John Kline

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today in support of H. Res. 606 to honor all of those who so bravely risked their lives in the face of this catastrophe. I had the privilege of meeting with many of the first responders, volunteer organizations, local and State officials in my tours of the site of the collapse. The first emergency personnel on the scene responded to the tragedy without hesitation, as has been discussed by my colleagues here today. They risked their health and safety to rescue victims and to provide emergency care to the injured. Scores of ordinary people did, indeed, become extraordinary citizens following the tragedy by rushing to the aid of their fellow Minnesotans. The outpouring of support and assistance from surrounding communities, including more than 50 volunteer organizations, was tremendous. Throughout the rescue and recovery mission, there have been countless stories of the generosity by the citizens of Minnesota. From organizing blood drives to caring for the needs of the bridge recovery workers, Minnesotans continue to go above and beyond the call of duty. In a time of sadness and sorrow for so many, we remain thankful for the true kindness and compassion of Minnesotans. Madam Speaker, I would like to take just a minute here to discuss, as some of my colleagues have alluded to, another catastrophe which struck the State of Minnesota in Mr. Walz's district. My family has a farm down in Houston, Minnesota, in the very southeastern tip, and I spent 3 days there at the end of the August break. It is distressing. It is an awesome power that we saw when those creeks and rivers flooded and the destruction is immense. Again, it is not just the first responders in Minneapolis and the surrounding communities, but I am sure that my friend and colleague from the First District, Mr. Walz, can attest to the fact that first responders throughout the State came to the aid of those in southeast Minnesota. So, Madam Speaker, as always, we are mindful of the lives that were lost in both tragedies and our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims and their families and with all Minnesotans as we recover and rebuild. I want to thank the gentleman, my colleague, Mr. Ellison, for offering this legislation and bringing it forward and Mr. Walz for his leadership.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to add my thanks to all of our colleagues here in the House, the Minnesota delegation certainly, and, of course, as Mr. Ramstad said, to our dean, the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar. While reports continue to be updated due to the ongoing recovery operations, the number of victims is already shocking to us in Minnesota. But these numbers are not simply statistics that might roll off the tongue as a footnote to a tragedy which Governor Tim Pawlenty accurately described as, quote, a catastrophe of historic proportions for Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, these numbers are people. These numbers are the family, friends and neighbors who were simply going home to their loved ones after what appeared to be just another workday. Among the deceased is a mother of two from Savage, Minnesota, in my congressional district, and my heart and prayers go to her family and to all the victims. Although this is a time of sorrow for many, there are countless stories emerging already about the generosity and compassion of the citizens of Minnesota. From organizing blood drives and volunteers, to caring for the needs of the recovery workers, Minnesotans are going above and beyond the call of duty. Mr. Speaker, as the citizens of Minnesota have come together during this difficult time, my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation and I remain committed to helping restore the I-35W bridge. Together, we're working to provide the Federal resources necessary to recover from this tragedy, and the fine effort brought forward by our chairman, Mr. Oberstar, putting forth $250 million is so important to us in Minnesota. In the wake of this disaster, it is difficult to imagine when all the questions will be answered, but the day will come when recovery efforts will be complete, investigations will conclude, and eventually a new I- 35 bridge will reunite the banks of the Mississippi River. Mr. Speaker, again our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the victims and their families and with all Minnesotans as we recover and rebuild. Again, I want to thank the gentleman, the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, for authoring this legislation.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2831. I think it's been really an interesting debate this evening. We've heard views on both sides, and clearly, we simply disagree on some fundamental aspects of this, and I want to address that as well during my 3 minutes. Speaker after speaker on this side of the aisle has stood up and said that this legislation effectively eliminates the statute of limitations for a broad range of discrimination claims. I believe that's correct. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) stood up here and recounted for us the activities of the Supreme Court, and he quoted from the justices the language that pertained, and it seemed clear to me that there was a fairness issue here. And while our hearts were all touched by the testimony of Lilly Ledbetter and by the circumstances of her case, it was clear to the court and to Mr. Keller and to me that it's simply unreasonable to allow year after year after year to go by after a discriminatory act occurs before you make the claim, when in some cases people will have left, perhaps have died and moved on. This is a huge boon to the trial lawyers of America. It's going to bring forward endless litigation, case after case going on day after day. What businesses will have to do in terms of recordkeeping is staggering in its scale. This imperils pensions. One of our colleagues brought up that issue. It is not at all clear, despite some findings language in the bill, that our pensions will be protected in this legislation. Potentially, you can have pensions who simply don't have the funds to pay the earned benefits. This is bad policy, Mr. Speaker, and it's made in haste. