John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 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 structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. H. Res. 339 provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives clause 4(a) of Rule XIII, which requires a 3-day layover against consideration of the bill. H. Res. 339 makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified by the amendments recommended by the Committee on Commerce and printed in the bill. The rule provides for consideration of only the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. The rule further provides these amendments will be considered only in the order specified 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 and shall not be subject to amendment. Specifically, the rule makes in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to be debated for 10 minutes and a substitute amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to be debated for 40 minutes. The rule also allows the Chairman to postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question, provided the voting time on the first in any series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. This provision will simply facilitate consideration of amendments. House Resolution 339 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of background, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency decided in late 1997 that delivering, dispensing, prescribing or administering a controlled substance with the deliberate intent of assisting in a suicide violates the Controlled Substance Act or applicable regulations. The regulations stated that a controlled substance must be issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice. However, Attorney General Reno unfortunately decided in 1998 that such usage is now part of the ordinary practice of medicine in Oregon, and therefore exempt from the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Clearly, physician-assisted suicide is a danger to society. I share the views of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, that assisting in a suicide by giving a prescription for a controlled substance cannot be a ``legitimate medical purpose,'' especially when the practice is not reasonable and necessary to the diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury, legitimate health care, or compatible with the physician's role as healer. With this bill, we do want to reaffirm that the Controlled Substances Act does not authorize intentionally using federally regulated drugs to cause the death of a patient. However, this is an important bill because it ensures that we encourage aggressive pain relief for patients, while also reinforcing the current law that administering, dispensing, or distributing a controlled substance for the purpose of assisting in a suicide is not authorized by the Federal Controlled Substances Act. This legislation will promote the responsible use of these drugs for pain control rather than leaving the patients with the impression that suicide is the only option to escape from the pain of a terminal illness. It is unacceptable that we would permit terminally ill patients to think that suicide is the only option because pain relief options are not available to them. Today, we help make improved pain relief an objective in health care institutions across the country by authorizing the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to develop and advance a scientific understanding of palliative care; authorizing a program for education and training in palliative care in the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services; and authorizing additional funding for the palliative care award program beginning in fiscal year 2000. I do want to note that a previous bill in 1998 caused concerns that it might inhibit doctors from prescribing adequate pain relief. H.R. 2260 has been drafted to resolve those concerns. I am very pleased that the interested parties have worked together over the past year and have crafted legislation that will not only encourage doctors to prescribe effective pain management but also encourage alternatives to euthanasia. Today, the National Hospice Association states that ``this legislation is a step toward better awareness of effective pain management techniques and should ultimately change behavior to better serve the needs of terminally ill patients and their families.'' The organization Aging With Dignity states that, ``improving end of life care is the best way to keep legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide away from mainstream America. Doctors can treat their patients and lessen their pain, and this needs to happen now. This law will help them do that.'' These groups join the American Medical Association, the Coalition of Concerned Medical Professionals, Physicians for Compassionate Care, the American Academy of Pain Management, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists in supporting H.R. 2260. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the cosponsor, for their efforts in sponsoring this excellent piece of bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2260 was favorably reported out of both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce, as was the rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the merits of this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 339 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for a point of clarification, I yield myself 30 seconds to make this point. What the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said was that this bill does not provide any new or additional penalties that are already not extant. This is nothing changed. Those penalties can occur today. He made the point very clear, I thought, that the whole point of this bill is to not allow States on their own to exempt themselves from Federal laws with respect to controlled substances.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of response, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At the risk of sounding remedial, I would like to point out to my friend from Ohio that he will have ample opportunity to vote against the bill when the bill comes up. It is not going to be any more defeated by calling for two additional votes. I encourage my colleagues to come to the floor and vote ``yes'' on the previous question, ``yes'' on the rule and then give them the opportunity to debate the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for the purpose of a response.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 335 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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, H. Res. 335 is a typical rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2670, the conference report for the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration, and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. House rules provide 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. I want to discuss briefly the conference report that this rule makes in order. The conference report appropriates a total of $37.8 billion for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Federal judiciary and 18 related agencies, and focuses on the enhancement of numerous crime enforcement and crime reduction initiatives. First, I want to say that I am pleased that the bill provides $3 billion for State and local law enforcement assistance so that local officials can successfully continue their efforts to fight crimes against our citizens. This provision is $37 million more than last year, including $287 million for juvenile crime and prevention programs; $523 million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, which was terminated in the President's request; $250 million for the Juvenile Accountability and Intensive Block Grant, which was also terminated in the President's request; $686 million for Truth in Sentencing State Prison Grants, which the President also requested we terminate. Conferees also provided $552 million for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant program, which was $92 million more than the President requested. I am also pleased that the committee has provided $3 billion in direct funding, a $460 million increase over FY 1999, to enforce our immigration laws. The conferees have included funding for 1,000 new border patrol agents, increased detention of criminal and illegal aliens, and the continuation of naturalization backlog reduction and interior enforcement initiatives. The conference report also includes $585 million to reimburse States for the incarceration of illegal aliens. Finally, I want to point out the good work done by the committee in providing $1.3 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration to continue the fight against drugs in our neighborhoods. This $70 million increase over last year indicates our commitment to win the war on drugs, and I commend the committee for this increase and funding enhancements to bolster this Nation's enforcement strategy and drug intelligence capabilities. This rule was favorably reported by the Committee on Rules yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support the rule today on the floor so we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of this important conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 333 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 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, House Resolution 333 provides that the House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 3064, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, and agrees to a conference with the Senate on the bill. