John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to take a moment to point out to my colleague from Texas that no Democrat submitted a request for a waiver on amendment. The ones that were denied were only Republican amendments. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule so we can begin the important debate on the Washington, D.C. Appropriations bill for 2001. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). (Mr. FLETCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to urge Members to support both the previous question and the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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, House Resolution 560 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4871, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2001. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority Member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bills, with regard to the bill. Additionally, this rule accords priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. This encourages Members to take advantage of the option to facilitate consideration of amendments and to inform Members of the details of pending amendments. The rule also provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the Chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, provided that the votes immediately follow another recorded vote, and that the voting time on the first in a series of votes is not less than 15 minutes. House Resolution 560 also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of minority Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 560 is an open rule, similar to those considered for other appropriations bills. It will afford a fair and complete debate on the issues surrounding the underlying legislation. H.R. 4871 continues the trend of this Congress by funding our national priorities while ensuring fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. The bill increases funding for $678 million over last year's appropriation, placing a priority on enhancing law enforcement priorities such as school violence prevention, international child pornography trafficking, and strict enforcement of our existing gun laws. The bill also continues our commitment to the war on drugs by maintaining spending for drug technology transfers to our allies in the fight against narcotraffickers; ensuring ongoing efforts to partner with local law enforcement and providing an additional $12.5 million to attack drug smuggling across our borders. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4871 funds 40 percent of the law enforcement activities of the Federal Government, and it successfully maximizes the impact of America's investment in those worthy initiatives. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his hard work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this fair, open rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for a parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, that is a gracious and kind statement from the gentleman. I thank him very much.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing this proposal to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I met Paul Coverdell in 1972. He was one of 22 or 23 members of the State Senate who were Republicans, out of 56 members, and 3 years later I was one of 19 members, I believe it was, out of 180 members in the Georgia House who were Republicans. And Paul never stopped a moment from trying to build a party, to be competitive, not because he thought Republicans were better than Democrats, but he thought more Republicans would make the Democrats better. Paul had an unbelievable appetite for work, and those who worked with him understand that he had one failing in that appetite, and that was that he always wanted to have meetings. Whatever he came up with, he called a meeting. I recall helping him in 1977 in the race the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) referred to, a special election. I said, Paul, how can I help you? He said, we are having a meeting at 5:30. I showed up at his office and we talked strategy for an hour; and then I said, I have to get going and distribute some of this literature. And he said, well, we are going to have another meeting tomorrow at 5:30. I said, No, you, are going to have a meeting at 5:30; I am going to be out doing work. He did that because he did not want to go off on his own on any issue and he wanted to talk things through. It was not uncommon to hear the phone ring at 11:30 at night, and when I answered it, it would be, John, Paul, I have to talk to you about something; and he would talk for a long time. I would play tennis, he would study politics and policy. To him they were exactly the same. Politics and policy were not separate issues. He cared about them both and he cared nothing about attention for his successes. There is a reason why we did not see him on TV a lot because he preferred to work very quietly, very much behind the scenes, bringing people together, building coalitions as no one has in my lifetime. I woke up this morning and thought there is a huge hole in my life, because Paul has been a large part of it for 25 years; and he will be missed. I am sad that most of America will not know how much he is missed because his work was so quiet and so behind the scenes. I thought a little while ago, when I was talking to a reporter about this, that I cannot think of a single former friend of Paul Coverdell's, not a single friend, who ever left his side in anger, because he was such a decent and gentle man. He has people working for him today in volunteer capacities who have been with him since 1970. They are still there because he was such a decent and gentle man, and he included them, gave them opportunities to excel, gave them their head and let them achieve, and then let them get the credit. They are all there, too, to this day. His loyalty to the people around him got that loyalty back from them. I am sad beyond words. There is little left that we can do but to say to Nancy and his mother and loved ones and staff that we offer ourselves as poor substitutes for their beloved Paul, and urge upon them the words of the Psalmist, who, feeling the pain that we here today feel, was moved to write ``The Lord is close to the brokenhearted, and those who are crushed in spirit, he saves.''

