John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying bill is not a solution to our problems, but is a huge first step. Much more needs to be done. I would also like to commend the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle who worked so hard to put forth a really good bill and then fought to keep most of it in the final draft. I urge them to come back in January with an open mind and finish the work we have started.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the people of the Republic of China on Taiwan on the occasion of its forthcoming National Day. This day commemorates the Wuchang Uprising on October 10, 1911, which led to the downfall of the Qing dynasty and the establishment of the Republic of China on January 1, 1912. The day is celebrated in Taiwan with parades, festivities, and fireworks displays throughout the island. Over the past 93 years, Taiwan has increasingly become more democratic. Its 2004 presidential election is a testament to this fact. More than 80 percent of eligible Taiwan voters turned out to participate in a free and fair selection of the next Taiwanese President. This commitment to democracy is consistent with the deeply- held values of the American people. The alliance between the people of Taiwan and the United States is of great importance. Taiwan is one of our largest trading partners and is a valued ally and friend. I wish the Taiwanese people well as they celebrate their National Day, and I am hopeful that the U.S.-Taiwanese relationship will continue to develop well into the future. Taiwan is truly a success story for democracy in Asia and around the world.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 827 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), 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, this is a fair and structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. H. Res. 827 makes in order 23 amendments, including an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). The rule before the House today will provide for a thorough debate on this Nation's vision for the reform and improvement of our intelligence operations. Specifically, this rule provides for 3 hours and 40 minutes of general debate allocated between the chairman and ranking minority members of eight separate committees. H. Res. 827 waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Committee on Rules print dated October 4, 2004 be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Committee on Rules print. H. Res. 827 makes in order only those further amendments which are printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule provides that amendments made in order 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 division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. H. Res. 827 waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. In addition, this rule provides that upon passage of H.R. 10, the Senate transmittal of S. 2845, the House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table S. 2845, stricken all after the enacting clause of such bill and inserted the provisions of H.R. 10 as passed by the House. Finally, the rule provides that House shall be considered to have passed the Senate bill as so amended, and insisted on its amendment and requested a conference with the Senate. The Speaker may appoint conferees on S. 2845 and the House amendment at any time. This provision provides for the expeditious movement of the bill upon passage to the next stage of the legislative process, which is a House- Senate conference. The rule also provides that the motion to instruct conferees shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker and the legislative schedule within 2 additional legislative days after the passage of H.R. 10. This provision is intended to protect and ensure the minority's right to offer a motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, 3 years have passed since that beautiful September day was shattered by terrorists who despise the thought of a Nation that allows its people the freedom to live and worship as they choose. I agree with President Bush that ``the terrorists are offended not merely by our policies, they are offended by our existence as free nations.'' Since that day, our Nation has fought this war on multiple fronts: diplomatic, financial, investigative, homeland security, humanitarian, and militarily. We have also committed to improving our intelligence operations. After the House and Senate passed the Intelligence Authorization bill last Congress, the President signed the bill into law, establishing the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States. Its goal was to prepare a complete account of the events surrounding the September 11 attacks. Recently, the Commission submitted recommendations to Congress citing the need for reforms of our intelligence and homeland security systems. I am pleased that this bipartisan group was able to come through to a thorough conclusion on what went wrong prior to September 11 and what must be done to ensure that those heinous acts never occur again. Proactive steps have already been taken during the month of August when Congress traditionally recesses to conduct work in our respective districts across the country, Members were called back to participate in no less than 20 committee hearings on the Commission's report. I joined my colleagues in a hearing of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security where we were able to listen to the testimony of Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton. President Bush has outlined a strategy for sweeping reform of our security and intelligence operations in his continuing efforts to keep our Nation safe from those who wish to do harm to our citizens. Today, the House continues its efforts to move forward to make the substantive changes that will inevitably help better protect the citizens of this country. The House is committed to doing everything in its power to enact a plan that reflects the full scope of the Commission's intelligence and homeland security recommendations. This wide-ranging bill reforms and integrates our intelligence capacity by establishing a National Intelligence Director to serve as the head of the intelligence community, a National Intelligence Council, and an Intelligence Community Information Technology Officer to assist in implementation of an integrated information technology network. The bill focuses on effective information-sharing, because we know that prior to September 11, the sharing of intelligence in the Federal Government was inadequate. This