make an employment decision based on either their own perception of an individual's sexual orientation or on that person's perception of themselves. I can see why ``Attorney World'' could be called upon here. Employers would find themselves in the unenviable position of defending themselves in lawsuits by proving a negative, that they did not perceive the individual to be part of a newly protected class. Further, the term ``perceived'' does not appear in any other civil rights legislation. Let me be clear, we are not talking about the definition of gays, lesbians and bisexuals; we are talking about those individuals that may be ``perceived'' to be such. The Civil Rights Act protects individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Nowhere do we see the term ``perceived.'' Madam Chair, those who favor this bill presented on the floor today are motivated only by the end goals of this legislation and are failing to recognize the difficulty presented by vague terms and loose definitions. We are left with a bill that is filled with confusion and uncertainty. I would ask that my colleagues carefully consider the inherent problems in enforcement of this legislation and vote against H.R. 3685.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue and so many others. Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor today to argue passionately, as we have just heard, about the principles of free trade and whether we should pass the trade agreement between the United States and Peru. This is a historic moment for U.S.-Andean relations. The United States and Peru have agreed to formalize this mutually beneficial economic relationship with this ground-breaking U.S.-Peru trade promotion agreement. This agreement opens new markets for U.S. businesses and provides strong protections for U.S. workers and companies. Additionally, it furthers the Peruvian market-oriented policies and advances the agenda that has made Peru one of the fastest growing emerging economies. Mr. Speaker, this stands in sharp contrast to the policies of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. We are at the beginning of a new day in the Andean region, and this trade agreement is the first step in a successful campaign to spread democracy, expand free trade, and stabilize the region while also taking a stand against poverty and crime. For our part, this agreement builds on Peru's many strengths and solidifies an important economic relationship between our two nations, presenting new market access for U.S. businesses, farmers, ranchers and consumers. U.S. exporters currently face Peruvian tariffs while Peruvian exporters are not generally subjected to any tariffs. This point has been raised many times but cannot be raised enough. We are working in a one-way street that has been working against us. This is the time to fix that and make this trade fair. In my home State of Minnesota, we exported over $24 million worth of goods to Peru in 2006. These exports cut across all industries, from high tech computer manufacturers to our local farmers. Passage of this agreement would provide immediate elimination of tariffs on nearly 90 percent of current U.S. exports to Peru. This would allow producers and exporters the opportunity to not only preserve but to increase market share in Peru. As our market share increases, it naturally follows that prices and income increase and jobs. A vote in favor of this bill supports job growth, sustains small- and medium-sized businesses and enhances agricultural competitiveness. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues here today join me in support of this important legislation and vote in favor of America's workers, America's farmers and American businesses.