John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 77 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 514, the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act, a bill that will improve wireless communication privacy and make it more difficult for scanners to be altered for unlawful purposes. H. Res. 77 is a wide-open rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of Rule 13 which requires a 3-day layover for committee reports, and the rule provides that each section of the bill shall be considered as read. H. Res. 77 further allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question provided voting time on the first in any series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, when an American citizen picks up his telephone, we want to believe that the right to privacy is protecting us. Unfortunately, the rapid advance of technology permits the interception of phone calls rather easily, and relatively simple modifications to devices can provide anyone with an electronic stocking device. The bill before us today is designed to ensure that the current penalties for intercepting and divulging communications are strengthened. It is important to note that many consumers are not even aware that current penalties even exist, and current law unfortunately encourages a relaxed attitude among those who casually intercept communications. As a result, this bill will improve the enforcement of privacy laws by increasing penalties for violators and encouraging the use of warning labels by the manufacturers of scanners and parts. The bill also addresses the concern that current prohibitions on the manufacture of scanners capable of receiving cellular frequencies do not extend to other wireless technology such as personal communications and paging services. In addition, current statutes require both interception and divulgence of communications to trigger a violation, which again engenders a relaxed attitude among those that intercept communications. To fix the weakness in the current statute, H.R. 514 will protect privacy and provide effective enforcement mechanisms. A point of concern has been made about police, fire and other emergency service communications, and I do believe that the assistance of the emergency service personnel should not be interrupted. It is my understanding that language in the committee report will explain that nothing in the bill is intended to interfere with the lawful reception of these emergency communications. Finally, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for her hard work in drafting this legislation. She has played an instrumental role in guiding this bill through the committee process and deserves special recognition for leadership on this issue. I certainly expect that her management of this bill on the House floor today will ensure its passage with the support of an overwhelming majority of Members. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 514 will directly improve wireless communications privacy, and this legislation was approved by the Committee on Commerce without amendment by voice vote. We will have ample time to discuss the merits of the bill during the general debate later today. This is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of this bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, to sit and listen to all these wonderful speeches about saving Medicare and Social Security is a wonderful thing, but the President's proposal does not do what they say it is going to do. The President's proposal does not change structurally Social Security and Medicare. It just puts a bunch of cash in after a system that is failing because fewer people are going to work and more people are retiring. Indeed, the President's budget borrows $800 billion out of the Social Security Trust over the next 10 years and puts IOUs in its place. Is that not what we have been doing for the last 30 years? Is that not what we are trying to get out of, borrowing from Social Security and putting IOUs in place? Indeed, the President's budget increases spending by a trillion dollars over 10 years and adds $800 billion to the national debt. This is hardly saving anything. If we want to save Social Security and Medicare, we are going to have to make structural reforms, structural reforms that extend not into the next 10 years but in the next generation and beyond. Allowing workers to put their own money into investments over time will do that, and the President is not proposing that at all.

Mr. LINDER

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. 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 76 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 438, the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. H. Res. 76 is a wide-open rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of Rule 13 which by rule requires a 3-day layover for the committee report. H. Res. 76 further allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority and recognition to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to the consideration. The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any proposed postponed question provided that the voting time on the first in any series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 438 will promote public safety and consistency in the provision of emergency services through the universal use of 911 and enable States to develop the necessary communications infrastructure to provide such emergency services. Millions of American already know that 911 is the number to dial when they are in trouble and need emergency assistance. However, for thousands of miles across the country this is simply not true. Other numbers are used or no emergency system exists at all. H.R. 438 helps to end the confusion and makes 911 the universal emergency number. This change is particularly important for wireless phones which often use other numbers, such as pound-77 or star-55, to link to local law enforcement. However, these codes can change from one cellular calling area to another, effectively eliminating the speed and safety that such a number can provide in emergency. H.R. 438 will make 911 the universal call for help that is already believed to be, so that public service is not jeopardized. H.R. 438 will also help to develop the full capability of wireless communications by enhancing the ability of local authorities to locate distressed individuals through information provided by wireless carriers. It also contains the necessary privacy protections to ensure that this capability is not misused. With the passage of H.R. 438, Americans will know, once and for all, how to get help when they need it. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 438 easily passed the Committee on Commerce by voice vote, as did this open rule from the Committee on Rules. I applaud the hard work put forth by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) on this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 76 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am not certain how many Americans heard well the President's recent speeches, but his comments spoke volumes about his views of freedom. It also addressed the great political debate going on in this country today which has been going on since 1994, and it can be summed up on a bumper sticker: ``Who Decides, Washington or You?'' The President, in Buffalo shortly after the State of the Union address, was discussing the surplus, a huge surplus, nearly $5 trillion over the next 15 years, to be collected by the government above and beyond what we need to spend to continue the government, and this is what he said: ``We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right, but----'' That says volumes. The President then proceeded to imply he really cannot give it back to the American people because government makes wiser choices than they do. He does not trust the American people to make these choices on their own behalf. He has embraced in whole cloth, it seems to me, the theme of the 1958 book by John Kenneth Galbraith entitled, ``The Affluent Society.'' The entire theme of that book is this: It is not that Americans have too little, they have too much, that they make bad choices with their dollars, and it is the obligation of an educated government to tax those dollars from them and make better choices on their behalf. Who decides, Washington or you? That is the debate we are in. That is the debate on taxes. Looking at nearly $5 trillion in surpluses over the next 15 years, the President proposed 40 new mandatory spending programs, adding new discretionary spending programs and not one penny for tax relief. Indeed, it does not even protect Social Security because we are increasing the debt to Social Security by about $1 trillion over 10 years that the government will owe it. In a recent book entitled, ``The Vision of the Anointed,'' Thomas Sowell points out that for so long as we have had free people, we have had among them those anointed with the vision of how to spend their money, how to make their choices for them. That is the debate we are in. The President would like to shape a future with your money for our children and grandchildren that is warm and secure and fair. Our side says, ``We don't know how to do that.'' I could not satisfy 10 percent of America because everyone comes to the table with different hopes and dreams and aspirations. I can shape a future that my daughter would love and my son would hate. So our side says, no, leave those choices in your pockets; and you and 270 million other Americans, acting on your own behalf hundreds of times a week, will shape the future. We trust you to shape that future. We believe in the Ronald Reagan principle: It is not the function of government to bestow happiness. That is your job. And if we can get the government out of your way and let you have more freedom and more opportunity, you will choose a future that most of America will not only enjoy but thrive in. We would like to do that beginning right now by letting you keep more of what you earn, not collecting $300 billion a year more than it takes us to run the government, and let you shape the future for us.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the amendment of my friend from New York (Mr. Boehlert). Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment, by removing the vote which would give this House an opportunity to decide whether it wanted to proceed on a bill, takes all of the enforcement measures out of the bill and returns us to the status quo ante that is anti 1996. In 1996, my colleagues will recall, we passed unfunded mandates on the public sector. We said if we are going to impose costs on other government entities, we ought to know what it was, and if it exceeded $50 million across the country, we would have a debate on that and then vote as to whether to proceed. We did not shut down anything. Since January 1 of 1996 there have been seven times when the point of order has been raised, and all seven times this House listened to both sides determined to move forward with the bill and pass the bill. The language that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) would like to insist on would leave us right where we are right now. Since 1983, according to the CBO director in testimony before the Committee on Rules, the CBO has been doing analysis on how Federal legislation would affect State and local governments and the private sector. But as they told us in the hearing, nobody paid attention to it because there are no teeth in the measure, and indeed at the CBO these estimates became a low priority because they knew no one was paying attention to it. To argue that this would unfairly bias the debate in favor of one side or the other is also a silly argument, looking back at the seven times when the point of order has been imposed or asserted in the past 3 years. We will also hear throughout this debate that while we will be discussing the cost to the private sector, which is under the bill if it imposes $100 million in costs on the private sector, it is then amenable to a point of order. We will hear them say we will be discussing the costs, but not the benefits. That presumes arguments occur in vacuums, and this has not happened in this House in the past 3 years. The reason we will have these arguments is because there will be a huge argument on behalf of the benefits, on behalf of the need to move forward, while others will just be saying but be aware of what costs we are imposing on the private sector. In my view this is only fair. For too many years, for far too many years, this Congress has voted for warm and fuzzy good things and chose not to tax the American people for it, to pass those burdens on to other levels of government or the private sector. We think that it is only fair if we are going to pursue good things, whether they are warm and fuzzy or not, that we ought to know how much it costs. A simple example of this is not the private sector, but it was discussed this morning in a meeting, was that years ago this House decided that we would impose mandates for special education on the local school systems. Good idea, probably necessary idea, but the bill also said that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the costs for that. We have never ever funded that. We just passed that on to my colleagues' communities throughout their districts, and their school systems are paying that. We would have had a point of order against that, had it occurred in the last 3 years under the Portman-Condit legislation that we passed. We also think it is fair that we have that same point of order and the opportunity to vote on it if we impose burdens on the private sector. I am curious to know why the gentleman from New York is so worried about an open discussion and the need to be taking a stand on these issues with respect to a vote to move forward. It has not stopped any other legislation in the past, but it has done a couple of things. Committees now are aware of costs they are imposing and think through the legislation that they are writing. In the past they were not doing that even under the testimony from the Congressional Budget Office director. We think that is good because a lot of things do happen in this town that are unknown in terms of its impact on both the private sector and the public sector. We ought to know that. We ought to discuss it. All of this, all this bill is going to do, is to say it is just as important not to burden the private sector with our wishes as it is the public sector, and if we