John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. LINDER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 260 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. 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 waives clause 4(c) of rule XIII, requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report; section 306, prohibiting consideration of legislation within the Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction unless reported by the Committee on the Budget; and section 401, prohibiting consideration of legislation providing new entitlement authority which becomes effective during the current fiscal year, of the Congressional Budget Act against consideration of the bill. The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bill. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 260 specifically structures consideration of four amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr). These amendments may be offered only by the Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled between the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule also waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report. 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 vote 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 260 also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority Members of the House. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 260 is an open rule similar to those considered for other general appropriations bills. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations bill will have the opportunity to do so. In addition, in order to better manage the debate, the Committee on Rules has structured the debate on four specific amendments: Amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) would prohibit the use of District and Federal funds on a needle exchange program for illegal drugs, or for any payment to any individual or entity who carries out any such program. Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) would prohibit the use of funds contained in this bill from being used to allow joint adoptions by persons who are unrelated by either blood or marriage. Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) would prohibit a minor's possession of tobacco products in the District. And, finally, amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) would prohibit the use of funds from being used to legalize or reduce penalties for the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substance Act. Under this open rule, the House will have the opportunity to exercise its responsibility to address these important social issues facing the District. Rather than avoiding controversial issues like needle exchanges, legalizing marijuana, and adoption by domestic partners, Members of this House will be accountable to their constituents and the people of the District. I am pleased that this open rule will bring these honest policy disputes out into the open so that the American people will know where their representatives stand on these issues that affect them right in their own towns and neighborhoods. I also want to discuss briefly the base bill this rule makes in order. H.R. 2587 appropriates a total of $453 million in Federal funding support for the District, which is $230 million below last year's level and $59 million above the President's request. Additionally, the bill sends $6.8 million in District funds back to the people of Washington, $4 million less than fiscal year 1999 but $40 million more than requested by the President. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations has once again performed admirably, working within the responsible budget limits imposed by the Balanced Budget Act while managing the available resources to best serve the American people. I applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for their hard work to produce this solid legislation. While this bill supports a broad range of District programs, I would like to focus on the bill's important provisions to improve education for the students of Washington, D.C. Specifically the bill provides $17 million for a new scholarship to help District students attend college. It also reduces a number of regulatory barriers to ensure that District students have the chance to explore the opportunity of charter schools. With this legislation, charter schools will have access to construction funds, the schools will have the same opportunity to expand as other public schools, and parents will be able to send all of their children to the same charter school. Good education policy must start at the local level, and this bill empowers local officials to make the tough decisions necessary to move beyond the serious problems that currently plague their schools. Additionally, this bill works with local governments to improve city management, encourages adoptions of children currently in foster care, and enacts the $59 million tax cut passed by the D.C. City Council. This is a responsible bill that makes the Federal Government a partner in D.C. government and helps our Nation's capital move closer to the success and independence that its residents deserve. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2587 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Appropriations as was this open rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of the House version of this bill, and I rise in support of the Lake Oconee Land Exchange Act to improve the management of the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests. For some time, there has been an awkward patchwork of land ownership between the USDA Forest Service and the Georgia Power Company. The current land arrangement includes a meandering boundary around the flood pool of Lake Oconee and even a 173.4 acre tract of Georgia Power land in the middle of the Rich Mountain Wilderness. These twisting boundaries and scattered patches of private and public land make it difficult for Forest Service personnel to efficiently carry out their management activities. This land exchange will allow the Forest Service to consolidate its holdings within the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests, and will simplify the administration of the Forests' borders. This consolidation will be achieved