John Linder

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 359 Days, 11 Hours, 32 Minutes, and 26 Seconds until the Year 2000 computer problem affects computers and computer chips worldwide on the morning of January 1, 2000. As we know, many computers will be unable to process dates beyond December 31, 1999, making the year 2000 indistinguishable from the year 1900. The potential technological turmoil could cause computers to generate incorrect data or stop running. Credit cards, ATM cards, security systems, hospital equipment, telephone service, electricity, and paycheck systems could be affected. I don't think anyone is sure what will happen. Fortunately, in the year 2000, we have a few days to recover after the Y2K problem hits because January 1st falls on Saturday. However, we lose one potential additional day because the New Year's Day holiday-- by law --must be observed on the previous Friday, December 31, 1999. I have re-introduced legislation that will provide the public and technology professionals with an additional day, prior to the start of the first workweek in January 2000, to work on repairs on failed computer systems caused by the Year 2000 computer problem. My proposal will move the New Year's Day holiday in the year 2000 to Monday, January 3, 2000. Mr. Speaker, congressional committees have been successfully working to prepare the nation for Y2K, and this is just another proposal that may help ease the difficulties we face. It is not a silver bullet to solve the problem. It is vital that all businesses and government agencies continue to mobilize and work to repair computers in the remaining 359 days before the Y2K problem strikes. This proposal simply ensures that businesses, the public and computer experts have an additional 24 hours to respond to problems that may arise.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, serious charges have been made against President Bill Clinton, and I have stated that I believe resignation would be the best course of action. Not one of us wants to be here talking about perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power. This House is, however, carrying out its sworn duty as the representative branch of our Government to ensure that the president does not use the great powers at his disposal to undermine justice. For centuries, people have agreed to compacts, covenants and constitutions to form a government and be bound by its rules. We, the people of the United States, agreed as a whole to obey the laws that hold our Nation together and apply these laws to every American equally. We cannot decide to apply these laws selectively. President Clinton took an oath to faithfully defend the laws of our Nation, and no one man can be permitted to decide which laws can be broken or which lies he decides are acceptable under oath. In this case, the one man is the President of the United States--the top law enforcement officer in America--and this president violated the laws of the United States. I am gravely distressed about the significance of his actions on our constitutional system and the functioning of our Government in the future. The rule of law in this Nation must be equal and impartial for all Americans--rich and poor, weak and strong. We cannot allow people to think of our laws as a tool of the powerful in our society. For those who believe that the crimes of this president do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses, I would refer them to the writings of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton stated that the subject of impeachment arises ``from the abuse or violation of some public trust'' and that impeachable offenses occur when this misconduct produces ``injuries done immediately to the society itself.'' In our republic, the executive cannot observe or disregard laws at his discretion, and President Clinton's disregard for the rule of law under oath undermines our society's trust in the American form of Government. Under our sworn duty to protect the Constitution and the laws of the United States, it is our obligation to move forward with articles of impeachment against President Clinton. I believe the President committed offenses against the Constitution and the rule of law, and I will vote for the Articles of Impeachment prepared by the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the twentieth session in which I have been casting votes in legislative chambers in this status. I submit a statement on behalf of all four articles of impeachment for my side.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this resolution that expresses our strong and absolute support for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces deployed in the Persian Gulf for their professionalism, patriotism, dedication, and courage. I am deeply grateful to the soldiers and the families of these troops for their contribution to the cause of peace and the national security of the United States. When our troops are engaged in hostilities or are in harms way, we unconditionally support them in the dangerous work that they do to protect the interests of the United States. While the President's timing of this attack is questionable, I leave that question to the best judgment of the American people. Saddam Hussein is a murderous dictator who cannot be permitted to continue to release his terror on his people and the world. He has repeatedly proven that he cannot be trusted, and Iraq will remain a threat to peace as long as this dictator remains in charge. The mission by our troops against Saddam Hussein is a just one and it is absolutely necessary, but it should have come months ago. I am very proud of all the American men and women who currently serve our country in the Middle East. The presence of the greatest fighting force in the world--the United States military--in the Middle East plays a vital role in keeping peace there. These troops have our unwavering support. May God be with each of them as they carry out their task with patriotism and courage.