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this legislation amounts to a significant change in our civil rights laws. It's very clear to me, and unfortunately, many of the questions of concern raised by the Ledbetter case have yet to be answered. In the normal legislative process, such questions would have been raised in committee hearings, subcommittee and full committee. Concerns would have been debated in good faith. Unfortunately, this was not the process that brought this bill to the floor. The Committee on Education and Labor had no legislative hearings. The bill was not before us the one time we had some witnesses before us to talk about this at all. The time elapsed from the bill's introduction to committee markup was little more than 24 business hours, and we learned on Friday that we were going to be debating this bill on the floor today. Surely, a huge change like this to our civil rights laws deserves more of our time, attention and effort than the majority has seen fit to provide. Once again, the majority has chosen haste and speed over quality in making public policy. My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy, creating a flawed legislative process. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding the time and for bringing up this amendment. Each time he does, of course, I am reminded of our former colleague, our great friend, Joel Hefley from Colorado who brought this amendment up in past Congresses. Mr. Chairman, I didn't understand, perhaps I would have to admit, the full significance and importance of what he was trying to do, and that was just to, in a very, very, very modest way, curtail the spending spree that we have here in Washington, that spending spree that our friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, was just explaining. Of course, this is a modest effort, 1 percent on one spending bill. We know that the real issue here in Washington is the explosion in entitlement spending. The gentleman from New York earlier said that there was no tax increase in this bill. Of course, we understand that. This isn't a tax bill; this is a spending bill. But it is tied to a budget, to a budget that significantly did one thing: it brought us the largest tax increase in American history. Yes, that tax increase won't hit in a significant way in this year, but in order to make that budget balance, it was necessary to bring us the largest tax increase in American history so that by the end of the budget period, the budget could balance. The other thing that budget had, or, more significantly, did not have, it didn't have anything to constrain entitlement spending. Well, it did. It had a small piece, a very small piece, where there was an effort to save less than $1 billion in entitlement spending; and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle stepped up to the plate to save that less than $1 billion and created nine new entitlement spending programs. We do have a spending problem here, and that is followed by an enormous taxing problem. This is a spend-and-tax issue that I think the American people can understand. Their budgets aren't growing by 7 percent. The Federal Government is growing its spending by more than that. This effort by my good friend from Georgia is, indeed, a modest effort. This is a tiny, let's save one penny, one penny on the dollar that this spending bill has. We can't seem to find a way to save that one penny, and yet we are letting entitlement spending grow by trillions of dollars. I think the American people are going to grow increasingly aware that we have an unfunded liability in entitlement spending of trillions and trillions of dollars, well over $50 trillion. So this is a modest effort, but I would call on my colleagues to take this tiny step that Mr. Hefley brought us in the past and that my colleague, Mr. Price, has brought us here. Let's support the amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. I appreciate that because I would like to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts on just a couple of points. One, we had a number of discussions on zeros and what that means when we talk about the debt, nine zeros, 12 zero, six zeros, I would say there are a lot of American families that are concerned about five zeros and what the impact of the tax increase is going to have on that. With all respect to my friend from Massachusetts, the Democrat budget does have the largest tax increase in American history. In order to make that budget balance, all of the tax relief which we have worked so hard to achieve in the last few years, and which is behind the growth and the economy, all that would go away, tax relief for married families, tax relief for every American worker who pays taxes. All that's erased in the Democrat's budget that is behind this spending bill that we are in today. I think he helps me make the point that this is, when he talks about trillions of dollars, that this bill, that this amendment is a very modest step in curtailing that spending.