John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. And grow the economy with that investment.

Mr. LINDER. It is really simple.

Mr. LINDER. Wealthy people pay taxes on personal consumption, and wealth has no meaning unless it is spent on personal consumption. If I had $100 million and lived in a $20,000 home and drove a used car, that $100 million would mean nothing to me. So somebody would be borrowing it, building their business with it, and creating jobs with it. Wealth has value only when spent personally, and that is when it will be taxed.

Mr. LINDER. You told it to me once. It is the difference between someone who is a big believer and a fanatic.

Mr. LINDER. That is correct.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman from Iowa for any closing remarks he might have.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank both my colleagues for their help. This has been an illuminating discussion and we need to do it again.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, 25 hearty souls met for 3 hours every week to decide whether we could change the course of America, led by then House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich. We said that if you gave us the authority and the power, we would change the way America works, and we did it with a specific Contract With America; 9 million additional people voted in that election and gave us the opportunity to lead. We believed that too many people were on welfare, and they deserved an opportunity to get off, so we changed that. We balanced the budget and paid down debt. Some of that is going by the wayside now with a war to fund, but when we stood before the American people in 1994, we stood for something solid, and we can do it again. We want to thank the American people for giving us the opportunity. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Newt Gingrich, who would be our Speaker ultimately, for leading us to that majority.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. I was watching some of the coverage on TV of the debate and saw some of the worst demagoguery I have ever seen in my life. And we will hear it again and again. It is true that the gentleman from South Carolina is a cosponsor of a bill for a sales tax. So are 54 of his friends in this House. And it is true that the sales tax would be at 23 percent of what we spend. But the fact of the matter is we are currently giving up 22 percent of what we spend to the current system. A study that we have from the head of economics at Harvard argues that 22 percent of what we are currently spending at retail represents the embedded cost of the current system. One is paying every tax bill and compliance cost of every company that touched that house or that appliance or even that loaf of bread. If we are to get rid of the income tax and the payroll tax and all tax on income, competition would drive that out of the system. And if we replace it with a 23 percent tax, we would have a 1 percent higher standard of living, but they would keep their whole check and the average income earner would have a 56 percent increase in take-home pay. We have heard before the study out of the Joint Committee on Taxation that said it had to be at 50 percent or 60 percent. That is true, because they made some assumptions that the bill would not pass as written; and when they made those assumptions and took taxes off certain things, it raised the cost. But just think about this for a moment. We have a negative savings rate in this country, which is to say we spend more than we earn. And if the tax needed to be 56 percent on what we spend, then surely we would have to argue that it has to be more than that on what we earn. And I do not hear anybody saying that we have an average income tax at 56 percent. We are going to be forced to make some tough decisions in the very near future, and we are going to come to a system that gets the tax component out of the price system so that we are more competitive in the world economy. And the only bill that does that is the one that gets rid of all tax on income and the payroll tax. We spend 6 to 7 billion man-hours just filling out IRS paperwork. We spend at least that much time calculating the tax implications of a business decision. We lose 18 percent of our economy to making decisions based on the tax consequences instead of the economics. It is costing us somewhere between 300 and $500 billion a year just to comply with this complicated code. What it is doing is it is forcing jobs overseas. If we became the only Nation in the world that sold goods and services into a global economy with no tax component in the price system, we would not only be voraciously competitive, but every foreign corporation would build its next plant in this country so that they could sell into a global economy with no tax component in the price system. We have a coming crisis in Social Security and Medicare. Larry Kotlakof, an economist from Boston University, says that the shortfall, the 75-year unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare, is $51 trillion. The total household debt in America is less than $44 trillion. That system cannot survive by having employees pay for retirees. If we move it to a portion of the 23 cents of the sales tax, we would double the revenues to those categories in 15 years by doubling the size of the economy in 15 years. Lastly, we have somewhere between $5 trillion and $6 trillion sitting in offshore accounts to protect them from the IRS because it is too expensive to repatriate money. A company would rather borrow at 6 percent than repatriate at 33 percent that. That money would all be in our shores if we were to become the world's largest tax haven, and we would be creating jobs with it. To demagogue an idea without reading the 132 pages is what this House does an awful lot of. But if someone would take the time to read it and understand that we are already paying this tax, that we totally untax the poor by getting rid of the 22 percent embedded cost and by giving every household a check to totally untax them up to the poverty line, if they would begin to understand that this is actually a tax on accumulated wealth, relieving the tax for low-income people, maybe we could have an honest debate about this and maybe we could speak some truth on the floor of the House. It is way too much to expect, but let us give it a shot.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is too much for people to read the 132-page bill. We get rid of the payroll tax, we do not leave it in place, and there is simply no tax on farmers. It is only on personal consumption, and the Farm Bureau is very close to endorsing the entire idea.