bill ensures the sharing of and access to information within our intelligence community with a particular emphasis placed on detection, prevention, and the disruption of potential terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 10 focuses on terrorist prevention by authorizing Federal officials to target ``lone wolf'' terrorists, targeting money laundering and terrorist financing, and enhancing airline security through improved passenger pre-screening, and training all Federal law enforcement officers with in-flight counterterrorism procedures. This bill effectively restructures the government by strengthening the Federal Bureau of Investigation through recruitment and retention, streamlining our Nation's current security clearance procedures by eliminating duplicative processes and, finally, improving efficiency by expediting the processes that direct resources to first responders where they are most needed. In addition, in response to the Commission's detailed report on problems such as border security, information-sharing, and immigration enforcement, this comprehensive bill tackles these challenging issues and enhances the reforms that have been put in place since September 11. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and balanced rule for a bill that is critical to improving our current security and intelligence operations. I urge support for the rule and for the underlying measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 822 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. Mr. Speaker, this is a standard rule for consideration of an appropriations conference report, and H. Res. 822 provides for the consideration of the conference reports for H.R. 4850, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Appropriation continues to work hard to complete the work on the remaining appropriations bills in order to fund the responsibilities of the Federal Government. It has passed 12 of 13 regular appropriations bills and continues to work with the House and Senate leadership and the Senate Appropriations Committee to complete the appropriations process. While the 108th Congress has passed a continuing resolution funding the government through November 20, I am pleased that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations today presents the House with another individual appropriations conference report to send to the President. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the details of a bill should principally be discussed during a general debate on this legislation. However, I did want to note that the fiscal year 2005 D.C. Appropriations bill will provide funding for the new Bioterrorism and Forensics Lab and will provide full funding for the school improvement program, including $13 million for public school improvements, $13 million for charter schools, and $14 million for opportunity scholarships to promote academic achievement and school choice. I support these efforts to assist the District of Columbia students whose opportunities for success and growth are undermined simply because they reside in one of the least effective school districts in America. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has reported a good rule for consideration of this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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 802 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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. 802 is a closed rule that provides for the consideration of H.J. Res. 107, a continuing resolution that will ensure ongoing appropriations for fiscal year 2005 until November 20, 2004, except for the Defense Department appropriations bill, which has already been enacted into law. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution and provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the last day of fiscal year 2004. At this point in time, there are a total of 12 regular appropriations bills that have not been enacted into law. Approving this CR will allow the Federal Government to continue its activities and operations for an additional 7 weeks. To its credit, the House has passed 12 of the 13 regular appropriations bills. Unfortunately, the other body has passed only 5 regular appropriations bills and we need to pass a continuing resolution to allow the Federal Government to remain open while the House and Senate leadership, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and the respective bodies work through the process of resolving their differences on the remaining 12 regular appropriations bills. The underlying resolution, H.J. Res. 107, is designed to allow the many different Federal departments and agencies covered by those 12 outstanding bills to continue operating under the terms and conditions of their fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills, while generally not allowing for the initiation of new programs, activities or projects. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in the House on both sides to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying CR. 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 from the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 803, a closed rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 3193, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is an appropriate rule that will allow the House to work its will on the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in voting for its approval. Mr. Speaker, I can certainly appreciate the position of those who oppose the underlying legislation. As a consistent proponent of home rule, I believe that the Federal Government should be limited in its influence over State and local laws. The crux of this debate, however, is not whether the Congress has the authority to repeal the District's prohibition of owning firearms. The Founders were explicit in their desire for congressional oversight and responsibility in the affairs and laws of the District of Columbia. The heart of the matter before us today is whether the District of Columbia should continue to prevent its citizens from exercising their full rights under the Constitution. We do not get to pick and choose our amendments, and the second amendment was written with just as much force and meaning as the first and the fifth and the tenth. In 1975, the District's government enacted measures to prevent citizens from owning certain firearms in an ill-advised effort to reduce its violent crime rate. My colleagues have just heard about that from the previous speaker. As many of my colleagues can attest, however, the