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the community of Chaska, located southwest of the Twin Cities, and a town I'm proud to say is part of Minnesota's Second Congressional District. Money magazine confirmed what many of us in the great State of Minnesota already knew by naming Chaska as one of the top 10 best places to live in America. Money magazine accurately describes Chaska as having both beauty and brains. A stroll downtown Chaska by City Square Park brings to life images from Norman Rockwell paintings, depicting all that is good about small town America. Chaska's small 19th-century downtown quickly yields to open fields, farmland and the Minnesota River. It is also home to innovation, with more than a dozen technology and biotech companies. It is no wonder why this town is a magnet for families who can find reasonably priced homes, low taxes and quality schools. Congratulations again to the entire community of Chaska for earning this prestigious distinction. We in Minnesota's Second District are proud.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentlelady from Colorado for yielding, and for her excellent, truly excellent amendment. I have been following the debate for some time now. Like many of our colleagues, sometimes we have to follow it in our office as we are conducting other business. And I hate that we have stooped to sort of name calling, which unfortunately I have seen. I guess the gentleman from Ohio says that we're embracing the ``fringe'' label, and so therefore I suppose I'm down here to make the fringe larger. And I guess there is a little humor in that, and I will just take it in that sense because I'm sure my friend from Ohio didn't mean any harm by it. But as my good friend, Mr. Pence, said in his comments, that if the fringe are those hardworking Americans who think they make better decisions on how to spend the money that they earn than we do here in Congress, then I'm in the right place. We heard that this amendment, this very modest amendment to look for .5 percent savings would place an increased burden, a .5 percent increased burden on the American people. There is no question that the largest tax increase in American history will place a huge burden on the working families of America. And with all respect to my good friend and colleague from Ohio, the Democrats' budget, in order to balance as the rules require by the end of the budget period, does impose the largest tax increase in American history. And already we're starting to see the majority party have to start to pay the price for some of the budget gimmicks that have been involved in making that work. Now, the Democrats, while increasing spending, it seems like almost across the board, certainly in the Department of Labor, couldn't manage to keep the spending for the Office of Labor Management Standards at last year's level. There they could find the cut. When it came to the office whose responsibility is to find the crooks who are stealing from union members, they found a way to impose a 4 percent cut in that office. And what a shame that is. I offered an amendment, it received some bipartisan support, but nevertheless, on a largely partisan basis, that amendment was defeated. That amendment would have just restored the funding to last year's level for the only office in government who has the responsibility and the capability to hunt down and catch the crooks that steal from our American workers, but the majority party could find a way to cut there. So, I think that the choice here is clear. It's been stated by many of my colleagues. Many of us, fringe or not fringe, believe that the American people can make better decisions on how to spend their money, and we should let them do it.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. There are a couple of points I would like to address. It has been an interesting debate, as these things often turn in to be. We have heard the gentleman from Rhode Island say that this base bill just keeps it going presumably at the current level. And, as we have already heard established, this is in fact a $2 million cut, $11 million below the President's request. The gentleman from Rhode Island is right, though, when he talked about this being about people checking their own books and covering their tracks. That is exactly what this is about. He was talking about perhaps corporations, and we have already talked about increasing the money to provide oversight and law enforcement for corporations. But this is about unions. This is about American workers. We have looked at the money percentage cut/percentage increase. We have already confirmed that this is a $2 million cut, as my colleague from Georgia says. And I just find it interesting, looking at the figures here, we have added $935 million to President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of Labor, and within that budget increase are individual funding increases for every single enforcement office within the agency except this one, this one whose job it is to make sure that union leaders who are misbehaving are not able to just check their own books and cover their tracks. Somebody else has got to hold them accountable. And this embezzlement is not restricted to one or two people in one or two States. We have examples over the last 3 or 4 years of misconduct by union leaders in 48, at least, of the 50 States. A couple of examples here might be relevant. Looking at the neighboring State of Wisconsin, on September 21, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Felix A. Robinson, former president of the Industrial Division of the Communication Workers of America, Local 84101, pled guilty to one count of embezzling union funds. The guilty plea followed investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee district office. Sad to say it happens in my own State. On February 22 of this year, 2007, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Catherine Bronson, former business representative for Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local 21 in Rochester, Minnesota, was sentenced to 180 days of home confinement.