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for taking this time, Mr. Speaker. I have known Paul Coverdell since 1972. There was not an important project in politics or policy that went on in Georgia in the last 28 years in which he was not involved, very often very quietly, very much behind the scenes. Lynne and I have been friends with him and Nancy since they were married. We want Nancy to know that our prayers are with them. We hope Paul recovers and gets back here. His country needs him.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be noted in the Record that on June 23, 2000, I intended to vote nay on Roll Call No. 372, final passage of H.R. 1304, the Quality Health Care Coalition Act.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. There is a gentleman at Rutgers University named Dr. Troy who has been studying spending in campaigns for 20 years. What he said is that in the last two cycles, 1996 and 1998, labor unions spent between $400 million and $600 million. If they are in our neighborhoods knocking on doors, they were paid by labor unions. This bill does not touch that. This bill yields them all they want. They totally cover all that the Republican committees do combined, and there was an original bill that covered all the spending by all the groups, labor unions, right-to-life, political parties, and it was determined by a variety of folks, including our friend Senator McCain, that this is a poison pill. If we include labor unions, Democrats cannot vote for it, and therefore, it is not bipartisan and we cannot pass that. Excuse me. If Members want to have disclosure, I think we should have total disclosure, including all that the unions spend all the rest spend. I want to notify my friends, this is a suspension. One-third of the votes will kill this bill. We ought to do it.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me just deal with three points. None of us want our constituents to suffer illness because of air. But let us talk about what actually was said in the court. The D.C. Circuit specifically noted that EPA's arguments on the health effects of changing from the 1-hour rule to the 8-hour rule for the 1997 standard were bizarre. That is the court's response. Bizarre. The EPA itself argued during the trial that the health effects were irrelevant to the development of the rule, and EPA's own final rule on the 8-hour standard notes that quantitative risk assessment could not be developed. This is the EPA speaking. With respect to the transportation issue and the highway funds, in the Clean Air Act a nonattainment designation, which the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) referred to, triggers the conformity process. Under this process, a region can lose all access to its Federal highway funds even if it is in conformity. No EPA enforcement actions are necessary to trigger conformity. Only a nonattainment designation is needed to threaten a region's highway funding. The Federal DOT directs all enforcement during this process. Finally, let me say that this is not unprecedented. The gentleman from New York voted for this 2 years ago. In TEA-21, we had a provision that stayed the rules, that stayed the designation process for 1 year; and we had that because we thought the court would be completed within 1 year. All Members who voted for TEA-21 voted for this moratorium, 297 Members strong. Unfortunately, the delay was not long enough. We will just be extending it until the court finally decides.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think the crocodile tears the gentleman from New York has for the number of hospital admissions must come from a bad dream, because the EPA said to the court there is no way for us to quantify the health statistics with their new rule. The EPA wants to move forward with designating areas, and the gentleman says that is not going to hurt anyone. But let me tell my colleagues what happens when designations are made. Highway funds stop under the Clean Air Act. Yes, highway funds stop, not because of enforcement but because of designation. Fewer loans are extended to businesses. A mountain of lawsuits from environmental groups, who are now given standing, are filed against States and localities. Many more thousands of dollars are spent by States and localities to comply with the designation process, not the enforcement process. News articles labeling regions as polluted, using standards that are unenforceable, will occur, and businesses moving or expanding will go elsewhere. Finally, an effective designation triggers a conformity process under the Clean Air Act. That clearly means hundreds of billions of dollars in highway funds lost. This is real. The EPA ought to abide by the court decision.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 527 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 Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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, House Resolution 527 is a fair rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4201, the Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act of 2000. H. Res. 527 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. In addition, the rule provides for the consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in the Congressional Record, if offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) or his designee, which shall be considered as read, debatable for 1 hour equally divided between proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, like most Members, I have been contacted by a number of my constituents regarding the