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 766, a modified, closed rule for H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004. This is a fair rule which provides for consideration of this important legislation and gives the minority an opportunity to offer a substitute amendment for the full House to consider. With regard to the underlying measure, I support placing some level of accountability upon those who would otherwise unnecessarily burden our Nation's judicial system. While most tort reform measures focus primarily on the amount of damages one can collect through civil actions, little is ever said, much less done, to admonish the individuals who are the cause of the unnecessary litigation. As a matter of reason, we all agree that individuals should be given the right to seek redresses for certain grievances through civil litigation, as long as those claims are legitimate in their nature. After all, it is the responsibility of this Nation's judicial system to uphold the rights and liberties of the American citizen. Our system of justice is flawed, however, in that it fails to incorporate checks upon those who would use it for other either malevolent means or personal gain. Under current law, for example, a lawyer who files a blatantly frivolous lawsuit in violation of Rule 11 may actually avoid punishment as long as he or she withdraws the filing within 21 days after the opposing party has filed a motion for sanctions. Judicial filings, whether legitimate or frivolous, bring cost burdens to both parties involved and the government, and these costs, most notably attorneys fees, do not evaporate once the frivolous claim has been withdrawn. H.R. 4571, however, corrects these shortcomings by imposing reasonable standards of responsibility on the legal community and preventing lawyers from circumventing Rule 11. Most importantly, this legislation sends out a clear message that our judicial system was intended to protect the rights of the aggrieved, not to provide wealth to those who would profit from the aggrieved. As such, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in support of this bill.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 757. Three years have passed since a beautiful September day was shattered by terrorists who despised the thought of a Nation that allows its people the freedom to live and worship as they choose. I agree with President George W. Bush that ``the terrorists are offended not merely by our policies--they are offended by our existence as free Nations.'' I looked back on some of the things we said in the days following the attacks of September 11, 2001. We said that these were acts of war. We said that we would get serious and win this war. And we said to those who commit these kinds of acts that we will find you and destroy you. And we vowed to remember what happened--always. America quickly got serious about fighting terrorism. While the enemies of freedom brought war to our shores 3 years ago, the American people and the American military are making progress in meeting this challenge. This war is being fought on multiple fronts: diplomatic, financial, investigative, homeland security, humanitarian, and militarily. We must continue to fight the war on terrorism because the terrorists will continue with their efforts. Their aim is to change the way of life of countries that love freedom, and their goals include the destruction of the civilized world and an end to American efforts to encourage democracy abroad. And while we continue to make great strides in the war on terror, we must never forget what happened. It's been 3 years, but the tragedy, the courage, and the determination we saw that day must serve as a reminder of our calling from that day forward. On Saturday morning, please take a moment to remember those who lost their lives that day, and remember those who continue to mourn loved ones who did not return home on September 11, 2001. May God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 724 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. H. Res. 724 provides for consideration of H.R. 4850, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2005, under an open rule, as is customary with most annual appropriations measures. I am very pleased that the normal, open amendment process outlined in H. Res. 724 will allow a Member to offer any amendment to the bill, as long as it complies with the standing rules of the House. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. H. Res. 724 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution. H. Res. 724 also authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. This procedure will help the House in considering amendments in a more orderly manner. Finally, H. Res. 724 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the underlying legislation, I want to begin by commending the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). He has done a good job in working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) in crafting H.R. 4850, and the bill deserves the support of the House today. This provides the District of Columbia with a $560 million Federal payment, and it provides $8.2 billion in funds for the District of Columbia's governmental activities. Both of these figures match the President's budget request. On a parenthetical note, I would note that the county in which I live, Gwinnett County, Georgia, has 50 percent more citizens than the District of Columbia and provides all the same services with the exception of welfare, and it does it for $1 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for an open amendment process for consideration of the FY 2005 District of Columbia appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier), for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 712, the rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 4759, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I urge all my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this rule, as well as the underlying legislation. The full House will be debating H.R. 4759 under a closed rule which is called for under the expedited procedures by which Congress considers legislation implementing free trade agreements. To the credit of all parties concerned, this bill has broad bipartisan support within the Committee on Ways and Means and across the aisle within the full House. With regard to the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, it has been an honor for me to work with the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the House leadership in generating the needed support for this important trade agreement, and I am pleased that it is being considered on the House floor today. Over the past century and through various wars, one of America's most important and dependent allies has been Australia. After September 11, 2001, Australia again showed its support and solidarity with the United States by being one of the first nations to commit troops to Afghanistan. Australia has continued its support for the war against terrorism by committing troops to Iraq as well. With approximately $28 billion annually in two-way trade of goods and services, Australia is also a major trading partner of the United States. Of this $28 billion, the U.S. enjoys a significant surplus, $8 to $9 billion. Australia is America's ninth largest goods export market. In addition to trade benefits on a national scale, Georgia, the State that I am proud to represent, has benefited from trade with Australia. In fact, in 2003 Georgia had the 13th largest number of exports to Australia in the United States, with total exports valued at almost $288 million. These exports have provided, and continue to provide, high-paying jobs, jobs to the citizens of my State. With the enactment of the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, U.S. farmers, investors, workers, and companies will further benefit from our current relationship. Under the FTA, U.S. workers and companies will receive the most significant immediate reduction of industrial tariffs ever achieved in a free trade agreement, as more than 99 percent of U.S.