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. We have pages and pages of examples. Let me just give another one so that my colleagues and the workers of America understand that we are talking about misbehavior, illegal behavior on the part of people who have the responsibility for taking care of their union dues. November 7, 2006, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Timothy J. Pulvermacher, former financial secretary for USWA Local 9444 pled guilty to embezzling union funds. January 8, 2007, Kathryn Stark, former office manager for IBEW Local 31 was sentenced to a 6-month confinement. Why? Because they are abusing their union members. They are stealing from them. And this is the only office that has the responsibility and authority for holding them accountable. So we can debate for all day, I suppose, who is for the worker and who is not for the worker and whether the tax cuts are good for the worker. We certainly believe they are on this side of the aisle. But that is not what my amendment is about. My amendment is about making sure that the office who has the responsibility for holding union leaders accountable for their workers' funds has the staff it needs to do the job. The base bill, cutting $2 million would force that office to cut staff members, the very people who conduct the investigations and bring these people to justice. Again, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment which supports the union workers of America and holds those who misbehave accountable. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 2,600 men and women of the Minnesota National Guard who, after serving our country with great honor and courage, are returning home from their 16- month deployment to Iraq. Last Friday my friend and colleague, Congressman Tim Walz, and I had the privilege of visiting Volk Field near Fort McCoy in Wisconsin and welcoming home soldiers from the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division, the famed ``Red Bulls.'' It was truly a memorable experience greeting these proud soldiers as they returned from the longest combat deployment of any Army brigade combat team in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Minnesota's ``Red Bulls'' escorted supply convoys and traveled 2.4 million miles in Iraq. Other members of the BCT provided essential security to U.S. bases throughout the country. Speaking with the fine men and women of the ``Red Bulls'' as they stepped off the plane and smelled that clean, fresh air and stepped on American soil, it became clear that these soldiers are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. The great State of Minnesota and all Americans can be proud as well.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, my amendment is very simple. The committee bill cuts the Office of Labor Management Standards, known as OLMS, down to fiscal 2006 levels. My amendment would restore just over $2 million to get this enforcement agency back to its fiscal 2007 level. To offset the increase for OLMS, we have reduced the International Labor Organization earmark from the International Labor Affairs Bureau by the requisite amount. What is OLMS and why I am taking to the floor of the House to make a $2 million adjustment in this small agency? That's a fair question. Without this amendment, the OLMS will have to cut staff. OLMS is the agency within the Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration that enforces the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act of 1959. This Federal statute was championed by then-Senator John F. Kennedy and enacted as an outcome of the McCollum hearing on labor racketeering. Then-Senator Kennedy knew, as we affirm today, that rank-and-file union members deserve the right to know how their unions were spending and investing their members' dues money; that their unions' books were clean; and that elections for union officers would be fair and free of intimidation or scandal. Do labor unions need a government watchdog? Apparently so. Since 2001, OLMS has helped obtain 750 convictions and restitution of over $70 million for union members in criminal cases of embezzlement and election irregularities. Some of my colleagues may dismiss these monetary results as just small change compared to the billions of assets held by labor unions, but they miss the point. Stealing from your fellow union members is against the law, regardless of whether the theft is $10,000 or $100,000. And anywhere in the country but Washington, D.C., $10,000 is a lot of money. OLMS functions like the Securities and Exchange Commission for labor unions. Why should rank-and-file union members not be protected in the same way as individual shareholders of corporations? Senator Paul Sarbanes agreed. During the debate on the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation in 2002, he argued that if union financial disclosure and accountability was already required by law and wasn't being funded, he suggested that the Department of Labor request the money from Congress. Madam Chairman, DOL is not only being denied the increase it asked for; it is being cut to the bone. Federal law requires financial transparency and disclosure from corporations, pension plans, lobbyists and Members of Congress. Why would we not enforce the one law on the books that enables rank-and-file union members to review the financial expenditures of their unions? I find it ironic, Madam Chairman, that the House Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee provided $3.1 million over the administration's budget request for the SEC, while OLMS was being cut below fiscal year 2007 levels. Clearly, we put a high priority on corporate accountability. We need to put the same high priority on union accountability. Although this is a modest amendment, it will enable this enforcement agency within the Department of Labor to maintain its audit program and other activities under the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act. I cannot believe that this House would say to union members throughout America that we do not support your right to know and your right to union integrity. I urge all Members to vote for this amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill are fond of citing historical examples as they declare the futility of combat operations in Iraq. The Congressional Record is full of stories describing the failed British invasion of Gallipoli or the far more popular comparisons to the American experience in Vietnam. Another more prescient historical comparison, however, was made by the British author George Orwell. Contemplating the defeatist rhetoric of the English intelligentsia during the German offensive against Britain in World War II, he remarked, ``The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. And if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.'' Those in favor of the bill presented on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, do not believe in the possibility of victory, despite the protests of the soldiers and Marines returning from the battlefield saying otherwise. By advocating a rapid withdrawal, they endorse the quickest way of ending the war, by losing it. It has been less than a month since the full force of troops requested by military commanders arrived in Iraq, but already some have declared the operation to be a failure. General Petraeus arrived in Baghdad in February with a new strategy designed to reinforce the Iraqi security forces confronting al Qaeda, terrorists and Iranian-supplied insurgents. Rather than giving him the opportunity to fully implement his surge strategy, opponents in Congress immediately sought to undermine his credibility and his ability to command. Mr. Speaker, our troops serving in Iraq don't need 435 armchair generals dictating the tactical movements of troops, as this legislation would surely do. They have true commanders whose professional military skills have been honed by decades of military service. They need us to renew our commitment to them and their commanders. And more importantly, they need us to trust their commanders' decisions. General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops, ``Success will require discipline, fortitude and initiative, qualities that you have in abundance.'' The question before us today, Mr. Speaker, is, do we have those qualities?