District, despite these laws, continues to be known across the country as the ``murder capital.'' It is beyond me to understand how we can stand here in the well of this House and say this is the most violent city in the Nation, this is the murder capital of the world, people are being gunned down, please do not change anything; leave it as it is. Does it ever strike anybody that, perhaps, perhaps, there would be less violence if the bad guys who do get guns, who have guns, would think for a moment that the people they are approaching might have guns, too? This is not the kind of wild west life we want to live, but it is a fact of life that, in those areas where we have concealed-carry laws, there is less violent gun crime because the bad guys who have an easy time getting guns are concerned that maybe they are approaching someone who has one, too. There are some nations or some jurisdictions in this Nation that actually require people to keep guns in their houses, and it is an uncomfortable fact for those who would like to get rid of guns, but it is a fact. They have less crime. They have far less crime. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying law.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, in the last 5 or 6 weeks, a bill that I introduced, H.R. 25, the FAIR Tax, has been getting a great deal of interest in the national press, part of it because the Speaker mentioned it in the book he recently published, and part because the President took a look at it just prior to the Republican convention. A lot of it is because the last 2 days the Democrats have taken a keen interest in it and have found unusual forums in which to trash it, including a 27-page critique that the House Minority leader put out today. I will say some of those criticisms are interesting, and some are even true. But, in any case, what they failed to do in the 27 pages was to discuss the problems we are facing precisely because of our current system. They can spend all the rest of the next year or two defending the current IRS system, saying it is a good system, and ignoring the problems, but we cannot ignore them much longer. Americans spend between 6 and 7 billion man-hours each year just filling out IRS forms. We spend that much time calculating the tax implications of a business decision. We lose 18 percent of our economy to making tax decisions instead of economic decisions. The current director of the Congressional Budget Office informally in a conversation told me he believes we spend upwards of $400 to $500 billion a year to comply with the Code and remit $2 trillion. This is hardly an efficient way to raise taxes. Studies show that it costs the average small business $724 to collect, comply with the Code and remit $100 to the Federal Government. And who pays all those compliance costs? Who pays all those payroll taxes that get embedded into the costs of goods at retail? Who pays the income taxes? It is not the business. There simply is not a mechanism for a business to pay a bill other than through price, and our customers pay them all. In fact, the only taxpayer in the world is a consumer, who finally consumes the product and all the embedded costs, we have it. The study we had commissioned out of at Harvard 5 or 6 years ago argues that 22 percent of what we spend at retail represents the imbedded cost to the IRS. Anybody who is working and spending 100 percent of the income to live is losing 22 percent of their purchasing power to the current system. But it also causes us to ship goods and services into a global economy with a 22 percent tax component in the price system, making us less and less competitive in a world economy and causing jobs to move overseas, where the embedded tax component in the price system is considerably less, particularly in those nations that have a value- added tax that is rebated at the borders. We also drive offshore, because of our Tax Code, capital. There is today 5 to $6 trillion in overseas accounts because it is cheaper to borrow at 6 percent interest than to repatriate dollars at 35 percent tax. So they are protected overseas, and in some cases, able to be spent over there. Not to mention wealthy individuals who keep money offshore to protect it from a confiscatory tax system. We drive underground elicit activity because of our Tax Code. It is estimated that pornography, illicit drugs and illegal labor constitute a $1 trillion economy that is untaxed. Under a consumption economy, if they wanted to buy something, they would at least pay their fair share to the government. The Alternative Minimum Tax was passed in 1969 to ensure that wealthy people who have no tax liability due to their legal use of deductions and credits would still have to pay some taxes. In 6 years, 35 million Americans will be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax. We spend over $30 billion a year on Earned Income Tax Credit designed to rebate to low-income workers the cost of the payroll tax burden, the tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare. It is estimated that 25 to 30 percent of that is fraud. Then the big issue, the big issue is Social Security and Medicare. The current dollar 75-year unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare is $51 trillion. Trillion. To put that in perspective, if you started a business on the day Jesus Christ was born and lost $1 million a day through yesterday, it would take you another 720 years to lose $1 trillion. We are looking at 75 years of costing us $51 trillion. How do we solve this? We abolish the income tax and repeal all taxes on income and get rid of the IRS; get rid of personal and corporate income taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, the gift tax, the death tax. All would be replaced by a single tax on personal consumption. Yes, we would get rid of the payroll tax. It was said on the floor yesterday that our bill did not deal with the payroll tax. I would be willing to have these debates, but I want to have them with people who have read the bill, because the bill is the only one that has ever been introduced that totally abolishes the payroll tax, and the payroll tax is the highest tax that 75 percent of America pays. If you would get rid of the IRS and get rid of all tax on income and let competition drive the tax component out of the tax system and replace it with a one-time, single consumption tax, out of every dollar you spend on personal use, 23 cents goes to the government, the rest stays with the merchant, we would fund the government at the current level, but everybody would keep, get to keep their whole check and