are going to burden them, at least know that we are doing it, move to vote to move forward. The Boehlert amendment would eliminate that vote which, of course, he knows is to take away the teeth from the bill, and I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waxman amendment because it creates a hurdle in this legislation that need not be. He argues that when benefits arise from an action of Congress it does not have the same debate as the cost, and that is simply just not a fair or honest argument, simply because nobody brings a bill to the floor for benefits without making that the base of the entire bill. The basis of the entire bill for bringing benefits to our constituents or the consumer is the basis of the argument and the debate. All we are saying in this bill is if that benefit one wants to give to the consumers or to the constituents in their district imposes costs on the private sector, that we are unwilling to tax our constituents to pay, that ought to be subject to a point of order for debate. That is all, subjected to a point of order for debate. We are interested, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said, in putting hurdles in the way of imposing costs on the private sector; hurdles, not roadblocks, not stoppages but hurdles. As I said in the debate over the previous amendment, the 1995 legislation that enacted unfunded mandates legislation with respect to $50 million of cost on the private sector went into effect on the 1st of January 1996. We have had 3 years to see the benefits of that provision. On seven occasions, I think it is four by one party and three by another party, the point of order has been raised. In all seven cases, this House voted. After listening to the debate in terms of the cost imposed on the public sector or local or state governments on the one hand and the benefits of the legislation on the other hand, this House moved on seven occasions to move forward with the debate and voted indeed on those mandates. An argument has been made that we have imposed burdens and restrictions on environmental issues through riders on bills, but those riders are already subject to a point of order. That is legislating on an appropriations measure. There is in the rule book of this House a provision that says any legislating in an appropriations bill is subject to a point of order. That has already been handled. There is no question in some instances there has been a waiver of those points. That is a debate for the Committee on Rules and that debate is carried out between the two parties and between the opposing views in the Committee on Rules before those riders or those points of order are waived. Lastly, let me just deal with an argument that has come up over and over in both the Committee on Rules hearings and the Committee on Rules debate and on this floor. We are told that this is an effort to repeal current environmental health and safety measures. That is simply not the case. I am reminded of a comment made by, I believe it was Aldous Huxley, who, in responding to an argument, he said, your argument is not right. It is not even wrong. It is irrelevant. Those points are simply irrelevant to this bill. What we are only saying is, legislation that is good for the safety, the health or the environment of our constituents will get to this floor. It will have a broad debate on the benefits but if it imposes costs on the private sector, costs that we are unwilling to step up to the plate on this floor and vote for in terms of taxes on our constituents, we ought to have the debate on that, too. We ought to have an informed debate. We ought to make a vote on the floor of this House to move forward with that debate on the benefits of the bill so that not only this House but the rest of the world will know that we know we are imposing those costs; we think that the benefits outweigh costs and we are willing to move ahead anyway. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is an effort to slow down progress; to do for the private sector what we have already done for the public sector. I urge a no vote on the Waxman amendment.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out that the use of riders on an appropriations bill is hardly a new invention of the last four years. The Vietnam War funding was ended by a Democrat rider on an appropriations bill.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 36 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a new member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act of 1999, is a procedures bill designed to make Congress more accountable and provide Members with the most factual information possible before voting on legislation. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House, and as chairman of that subcommittee, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this important bipartisan reform legislation. Two of our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) were the main proponents four years ago of the intergovernmental mandates legislation that was one of the first bills passed in the 104th Congress with 394 votes from both sides of the aisle. Today, they both deserve great credit for their tireless hard work to amend that act in an effort to provide more accurate information to Members during the course of debate. The intergovernmental mandates bill provided a point of order for intergovernmental mandates over $50 million. This act has worked incredibly well. My subcommittee heard testimony from the director of the Congressional Budget Committee who said that he had been doing mandate estimates for years, but nobody really paid attention to them and to the costs until the 1995 mandates bill. Now we have the opportunity to force Members and committees to pay attention to the costs on businesses and consumers. The bipartisan Condit-Portman private mandates bill will simply force Members to review reliable information from the CBO. By compelling CBO estimates and requiring a question of consideration on the House floor on certain legislation, this legislation should serve an effective role in increasing congressional accountability by requiring Congress to be informed fully of the effect of mandates before enacting them into law. As I stated during the rule debate, the bill we have before us today is almost identical to the bipartisan bill that passed the House by a vote of 279 to 132 in the last Congress. And like the 65 percent of the Members who supported this bill last year, H.R. 350 is supported by the National Governors Association, the Conference of Mayors, the National Conference of State Legislators, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Taxpayers Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the American Farm Bureau. The list goes on and on, a list which I will submit for the Record. Supporters of H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act National Governors' Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties, National Taxpayers Union, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, American Farm Bureau, Small Business Legislative Council, Citizens for a Sound Economy, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, Small Business Survival Committee, Associated Builders and Contractors, American Subcontractors Association, National Association of the Self-Employed, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National Roofing Contractors Association, American Dental Association, American Rental Association, Food Distributors International, National Association of Homebuilders, Conference of Mayors, Council of State Governors and International Managers. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Chairman, 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. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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, 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, House Resolution 36 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act of 1999, a bill that will expand the prior 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to improve congressional deliberation and public awareness on proposed private sector mandates. H. Res. 36 is a wide open rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act prohibiting consideration of legislation within the Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction unless reported by the Committee on the Budget. The bill also waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII requiring a 3-day layover of the committee report. The rule considers the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules, now printed in the bill, as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which is considered as read. The rule provides, further, that it waives points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. H. Res. 36 further allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration. The rule also allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in any series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by explaining exactly what this bill will do. First, the bill amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to require committee reports to include a statement from the Congressional Budget Office estimating the impact of private sector mandates on consumers, workers and small businesses. Second, if the CBO cannot prepare an estimate, the bill allows a point of order against consideration of the bill. Third, if legislation contains a private sector mandate the direct cost of which exceeds $100 million, this bill also allows a point of order against consideration of the legislation. In both cases the point of order triggers a 20-minute debate on the costs and benefits of a legislative measure before the House votes to continue. The argument has been made that this bill will result in delaying tactics. Mr. Speaker, the current bill has been in effect for over three years and the point of order has been utilized seven times, four times by Republicans and three times by Democrats. That is a pretty good balance. Nonetheless, H.R. 350 constrains the Chair from recognizing more than one point of order with respect to a private sector mandate for any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report. The one vote limit per legislative measure should provide sufficient opportunity for Members to receive the best available information on the cost of a bill. Mr. Speaker, the intergovernmental mandates legislation was one of the first bills passed by the 104th Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. That law, designed to provide information about mandates on State and local governments, passed the House with 394 votes and has proven to be quite useful in providing accurate information during the course of floor debate. I chaired a joint hearing of the two Committees on Rules subcommittees on Tuesday in which we examined H.R. 350 and efforts to expand upon the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. We have now had 3 full years to observe how that law has worked, and it has worked well. We heard from the acting director of the congressional Committee on the Budget who stated that the 1995 act had been a useful tool in congressional deliberation. The CBO director said he had been doing mandates estimates for years, but no one really paid any attention to the costs until we passed the 1995 mandates bill. That is all the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has done, and that is all that this bill will do. It will force Members to review reliable information from the Congressional Budget Office. This information has increased not only Member consciousness of the costs of legislation, but increased public awareness, and that is why we are here today. In an effort to make the original unfunded mandates legislation a more valuable information tool to advise Members on private sector mandates, the Mandates Information Act has been introduced again in this Congress with over 60 bipartisan cosponsors. H.R. 350 was referred to the Committee on Rules, and Committee on Rules alone, because it is a procedures bill affecting the internal workings of the House and providing information to Members of Congress. By compelling CBO estimates and requiring a question of consideration on the House floor on certain legislation, this legislation should serve as an effective tool in increasing Congressional accountability by requiring Congress to be informed fully of the effects of mandates before enacting them into law. During our hearing a 32-year-old business owner who started his company when he was 19 years old testified, and I quote: ``I know I would sleep a little better at night knowing that Congress was thinking seriously about the cost impact of legislation on small business owners.'' That was all he was asking, that his elected representatives have some detailed information before they vote. The average American should be concerned about these mandates as well. The Committee on Rules heard from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) in which he discussed his concerns about the hidden e-rate tax that resulted from the FCC's interpretation of the Telecommunications Act. Mandates such as these which are not debated on the House floor continue to represent hidden taxes that consumers are forced to pay through increased prices or wages, reduced job opportunities and more red tape for businesses. It is likely that during the 20 minute floor debate on the question of consideration, the costs and impact of a mandate will be highlighted, and an educated decision could be made about whether to pass the costs on to the U.S. consumer. Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us today is almost identical to the Condit-Portman Mandates Information Act of 1998, with some technical changes, such as additional findings and some modifications due to recodification. It is essentially the same bipartisan bill that passed the House by a vote of 279 to 132 in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 350 serves as a speed bump to legislation that allows Members time to debate the costs of a bill. It is not a roadblock. We will have ample time to discuss the merits of the bill during general debate later this morning. This is a fair rule, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the amendments and the merits of this bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a cosponsor of this bill.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a new Member of this body.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)