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. Once again, the majority has seen fit to stifle debate when considering significant legislation. Yesterday, I and several other members of the Education and Labor Committee presented amendments to the members of the Rules Committee with the expectation that those amendments would be seriously considered. It's now become apparent that that hearing was really just a facade; the decision had already been made to exclude those amendments. If I had had the opportunity to offer my amendment today under a fair rule, House Members would have seen that the concept of my amendment was simple: to ensure that those most in need, college graduates that serve the public interest and college students in need of government grants, are the direct beneficiaries of Federal interest rate reductions. Instead, the majority has treated us to a show worthy of the best Las Vegas illusionist, a reconciliation process intended to reduce the growth in entitlement spending that instead creates nine new entitlement programs. That's right. The reconciliation process is designed to reduce the growth in entitlement spending to cut the Federal deficit; and, instead, this bill creates nine new entitlement programs. While openly declaring that the underlying bill expands educational benefits for students, a little sleight of hand instead reveals legislation that fails to target aid to those students most in need. My amendment, rejected by the Rules Committee along party lines, would have focused our limited Federal funding on those college graduates that chose a path offering less monetary reward, but serving, arguably, a much greater public purpose. My amendment achieved this goal by ensuring that those graduates who can pay their loans under a higher interest rate do so by establishing an income cap of $65,000 for single graduates and $135,000 for married couples, the income levels at which the existing student loan tax reductions are phased out. After reaching that income level, which is almost twice the average family income of a student eligible to receive a subsidized student loan, the interest rate for a loan would have reverted to the current level of 6.8 percent. Those graduates who may not have as high an income, however, would have seen their interest rates stay at the reduced level. This includes, of course, those most in need because they chose to serve the public interest: members of the Armed Forces, first responders, nurses, teachers, and other graduates who choose careers in public service. By adding a fair, balanced income cap adjustment, we would have generated additional savings that could have been directed toward another truly deserving group, those utilizing need-based aid through the Pell Grant program. Unfortunately, more than 400,000 students, Mr. Speaker, are fully prepared to attend a 4-year college but will be unable to do so because of enormous financial barriers. As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, it is paramount for me to prioritize the expansion of secondary education access for low- and middle-income students whenever possible. I am disappointed, but sadly, not surprised, the majority has instead chosen to rely on the same tired strategy of expanding entitlement spending for institutions to the detriment of currently college students struggling to pay their high tuition costs.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Corporal Charles W. Lindberg, and I offer my most sincere condolences to his family. Mr. Lindberg, a fellow marine and fellow Minnesotan, was the last survivor of the six U.S. Marines who raised the first flag over Iwo Jima during World War II. On the morning of February 23, 1945, Corporal Lindberg and his fellow marines made their way to the top of Mount Suribachi. At the request of their battalion commander, they placed an American flag at the summit. Years later, as he reflected on that fateful day, Corporal Lindberg said, ``Down below the troops started to cheer, the ship's whistles went off, and it was just something that you would never forget.'' This was the first time a foreign flag was flown on Japanese soil. The moment was captured in a photo by Sergeant Lou Lowery. This event, along with the famous photo made by Joe Rosenthal of the second flag raising, became a symbol of courage and victory in our country. Just weeks after the flag raising in Iwo Jima, Corporal Lindberg was injured in the line of duty. For his bravery, he was awarded a Purple Heart and the Silver Star. Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber we often speak of service to our country. Corporal Lindberg's story is a symbol for generations on the importance of service and duty. After his retirement, Corporal Lindberg spoke to hundreds of veterans groups and student groups, inspiring all who heard him. He is much loved and admired by those who knew him. God bless the Lindberg family, and God bless America.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership here. I think many of us miss the presence of our former colleague Mr. Hefley from Colorado, and I am very pleased to see that Mr. Price has stepped up to fill that gap, because what we are talking about here is trying to control runaway spending. We are spending billions and billions of dollars, and this proposal suggests that we try to pare back 1 percent, $316 million in this bill. Some speakers from the other side have said when the Republicans were in charge, the Republicans spent too much. In fact, the gentleman from Ohio just reminded us of that. He is right. Republicans, when we were in the majority, spent too much. But the Democrat answer to spend more just doesn't make sense. We are increasing spending here by billions and billions of dollars, and that apparently is backed up by a budget which is reportedly balanced in 5 years by giving us the largest tax increase in American history. That is how you balance the budget in 5 years, with the level of spending that is being proposed here today, billions of dollars too much. My friend, the great gentleman from Georgia, is proposing a 1 percent, 1 percent across-the-board cut. I commend him for that. We are spending too much. Let's get this under control. This is a very modest proposal. I commend him for it.