through the Forest Service acquiring one of two remaining non-Federal properties within congressionally designated wilderness areas in North Georgia. Forest boundaries around Lake Oconee will be improved by extending National Forest lands to the water's edge, instead of following the meandering border of the flood pool of the lake. These changes will allow the Forest Service to better manage prescribed burns in the Oconee National Forest. Presently, the Forest Service has to bulldoze trenches along its meandering border with Georgia Power to ensure the controlled fires do not spread to private lands. Bulldozing trenches requires a commitment of valuable personnel and heavy equipment and carries a risk of releasing excessive silt into Lake Oconee. The increased efficiency of management of National Forests allowed by this land exchange will lead to reduced risk to Forest Service personnel and improved preservation of habitat and wildlife. The Forest Service will gain a habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker and a quality trout stream, and the Georgia Nature Conservancy and the Georgia Wildlife Federation have informed me of their support for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this legislation.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for House Resolution 235, a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999. Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing this afternoon is the politics of legislative destruction. There are some in this Congress whose game is to stop important legislation, especially historic legislation, and there should be no doubt that this banking bill is an historic accomplishment. This bill has been painstakingly crafted to achieve a balance between all of the parties, and we have a great opportunity to promote competition, protect consumers and give firms the ability to compete globally as we enter the 21st century, and this rule will hold together the compromise legislation that Members have constructed after many years of hard work. Unfortunately, because some Members did not get everything they wanted, they decided to threaten the passage of the legislation. Earlier this week, we had a strong, bipartisan privacy amendment with Democrat and Republican cosponsors. I sat through 4 hours of testimony in the Committee on Rules yesterday, and leading Democrats on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services argued that this privacy legislation was a great accomplishment and that the language would benefit American consumers. Then last night, because they did not get everything they wanted, some Members took their names off the bipartisan amendment and decided for partisan purposes to jeopardize this important legislation. Perhaps because of this kind of partisan demagoguery, and we are going to hear the minority demagogue privacy and redlining all afternoon, much of the financial services industry remains the same as it was 66 years ago. We have a chance to change the New Deal regulations that locked down certain activities and interests of financial security. H.R. 10 will free the market to determine the future of the financial services industry. I am also surprised that any Member would endanger banking modernization, because the timing of this legislation is critical. American institutions are losing market share to foreign financial institutions. This bill will modernize the industry and relieve U.S. financial institutions of their current international competitive disadvantage. It comes down to this: The philosophy of this Congress is to encourage competition in order to provide more efficient service and superior products to the consumer. We did that in telecommunications. We put market forces to work in crafting Medicare. Today we lay the foundation for a new financial services industry that creates more choices and lower prices for consumers and enables companies to compete in the global marketplace. Are all the interested parties happy with everything in the bill? No, certainly not; including me. There is an amendment that I wish were made in order but it could not be, and that is probably a pretty good indication that we have a good piece of legislation in front of us. I urge all of my colleagues to ignore the demagoguery, understand that there is an effort here to make a partisan victory. Support this rule and pass this historic legislation.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I represent Conyers, Georgia, where the last school shooting occurred. And over the next several hours, every major TV network invited me to be on their morning talk shows to discuss the problem, and I politely declined in each instance. Because I think it is unseemly for political leaders to get on TV that surround personal tragedies to further a personal political agenda. The agenda here is the action the President said is to register all guns. We will have to pass more gun laws, we are told, so kids cannot shoot each other in school yards. And yet we have 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country. In Littleton, they broke 17 gun laws, Federal gun laws, and 7 State gun laws. And one more is supposed to help? Why do we not enforce the gun laws we have? Over the last many months, 6,000 young people were caught illegally bringing guns into schools and 9 have been prosecuted. What good does it do to have more laws on the books if we refuse to prosecute the ones that we have? Let me tell my colleagues something that is not being addressed here. I read on two occasions in the last 2 weeks that of the last 8 kids shooting up school yards, 7 were on drugs, either Ritalin or Prozac or mind-altering drugs, legally on drugs, prescribed drugs. This is a very high percentage, 7 out of 8. There might be some connection here. But nobody wants to talk about that. They want to talk about guns. Well, in Conyers, I stayed off the television and stayed out of people's lives. Because the local officials, the sheriff, the school board chairman, the school superintendent, did just fine. They quelled the anger and the fear, and they did not do it with school psychologists and they did not do it with more school cops. They did it in the churches. They took the kids to the churches and they talked about values and trust and the value of life, all life. I am happy to report that Conyers is doing just fine without my help. We need to focus on other things than guns, and we need to enforce the gun laws that are on the books, and we need not to continue to take advantage of personal tragedy to further political agendas.