become a voluntary taxpayer. Now, that number has been criticized as being rather high. I will repeat you are currently paying 22 cents, but just do not know it. But today, if you earn $1, 36 cents goes to the government and 64 cents is left to spend. Would you not rather pay 23 cents out of every dollar you spend, rather than 36 cents out of every dollar you earn? But, more importantly, the FAIR Tax is fair because it contains a rebate for every household in America which would totally rebate the tax consequences of spending up to the poverty line. Currently people who spend all of their income lose 22 percent of the purchasing power to the embedded cost. Under our system, that rebate would totally untax them up to the poverty line. Poverty level spending, by definition, is that necessary for a given size household to buy their essentials. For my mother, it is $9,500 year. For a family of four, it is about $25,000. For a family of six, it is $30,000. Their spending in a year up to that amount would be totally untaxed, plus they would not pay the embedded costs. It would be gone. The FAIR Tax is a volunteer system. Every citizen becomes a voluntary taxpayer, paying as much as they choose, when they choose, on how they choose to spend. And I mentioned before that it would drive that 22 cents out of the system. The FAIR Tax is border neutral. Under the FAIR Tax, imports to our shores when bought at retail for personal use would be taxed at exactly the same level as our domestic competition, something that has never happened before. Lastly, it would solve our Social Security and Medicare problem. In the Democrat's report, 27 pages today, they have a study that said Medicare would run out of money in 8 or 9 years instead of 10 or 15 years under my system. I do not know how they could come up with that, because today Medicare is funded by the workers, 138.5 million people working to pay for Medicare for all the retirees. We are going to increase the number of retirees in the next 30 years by 100 percent. We are going to increase the number of workers by 15 percent. I do not know how you can sustain that system. Our system, the tax on consumption, would increase the number of payers from 138.5 million workers to about 300 million citizens every time something was purchased and 40 million visitors to our shores. We would nearly triple the number of people paying in, and, indeed, we would double the revenues to Social Security and Medicare in just 15 years by doubling the size of the economy. That is an estimate of many economists who have looked at this. And the FAIR Tax would raise somewhere around $200 billion a year from the underground economy. Beyond these arguments, what will this new paradigm do for our economy? First of all, we have $400 or $500 billion dollars saved every year from compliance costs. That would be less moneys we would have to pay at consumption. The money saved on compliance costs would be put to an efficient and profitable use and create jobs. Our gross domestic product would increase by $180 billion per year because we no longer would have to make tax decisions. Eliminating the income tax would bring down long-term tax rates by 30 percent, and with no tax on capital or labor, and this is key, with no tax on capital or labor, nobody could compete with us in a world economy. We would be selling goods and services in a global economy with a zero tax component in our price system, and to compete with us, every foreign-owned corporation would have to build its next plant in America. An informal study quoted several times by the former chairman of the Ways and Means, Bill Archer, said that a study done of about 400 or 500 European and Japanese firms, they were asked what would you do in terms of your long-term planning if the United States abolished all taxes on capital and labor and taxed only personal consumption? Eighty percent said they would build their next plant in the United States. In fact, we do know that Daimler-Chrysler wanted to be Chrysler-Daimler and wanted to be in New York City. They are in Stuttgart, because of the tax system. Deficits spooked the markets; our markets are down because of deficits. Instead of a 20 percent decline in revenues over the last 3 years or last 4 years, had we been on our system, we would have increased revenues in 14 of the last 15 quarters. Add this to a huge increase in capital investment, making workers more productive and giving them larger take-home pay. We are going to hear a lot on this bill over the next several years, and I believe it will pass because of the economic forces that are coming to bear. I urge my colleagues to read the bill. It is 132 pages, replacing 55,000 pages of statute and regulation. It is not all that complicated. Sooner or later, those who are criticizing might even pick it up and take a look at it. I will enjoy the debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want a system where nobody in the government knows how much you make or how you make it or how you spend it. I want a system that funds us at the current level, consistently, but does not keep track of us and will give you the privilege of anonymity in a free society.

Mr. LINDER. That is correct.

Mr. LINDER. That is correct.

Mr. LINDER. Whatever you choose to do, it is your money. You made it, and you spend it, and you can spend it anonymously without having to go to the government.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, there have been a variety of numbers, I know it is huge. I got all of the regulations at one time in my office and stacked them on the floor up to here, and it was huge. However, it is so complicated that no one understands it. It is correct that, under the law, you have to abide by it, but it is also correct that nobody knows what it is. Money Magazine sent 49 different professional tax preparers the same economic data from a family and asked them to do the tax return and got back 49 different tax returns, none of which was correct. If you call the IRS help line today and ask for help in filling out your own tax return, over half the answers you get will be incorrect. Now, the gentleman mentioned our Founding Fathers rolling over. Just imagine a system where, in 1912 or 1911, they are discussing the income tax, and somebody says, I have an idea, let us punish people for working and saving. Let us tax everybody. Let us make sure that nobody escapes. Let us make sure it is about 36 percent of what they earn. They would never have made it this far. They would never have gotten this far and they would have been laughed out of town.

Mr. LINDER. Since 1986.