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Wilson, for his leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise because we have had a debate here about how much money we're spending and how much we're taxing. There seems to be some confusion about that. We on this side of the aisle have been accused of having spent too much money. And, as I said in discussing an earlier amendment, I fully agree. The Republican majority spent too much money. But what we have before us is a proposal to spend even more money while we're getting criticism for having spent too much, and I have a hard time balancing those out. We need to get spending under control. And we've had my colleagues, colleague after colleague have come to the floor to propose amendments to make modest reductions in what appears to be runaway spending, billions of dollars too much. And then we've had an argument that said, well, we're not taxing too much because we're not going to add to the tax burden in 2008. I suppose that remains to be seen before the process is over, but I think it's undeniable that the Democrats passed a budget which in order to balance in 5 years results in the largest tax increase in American history. And as the spending goes up to make that match in the end, they force all of the tax cuts which we have fought so hard to get into place, that have spurred this economy and caused jobs to be created and rapid growth in the economy, all those tax cuts would go away, taxes would go up, and we would in fact see the largest tax increase in American history. So we have a huge tax increase, huge spending, that's not the way to see this economy grow. Let's take some steps to curb this explosive rate of spending and stop the semantic arguments here. Let's slow down this runaway spending.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

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

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the fossil energy research and development account in this bill by $142 million. These funds appropriated in this account go toward research of oil, gasoline, coal and natural gas. Funding this account at $709 million, as in this bill, would be a 19\1/2\ percent increase over last year's appropriation amount and 20 percent higher than what was requested by the administration. This massive increase in spending is aimed at research of oil, coal and natural gas. With energy prices rising, our research dollars are better spent by going toward alternative and diversified energy sources like nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower and others. You may be interested to know that some of the research projects funded by this account include: a submersible-deployed micro-drill for sampling of shallow gas deposits, ultra-lightweight cement, and an oil and gas resource assessment of the Russian Arctic. Given the record profits being made by oil, gas and coal companies, the research of oil and gas resources of the Russian Arctic should be done and paid for by those oil companies, not by American taxpayers who have already paid for it at the pump. A half a billion dollars in Federal funds appropriated to this account, as was the case last year, should be more than enough for the government's share of this research. Any additional funding, and I'm talking about funding over the half a billion dollar plus what's already in last year's bill, any additional funding should be borne by the private sector. My amendment would save the taxpayers $142 million and remove that 20 percent increase in spending on fossil fuel research. Solutions to our rising energy prices are not found in a massive increase in deficit spending, and we've been talking a lot about deficit spending today. Not only does this bill have a 20 percent increase in spending for fossil fuel research, it contains a $1.3 billion increase over last year's Energy and Water appropriation. It seems that this appropriation bill is another example of ballooning Federal spending and increasing Federal deficits to be paid for by ever-higher taxes. We know it's been discussed today that the Federal budget that was passed by House Democrats earlier this year does indeed include the largest tax increase in American history. It would raise taxes by at least $217 billion. We're looking for ways to reduce spending, modest ways. That's all that these appropriation bills allow us. We can't address the massive spending that comes from entitlement spending, but we can get at sensible ways to control the spending in these discretionary funds. My amendment is a step in the right direction. Let's save the taxpayers $142 million and remove this huge 20 percent increase in spending for fossil fuel research. There have been proposals to put price controls on oil companies. I vehemently oppose those, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to put some of those profits back into this essential research and development, take the burden off the taxpayers. Let's in a bipartisan way support this amendment.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I couldn't agree with you more in your explanation of what we are up against; but it strikes me the differences we hear on the floor of this House. This evening some of our colleagues were saying we have to get out of Iraq now. We have to end the war. If we bring our troops tomorrow, say they, we will end this war. And presumably, then, everything will be fine. And that simply doesn't track with the history that the gentleman is describing. It does not describe the enemy that was willing to hijack planes and fly them into buildings and kill women and children. Every day we see the stories in Baghdad of people blowing up women and children. Our just bringing our troops home doesn't, wouldn't, couldn't, signal the end of this war and of the determination of that enemy. It strikes me the difference that we see in this body.