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the 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, House Resolution 186 provides for consideration of H.R. 1259, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999, a bill that will help to protect the Social Security Trust Fund. House Resolution 186 provides two hours of general debate divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Rules, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides that the bill will be considered as read and provides that the amendment printed in section 2 of the resolution be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, let me start by explaining exactly what this bill will do. First, the bill will establish a parliamentary point of order against any budget resolution utilizing the Social Security surpluses in its spending or revenue proposals. Second, the bill establishes a point of order against any legislation, including spending initiatives and tax cuts, that attempts to use any funds from the Social Security surplus. And third, this bill prohibits the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, or any other Federal Government agency from including Social Security surpluses in Federal budget totals when publishing official documents. Mr. Speaker, it is dishonest to talk openly about a budget surplus when our operating budget is still in deficit. The government continues to borrow money from Social Security, a fact that does not show up on the government's balance sheet but that has dire consequences for the future. This ``lockbox'' takes Social Security away from budget calculations so budget decisions are made only on non-Social Security dollars, a vital first step in ensuring retirement programs will be there for this generation and generations to come. In our response to the President's State of the Union address, the 106th Congress committed itself to saving Social Security. This task has two important components. First, we must ensure that the current system is being managed responsibly by locking away today's contributions and securing the retirement of current beneficiaries. Today, we deliver our first component. Later, we will have to make fundamental reforms to the system to guarantee the program's long-term viability while improving benefits and providing Americans with more control over their retirement savings. We began to fulfill our promise to the bill on the first component when, two months ago, this Congress passed the budget resolution. That resolution outlined our budget goals for the next 10 years and called for the establishment of a ``lockbox'' to reserve the $1.8 trillion in cumulative Social Security surpluses. Today, we follow through on that original blueprint by taking advantage of this historic opportunity to save Social Security by ensuring that 100 percent of the money destined for the Social Security Trust Fund remain in the trust fund, $1.8 trillion over the next decade. Now, we will certainly hear the argument that this legislation is being rushed to the floor. To that I must respond that we have waited far too long for this kind of reform. It is the first time in the history of the program that a Congress will protect Social Security funds. Would opponents rather continue the practices that since 1969 allowed those who ran this Congress to routinely spend the trust funds in order to pay for other government programs and mask the Nation's deficits? While other Congresses have chosen to use surplus Social Security revenues for other ``spending priorities,'' this Congress is proud to be the first to preserve the retirement security of all Americans. With this effort today, we are working to ensure that not one dime of America's Social Security tax dollars are spent on big spending programs. This is also a big improvement over the plan that the President sent to the Congress. His budget only claimed to save 62 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, plainly stating the 38 percent would go to his pet spending initiatives. However, the truth was even worse than that. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and the U.S. Comptroller General have all testified before Congress and soundly refuted the notion that the President's plan saves any additional money for Social Security. Even Democrat Members of Congress have agreed that the President uses a series of fiscal shell games and double-counting schemes to inflate his projected savings for Social Security. In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted that the President's plan actually hurts Social Security by using improper accounting to lend a false sense of security to a program that desperately needs structural reform. H.R. 1259 strengthens Social Security and ensures that big spenders can no longer raid the fund. This bill continues our determined efforts to provide more security and freedom to the American people. It is part of a common sense plan to provide security for the American people by preserving every penny of the Social Security surplus. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with debate and consideration of this historic bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the sponsor of the legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the Chinese proverb that says, ``A thousand mile journey begins with a single step.'' This is that step. For those who say it is not enough, I wonder where they have been for the last 30 years when they could have done more. Nothing like this has been tried before. For those who say it is not enough, I remind them that the Democrats in the Senate killed a tougher one. We would like it to be more. But it is the first step for doing something that has been long overdue. That is to say, if we make a payment in our payroll taxes for our retirement and our health care in our retirement years, it ought to go there. That is all we are saying. And we are going to see that it does go there. I expect this to get a very large vote. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, get the debate under way on the lockbox bill. 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 186 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 158, a fair, structured rule for consideration of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. The Committee on Rules has done its best to accommodate Members who filed amendments with the committee. As has been stated, we have been more than fair in permitting seven Democrat amendments, three Republican amendments and one bipartisan amendment. We faced numerous amendments in the Committee on Rules, and we did our best to allow an open debate on most key issues in dispute. On the substance of the bill, the statistics on U.S. bankruptcy filings are frightening. Bankruptcies have increased more than 400 percent since 1980. In the past, it was possible to blame many bankruptcies on recessions or poor economic situation. Today, however, we face record numbers of bankruptcy filings at a time of economic growth and low unemployment. If we take these factors into account, we can realistically come to only one conclusion: bankruptcies of convenience have provided a loophole for those who are financially able to pay their debts but simply have found a way to avoid personal responsibility and escape their financial responsibilities. This bill is a continuation of our efforts to advance the values of personal responsibility. In the welfare bill, we thought that helping the poor escape the welfare trap, restoring the dignity of work and reviving individual responsibility would help people rise from generation after generation of despair. This bankruptcy bill is the Congress' next step in cultivating personal responsibility and accountability. I expect that we will hear more hollow charges that we are being heartless and cruel. Nonetheless, the abusers of the bankruptcy laws need to receive a message that Federal bankruptcy laws are not a haven for personal fiscal irresponsibility. If a debtor has the ability to pay the debts that have been accumulated, then they must be held accountable. Under this bill, effective and compassionate bankruptcy relief will continue to be available for Americans who need it. But we cannot condone, however, those who file for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 7 and have the capacity to pay at least some of their debts. In order to ensure that those who can pay actually do pay, this legislation set in motion a needs-based mechanism. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the Committee on the Judiciary have done their legislative duty in crafting a bill that ensures the debtor's rights to a fresh start and protects the system from flagrant abuses from those who can pay their bills. This is a great opportunity to equalize the needs of the debtor and the rights of the creditor. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we may pass this important legislation.

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the right time to have this debate. I too wish it would be longer, but this body needs to be heard on this issue. I served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War. At that point we had one nation trying to overtake another nation, and this country thought it was worth the effort to stop it. After 10 years and 58,000 American lives, this body stopped the Vietnam War on a rider on an appropriation bill. We now have a dispute in the Balkans, and it is not one nation against another. There are two bad actors in this. Last year, 2,000 people died in this area. Not nearly as many deaths as those that died in Sierra Leone in January of this year alone, but of the 2,000 that died, nearly a third were Serbs and two-thirds were Kosovars. There are two bad actors in this war. I do not know why we are there. If we are there, why are we not in the Sierra Leone or the Sudan where in 10 years, 2 million people were exterminated in ethnic cleansing? I do not understand our end game, if there is one, and I do not know what victory is. But this body ought to say no. This body ought to say enough of the adventurism. We are the only institution that can declare war, and this administration has admitted that it is at war. This body ought to be heard. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is doing exactly the right thing to raise precisely the right issue, and I hope that this body will pass this rule. I too hope that we will strike section 6; I supported the gentleman from Massachusetts last night in his effort to do so. I think that is a mistake. But after we strike that, I hope we will pass this rule and be heard on this issue. It is exactly the right thing to do.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for too long, our educational system has been handcuffed by the misguided ideas of Federal bureaucrats. For too long our children have been used as pawns in this political game. The time for that to end is now. It is time for us to stop the partisanship, to stop the bickering, and roll up our sleeves and get to work. We cannot, as a Nation, allow our children to become adults without the tools to succeed. The key to unlocking the powers of first- rate education is the freedom to make choices, giving parents the power to choose their children's education. Let us pass the Education Flexibility bill, which was announced just moments ago by the chairman of the committee. It will be on the floor this week. Let us pass the bill to allow the States to move past bureaucratic rules that actually inhibit success and bring new and innovative solutions to their classrooms. This bill will expand education flexibility to all 50 States. It will empower every school district to move past the bureaucracy and do what they believe is best to help their students learn. Let us return education decision-making to those who know what is best for America's students. We will find them in each student's community, not in Washington.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 90, I inadvertently pressed the ``nay'' button. I obviously meant to vote ``aye'' to require a two- third vote by the Congress to raise taxes.

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will put the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) down as ``undecided,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.