Federal Communication Commission's ruling on religious programming. By way of background, since 1952, the FCC has reserved a limited number of television channels for educational broadcasters, known as noncommercial education channels, provided that the nonprofit groups, including religious organizations, can show that they will devote more than half of their programming to general education purposes. However, in the December 29, 1999, ruling granting a noncommercial educational television station license, the FCC included a section on ``additional guidance'' and ruled that programming largely ``devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally held religious views and beliefs'' would not count as educational. I am disheartened that the FCC initially believed that religious programs do not serve the educational, instructional, and cultural needs of the community as defined by NCE regulations. I have no doubt that the millions of Americans who attend and watch church services find culture and education in the teachings of a sermon. I am pleased, however, that the FCC has since vacated its order. Despite the fact that the decision has been reversed, many Members did, I know, have concerns about the FCC's interpretation of the law in this matter. In addition, we are concerned that the FCC ruled without the benefit of public comment, taking unilateral action without consulting those who would be affected. Moreover, in clarifying NCE television rules, the FCC established a new benchmark for evaluating the content of religious broadcasts. In effect, the FCC created a precedent that could have required the FCC to monitor and evaluate religious programming and decide what is educational. Mr. Speaker, I find this course of action intrusive and question a decision that replaces programming decisions based on the community with FCC guidance. This is why we need to consider H.R. 4201 this morning. This bill ensures that the FCC does not engage in regulating the content of speech broadcast by noncommercial education stations, except by means of a formal agency rulemaking. This is responsible legislation that will answer the policy questions that arose following the FCC decision on this matter. Nonetheless, there is an amendment that deserves consideration of the House on the House floor. In the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) offered an amendment to amend the bill, and the rule we had before us will permit the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) the opportunity to offer his substitute amendment. I also want to applaud the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Mississippi, my friend (Mr. Pickering), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for the work on this legislation. I encourage every Member to support this fair rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers. If the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) is prepared to yield back, I will yield back.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) to clarify some information for the gentleman from New York.

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, today I rise in support of an amendment the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and I plan to offer later today to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The amendment would simply ensure that Federal, State and local governments do not waste precious taxpayer dollars on air quality standards that have been rendered unenforceable by a Federal appeals court. This would not be the first time the Congress has done this. In 1998, the 105th Congress passed TEA-21 which included language that extended the designation time line for a year because the matter was in court. That time line has now run out. Two hundred ninety-seven Members of this House supported that language. This change recognized both the burdens placed on States and localities by these standards and the need to stop any process that would interfere with litigation surrounding the standards. The gentleman from Georgia and I bring our amendment before the House today in the same spirit. We have no interest in preventing reasonable clean air standards from being enforced. We just want to make sure that the Supreme Court has an opportunity to rule in the case first. Continue the congressional tradition of holding harmless our constituents while the lawyers and bureaucrats debate the merits of policy. Support the Linder-Collins amendment today.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have got to comment on the fact that the Democrats seem to rather talk about campaign finance reform on this than relieving America from an insidious tax, an immoral tax, a tax on what they accumulated through their lifetime and want to pass on to their children. Next to the gift tax, it is the least moral tax. But they would rather talk about 527 organizations that are used in campaigns. Their indignation, while seeming real, seems also very selective. Where were they when the peace action 527 was hammering Republicans? Ben and Jerry's has a 527 trying to cut the Pentagon budget. I did not hear them talk about them. The AFL/CIO has been using them for years, and the Sierra Club spent millions on issue ads in 1996 through their 527. I did not hear anybody up here hollering about them. But guess what? The Republicans copied their practice, formed a 527, and all of a sudden it is a threat to democracy. It is a threat to democracy. This indignation is too selective to be seen as real. Let us pass this rule and move on with doing the right thing for the American people.