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. This evening, we have heard some talk about the war that we're engaged in, the fighting in Iraq, the fighting in Afghanistan, this long war against Islamist extremists that we're engaged in. And tonight I am very pleased I am joined by a number of my colleagues here this evening to talk a little bit about that military action, to talk about that war and to talk about the military leaders that we are so blessed to have in this country. I think sometimes we sort of forget that there are people who have devoted their entire lives to serving this country and to providing exemplary leadership to our young men and women as they fight for us in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. We have some new officers in the lineup, and we will talk very briefly about those tonight, I suppose. We have a new commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon. We have, of course, General David Petraeus, named by the President to be the senior U.S. commander of the multinational forces in Iraq and confirmed unanimously, I might add, by the Members of the Senate. Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, and other fine officers that are leading our young men and women. I know some of my colleagues would like to talk about one of the officers who is going to be leaving that chain of command, the very fine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the first Marine Corps officer ever to hold that position, my good friend and a great American, General Peter Pace. I would like to afford a few minutes to my friend and colleague from South Carolina who I know has some words he wants to say about my friend, Pete, and give us a little idea of what his biography is. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman very much for his insight and certainly his passion on this issue. I, too, want to thank all of the men and women in uniform. And certainly we are here tonight talking some about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, who will be retiring this fall, but we are also here to talk about the other leaders and the values that are at their core. Minnesota is like other States in the Union. We have members of our National Guard who have deployed, and deployed again in some cases. We have 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard serving in Iraq now as members of the Red Bulls, and we are so proud of them and looking forward to them coming back this summer. The sooner the better. That is an issue that has been mentioned by Members on both sides of the aisle that there have been mistakes made, and there certainly have. One of the early mistakes was not building up the size of the active forces and relying so heavily on these men and women in the reserve component, the reserves that the gentleman from Tennessee mentioned, and the members of the National Guard from all over having to go, having to leave their civilian jobs and leave their families and go and serve, and they do so willingly and bravely and well. And then they come back and have to resume their civilian lives, and we have to do a better job of reintegrating them in this body. We need to not let up. But I want to thank you, Mr. Wamp, for coming down here and helping us understand what it is that we are fighting. You put it so well. I know the gentleman remembers way back when the 9/11 Commission came out, and in that report they said we are fighting Islamist extremists. They didn't say we were just fighting al Qaeda. Certainly we are fighting al Qaeda. And it seems so long ago now, and as you pointed out, it is even clearer now that this enemy that we are fighting is very, very determined. It is the jihadists in that moment that are at the core of this, and they are not going to quit. America's a great country, greatest in the world with great people. But we're an impatient people, and it's difficult; no, it is impossible for us to understand what's in the minds of people who are not only willing but apparently eager to strap bombs to children and blow them up and kill innocent, innocent men, women, and children in the name of their cause and reestablishing that sharia law and that caliphate and then moving on to the world. And so like you, I am just grateful for the men and women in uniform and for all they have done and for their leaders. And before we wrap up here this evening, I want to mention briefly some of the other leaders that we don't sometimes talk so much about, but they are part of this fight, and they're an integral part. We just got a new commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, a new leader, will bring new ideas and a new face. We've been ably led in the past, but it's important sometimes that we get a change of face and a new idea, get a new team sometimes. And Admiral Fallon is bringing some new insights into this fight. He was a naval aviator, a graduate of Villanova University in 1967, came through the Naval ROTC program, as I did. I have a lot of good things to say about the service academies. I think they do a terrific job, but there is no question that we get fine officers, men and women, who come through our other commissioning programs like the Naval ROTC program. Admiral Fallon served as an aviator in Vietnam, has had a very distinguished career. He is going on now to take overall command of everything in Central Command which, of course, includes all of Iraq and the surrounding countries, and we're glad to have him. General David Petraeus has been mentioned this evening, a really fine officer, graduate of the West Point Military Academy, has a Ph.D., very distinguished career. I've had the pleasure of sitting and talking with General Petraeus on two previous trips to Iraq. He was the commander of the 101st Airborne Division and Operation Iraqi Freedom One, and when I went over there, my first trip to Iraq, he was the commanding general up in Mosul. I had a chance to go and talk to him, and I was impressed then with his intelligence and his determination and his leadership. What a fine job the 101st did, not only in winning the initial combat but in starting to establish some local government and progress amongst the people of Mosul. And I thought at the time, what a fine officer, and all my colleagues who traveled over there, Republicans and Democrats, came back with glowing reports of General David Petraeus. It was later my son became a member of the 101st under a different commander and has gone to Iraq and served for a year and come back and served well, and General Petraeus left that division in good shape. General Petraeus went back to Iraq and served as the man in charge of training the Iraqi security forces, and so he was able to see firsthand what the difficulties were and what we needed to do there. And then he went on to become probably the Nation's foremost authority in unconventional warfare, ideally suited to his job. And so