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is intended to move the appropriations process forward. H.R. 3064 was not reported by the Committee on Appropriations, therefore no motion to go to conference could be authorized by the committee. Usually these motions are approved by unanimous consent; however, as their latest attempt to obstruct our ability to pass responsible appropriations measures and save the Social Security surplus, the minority refused to grant such a request yesterday. Normally, motions to go to conference require an hour of debate on the floor. By calling up this resolution, we have ensured that the motion will receive a full and fair debate and the same vote that could be requested under regular order. The resolution also does not preclude the right of Members to be recognized for another hour of debate on a motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, to date, the President has vetoed or threatened to veto 4 of the 13 appropriations bills representing $133 billion in Federal spending. The reason of him vetoing the bills is that they do not spend enough. Of course, on the same day, the President regularly gives himself credit for the surplus and challenges Congress to preserve the Social Security Trust Fund that he himself is trying to spend. Rather than issue the daily veto threats to our fiscally responsible appropriations bills, we believe the President should help Congress preserve Social Security and maintain our balanced budget. I hope that this conference will be the first step toward a cooperative budget process that will result in a balanced budget and a secure future for America's seniors. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, today a Dear Colleague letter was sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet next week to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 2, the ``dollars to the classroom act of 1999.'' The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments to H.R. 2 be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be preprinted prior to their consideration on the floor. Amendments should be drafted to the version of the bill reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. A second Dear Colleague letter was also sent to all Members today informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet next week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2300, the ``academic achievement for all act.'' The Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered H.R. 2300 reported on October 13 and is expected to file its committee report on Monday, October 18. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in Room H-312 of the Capitol by 2 p.m. on Tuesday, October 19. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Copies of the bill may be obtained from that committee. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments to both bills are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 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 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, House Resolution 330 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3064, the D.C. appropriation bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Additionally, the rule waives all points of order against the bill. House Resolution 330 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority of the House. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 330 is a closed rule recognizing the full and fair debate that the House had on similar legislation on July 27, 1999. This rule will assist the House to move forward in the appropriations process. I regret that it is necessary to bring another appropriations measure to the floor to fund the District of Columbia. As my colleagues know, Congress sent a bill to President Clinton on September 16 of this year that funded the District government at levels above those requested by the President and with almost no changes from the bill he signed a year earlier. Unfortunately, the President used this bill to send an early message to Congress and the American people he would be playing politics with the budget again this year. The precursor to the underlying legislation, H.R. 2587, appropriated the total of $429 million in Federal funding support for the District, 35 million above the President's request. The bill sent 6.8 billion in District funds back to the people of Washington, $40 million more than was requested by the President. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, this was not enough. I was very disappointed when the President vetoed the District funding bill, but I was most surprised by the issue cited by the President in his veto message. The President chose to put a bizarre agenda of free needles and legalized drugs over the interests of the citizens of Washington, D.C. He vetoed it because it would not allow the District to distribute needles to drug addicts or legalize marijuana. The President's intent to allow the District to use Federal dollars to fund needle exchanges is only the latest time he has been on the wrong side of this issue. Last year Secretary Shalala indicated the Clinton administration would lift the ban on Federal funding, but when the drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, denounced the move saying it would sanction drug use, the White House upheld the Federal ban but continues to trumpet the effectiveness of needle exchange programs. This clever triangulation technique saved him from a political debacle; but it exposed his true convictions on this issue. What kind of message do we send to our kids when our government tells them not to do drugs, but then supplies them with needles? As noted by the Heritage Foundation's Joe Loconte, quote, ``The Clinton administration has tacitly embraced a profoundly misguided notion that we must not confront drug abusers on moral grounds. Instead we should use medical interventions to minimize the harm and the behavior it invites,'' close quotes. Such a policy ignores that drug addiction is an illness of the soul as much as the body. We, as a Nation, have a responsibility to set moral and legal standards that demand responsible behavior and enabling drug users to engage in illegal behavior does nothing to end their tragic addiction or stop the spread of drugs in America. Another reason President Clinton vetoed this bill is because he believes the District residents should be allowed to legalize marijuana. Not only does the President want D.C. residents to be able to use marijuana, but he also wants them to be able to grow it for their friends. Once again his own drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, has said that, quote, ``Smoked marijuana is not medicine. It has no curative impact at all,'' close quotes. In fact, the drug czar advises against using marijuana for medical purposes, exactly the language used in the D.C. referendum. Still, the President vetoed the D.C. appropriations bill over this issue. This completely undercuts the consistent and responsible ``Just Say No'' message by General McCaffrey and Congress who are working to keep illegal drugs out of our schools and off our streets. Over the last several months Congress and the President have been debating over the best way to spend the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. We have talked about education, Social Security, and our national defense. We have a lot of differences on these issues, but this is something I had hoped that we could agree on. Spending taxpayer dollars to fuel the habit of drug addicts is not only irresponsible, it is wrong. There was a time when the President agreed that these provisions made sense. That time was 1 year ago when the President signed into law a District appropriations bill that contained the same responsible restrictions on Federal funds. This year, though, President Clinton has changed his tune and set aside the war on drugs for a war in Congress. I doubt the American people would consider this move a valuable use of public funds. Some of my colleagues on the other side are going to use today's rule as an opportunity to harass this Congress and its leadership, but the real lack of leadership here is in the White House. When thousands of police officers work the streets every day to rid our Nation of drugs, they should at least be able to expect that the chief law enforcement officer in the land supports them and the laws that they protect. Congress has worked with the President on some of the objections he raised to the bill, but this Congress will not be moved from its conviction that legalized drugs and enabling drug users sends all the wrong messages to our young people as they wrestle with these issues in our communities back home. I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his admirable work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At this time I would like to point out to my friend from Texas (Mr. Frost) that making this administration look bad on drug policies is the easiest thing we can do. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).