-manufactured products will immediately become duty free upon entry into Australia. Some of the particular manufacturing sectors and Georgia goods that will benefit include transportation equipment, paper products, computer and electronic products and machinery manufacturers. All U.S. agricultural exports to Australia, totaling more than $400 million, will also receive immediate duty-free access. The FTA also removes foreign investment screening for a range of U.S. foreign investment activities, including the establishment of all new businesses in Australia. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, Australia is a strategic ally and an important trading partner. Now is the time to strengthen the ties that bind our two countries. America must continue to strive toward expanded free trade and not retreat into the mistaken protectionism of the past. We must work to open markets, eliminate tariffs and barriers and ensure that our Nation remains at the forefront of global economic success. The freedom to trade is a basic human liberty, and its exercise across political borders unites people in peaceful cooperation and mutual prosperity. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed to debate and adopt the underlying measure.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 710 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 710 provides for the consideration of H.R. 4766, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2005, under an open rule, as is customary with annual appropriations measures. I am pleased that the normal open amendment process outlined in H. Res. 710 will allow any member to offer an amendment to the bill as long as it complies with the standing rules of the House. The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. H. Res. 710 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution. H. Res. 710 also provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution may be offered only by a member of the subcommittee designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. H. Res. 710 waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report. The resolution gives the chair the ability to provide priority in recognition to those members who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. This procedure will help the House in considering amendments in a more orderly manner. Finally, H. Res. 710 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the work product of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). He has done a good job in crafting this funding bill, especially as we face budgetary limitations, and the bill deserves the support of the House today. With regard to the underlying legislation, I do want to briefly note that this appropriations bill provides for more than $83 billion in funding. Included in this bill is $43 million in higher funding levels for food safety and counterterrorism activities. Also included is an increase of $20 million for BSE, or mad cow disease, detection and prevention activities. We are also fulfilling the commitments to our food and nutrition programs with an increase in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, the WIC program. This measure also provides an increase in funding for Agricultural Research Service, including full funding to complete construction of the National Centers For Animal Health. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for an open amendment process for consideration of the agriculture appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues support both the rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 707 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 707 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4755, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2005. It is a fair and appropriate rule and should be approved by the House so we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation. H. Res. 707 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It also provides that the bill shall be considered as read. H. Res. 707 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill. The rule makes in order only those amendments put in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. H. Res. 707 provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report. Finally, H. Res. 707 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend and colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), the chairman of the subcommittee. He has worked very closely with his ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran of Virginia), in crafting this bill, and for that he deserves our support. This appropriations bill is one of the more challenging bills to manage, and he does so with respect to the institution in which we all serve. I do want to specifically note that this is a fiscally responsible bill, and I commend the gentleman from Georgia's (Chairman Kingston) management oversight that will certainly ensure that organizational changes are managed better within the agencies of the legislative branch of government. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a fair amendment process for consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that we did have this discussion in the Committee on Rules about the printing yesterday. It just came up yesterday for the Republicans being criticized forever for rushing things to the floor. This seems a bit quick for the Democrats to do so. None of us on the Committee on Rules, Republican side, have seen that yet, but the committee of jurisdiction is actually the Committee on House Administration, and I think it would be appropriate to let the authorizing committee have a shot at this to take a look at the problem before we move to address it on the House floor in an appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the gentleman came very close to impugning the motives of the chairman and the actions of the committee. I would just suggest that he tread a bit more lightly on that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.