when the President nominated him to be the senior American commander in Iraq, he was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. And under him is Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, another fine officer with previous service in Iraq and a graduate of the United States Military Academy. All of these officers, too many awards and decorations to name. My point this evening is that we are ably led by fine men who hew to an ethic of, as General Douglas MacArthur said, ``Duty, Honor, Country,'' but the core values seen at the Naval Academy and the United States Marine Corps of honor, courage, commitment, all of these men exemplify those core values, and they provide firm, steady, well- informed leadership to the men and women who serve us so well in all the corners of the world. And they're doing a good job. I just want to share with you a couple of quotes that I've got here about things that are going on in Iraq. Goodness knows we see plenty of bad news, and there is certainly some to share. And every time there's an explosion and our soldiers are killed or wounded, it pains us deeply. And when civilians are killed, it's a tragedy. But we're fighting against an enemy that is fierce and determined, as my colleague Mr. Wamp from Tennessee outlined so well. This is a tough enemy and we need tough soldiers to fight them, and all of us recognize that you cannot win this only militarily, that you need economics and you need politics and you need diplomacy. And I would say that these leaders that we've talked about tonight, Admiral Fallon, General Petraeus, General Odierno and certainly the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, understand that very well. But they're attending to the first order of business first. They want to make sure that our men and women are well-led. They're fighting to win. We in this body, my colleagues, need to make sure that we're giving them every chance to win. And I just notice some quotes that have just been in the news in the last couple of days. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker says, ``It is noteworthy that violence is down in the two areas where the surge is focused, Anbar and Baghdad.'' And our friend from the other side of the Capitol, Senator Joe Lieberman says, ``Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the surge has focused.'' We can't win it all in a day. It's going to be a long fight. The men and women serving and fighting understand this. We need to understand this and make sure that we are, in fact, being true to ourselves and true to them. I want to share just a brief story about the fine leadership that we have, not just these men that we've talked about tonight, but the fine young men and women who are stepping up to lead our Armed Forces today. One of the great things we get to do as Members of Congress is nominate these fine young students to go forward to the academy. We're always thrilled when one is selected to go, and the joy that they have and the pride that their families feel is certainly moving. In my first year here as a Member of this body, my niece graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Vicky and I went up for several days of ceremonies and to share with my sister and brother-in- law and nieces their joy and pride in my niece's accomplishment. She, by the way, now Captain Stroecker, is serving in the United States Army. She served a year over in Kuwait. She served in Germany, and she's the kind of officer that makes us proud. But while we were there at West Point, we were surrounded by these young cadets, some of them just getting ready to be commissioned. And we were there when the second lieutenants' bars were pinned on, but I remember sitting with Vicky in the audience and witnessing a ceremony that I found to be very moving. It was a very impressive thing to watch. This is a ceremony where the graduating class turns over command, turns over command to the brigade, to the rising seniors, the juniors rising to be seniors, and you see the long gray line march out in that ceremony. Movies are made about the long gray line, stories written, and it's moving to watch it, and they march out, and they pass command from one class to the next. And I remember thinking as that ceremony was going on and looking at those fine, fine young men and women, I remember thinking, no wonder, no wonder that the United States has the finest Armed Forces in the world and no wonder that we're the best we've ever been, with all apologies to the Greatest Generation, my father's generation, an Army World War II veteran, but today's Army and today's Marine Corps and Navy and Air Force and Coast Guard are the best they have ever been, all volunteer, all eager, all determined. They understand that enemy that my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee, was describing. They know that what they're doing is important, that without their success we are in great danger. But as you look at those fine young men and women and when you are there, when they move on to become second lieutenants, you just can't help but notice that that's the reason why our men and women in uniform today are led by very, very fine leaders. Well, I see that we're nearing the end of the time for this Special Order. I'm sure there is more to be said about the fine men and women who are leading our military, and that's what we were about this evening, to talk a little bit about the conflict we're involved in, the importance of that leadership and the people who are leading and certainly to talk about General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pete, I think it was my colleague, Robin Hayes, who said, we love you, and we thank you, and we wish you all the best. And I know that sometimes you thought about these words, I certainly have over the years, President Ronald Reagan said way back in 1985; he said, some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world, but the Marines don't have that problem. And Pete Pace has never had that problem. He has been a great leader. He is a great leader. We're looking forward to his leadership in the closing months of his tour as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We thank him for everything that he has done, that he is doing and that he is going to do.

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield? Could you say that again?