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit for the Record a statement on behalf of our troops in this very difficult time in their lives as well as the life of our Nation.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, there is approximately 1 Year, 2 Months, 16 Days, 10 Hours, 56 Minutes, and 43 Seconds until the Year 2000 computer problem affects computers and computer chips worldwide on the morning of January 1, 2000. As we know, many computers will be unable to process dates beyond December 31, 1999, making the year 2000 indistinguishable from the year 1900. The potential technological turmoil could cause computers to generate incorrect data or stop running. Credit cards, ATM cards, security systems, hospital equipment, telephone service, electricity, and paycheck systems could be affected. I don't think anyone is sure what will happen. Fortunately, in the year 2000, we have a few days to recover after the Y2K problem hits because January 1 falls on Saturday. However, we lose one potential additional day because the New Year's Day holiday-- by law--must be observed on the previous Friday, December 31, 1999. I have introduced legislation that will provide the public and technology professionals with an additional day, prior to the start of the first workweek in January 2000, to work on repairs on failed computer systems caused by the Year 2000 computer problem. H.J. Res. 130 will move the New Year's Day holiday in the year 2000 to Monday, January 3, 2000. Mr. Speaker, congressional committees have been successfully working to prepare the nation for Y2K, and this is just another proposal that may help ease the difficulties we face. It is not a silver bullet to solve the problem. It is vital that all businesses and government agencies continue to mobilize and work to repair computers in the remaining 442 days before the Y2K problem strikes. H.J. Res. 130 simply ensures that businesses, the public and computer experts have an additional 24 hours to respond to problems that may arise.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 586 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. LINDER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 586 is a typical rule for conference reports and will permit House consideration of H.R. 3150, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, a bill that is designed to improve bankruptcy practices and restore personal responsibility and integrity to the bankruptcy process. H. Res. 56 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution also provides that the conference report will be considered as read. The rules of the House provide for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. In addition, House rules provide for one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Madam Speaker, the statistics of U.S. bankruptcy filings are frightening. Bankruptcies have increased more than 400 percent since 1980, and we expect over 1.4 million bankruptcies in 1998. In the past, it was possible to blame many bankruptcies on a recession or a 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, bankruptcy of convenience has 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. Since the beginning of the 104th Congress in January of 1995, we have worked 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 the individual responsibility would help people rise from generation after generation of despair. We were, of course, attacked as heartless and cruel. Today we know that people are relishing personal responsibility and are moving from welfare to work in record numbers. In fact, in early 1996, simply the prospect of the passage of a welfare reform bill resulted in people moving from welfare to work. This bankruptcy bill is the Congress' next step in cultivating personal responsibility on accountability. I expect we will hear more hollow charges that we are being heartless and cruel. Nonetheless, the abusers of bankruptcy laws need to receive a message that Federal bankruptcy laws are not a haven of personal fiscal irresponsibility. If a debtor has the ability to pay the debts that have been accumulated, then they must be held accountable. We believe strongly that individual responsibility is a fundamental norm that Americans should accept. For the average American who believes that these bankruptcies of convenience do not affect them, we should note that the abusers of the bankruptcy laws are punishing responsible consumers through increased prices and higher credit card fees. We have to ask ourselves whether the American laborer who works 9:00 to 5:00, or longer, and pays his or her bills on time should have to pay the penalty for those who abuse our current bankruptcy laws. The answer is no. We know that many people reach the point where they cannot dig themselves out of the financial hole they are in. We know layoffs can hit families at any time. We know that an unexpected medical emergency can undermine the best laid plans. Under this bill, effective and compassionate bankruptcy relief will continue to be available for Americans who need it. What we cannot condone, however, are 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. If the debtor has the ability to pay, the case would be dismissed by the bankruptcy court or guided toward the more appropriate Chapter 13 where they can repay all or some of the debt. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the bill's author, informed us in the Committee on Rules last evening that the conference report adopts the Senate's provisions for a post bankruptcy petition judicial review and includes the House standard for determining the debtor's ability to repay debts. It is important to note that this bill is not simply about stopping the abuses in the system. It is also about protecting consumers and providing help for those who have found themselves in financial straits. H.R. 3150 guarantees consumer credit counseling and personal financial management education before being discharged from bankruptcy. It cracks down on misleading credit advertisements and contains consumer disclosure requirements. H.R. 3150 also recognizes that American farmers face unique challenges, and the conference report ensures that bankruptcy laws protect farmers from the cyclical risks encountered in the agriculture sector. I am also pleased that H.R. 3150 ensures the priority treatment accorded to child support claims, and in fact improves current law by raising child support and alimony payments to first priority. These are important protections that are supported by the National Association of Attorneys General and by child support agencies across the Nation. This bill also gives priority to the payment of judgments against drunk drivers and drug users. Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I admit that I am disappointed that, in the face of a bankruptcy crisis that threatens to undermine our economy, I have heard that the President has vowed to veto this common sense legislation. Congress has done its legislative duty in crafting a bill that ensures the debtor's right to a fresh start and protects the system from flagrant abuses from those who can pay their bills. We have an opportunity to equalize the needs of the debtor and the rights of the creditor, and I hope the President will not follow through on his veto threat. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so we can pass this important legislation and send it to the President for his signature as soon as possible. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the rule, 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, it is a treat for me to be able to be here on this Tribute to Jerry Solomon Day. About 3 years ago a huge battle over an amendment broke out on the floor of this House and it created quite a stir, and people came running to the floor of the House to see what the problem was, and I figured and discovered that Jerry Solomon was right in the middle of it. A senior leadership aide, those are the ones who are quoted more often in Roll Call than leadership, a senior leadership aide walked over to me and said, what is Jerry doing? I said, you need to understand something. Jerry is a Marine, and he is going to take that hill whether you like it or not. He has been since he was a Marine a public servant, both to his neighborhood and his community, his State and his Nation. And he has been an inspiration to all of us. I have been privileged for 4 years to serve on the Committee on Rules with him, and he is a fighter, but a fair fighter. Always insisting that the minority have an opportunity to be heard too, always insisting that all sides of an important issue get aired on this floor in terms of an amendment or an opportunity for debate. I do not know that I have ever seen anyone enter into more fights and scraps and battles than the chairman of the Committee on Rules, but I do not believe he ever has left behind an enemy. Adversaries, yes; enemies, no. This is a great tribute to a public man, and I am honored to have served with him.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Frost) in saying that the despicable act yesterday against the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Henry Hyde), one of the most decent men who has ever served in this body, has brought this entire discussion of public discourse to a new low. Private lives, unrelated to policy or unrelated to public involvement in politics, is simply off limits, and the Republican Campaign Committee will not fund any candidate in America who engages in bringing personal aspects, unrelated to policy, of any opponent's life out in the open. We both have agreed that responding is acceptable, but initiating a personal attack on anybody running for office is simply off limits. We are going to soon have no one of any stature willing to put themselves through this wringer, and it is sad for America.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible thing for the Nation to have to go through, and not one of us should feel anything but sadness and pain. But Congress has a solemn responsibility to undertake this review of the report of the independent counsel. As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stated earlier today, we took an oath on our first day in this Chamber, an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. It is that Constitution that places this responsibility upon us. This is a sad day. When I came to Congress I would have never believed we would have to consider such a resolution during my service here. It is a solemn responsibility. But we may not cede our oversight responsibility to watch over the government. Every Member of the House, in doing so, would be abdicating one of the most important obligations charged us by our Founding Fathers. Ronald Reagan stated on the 250th anniversary of the birth of President George Washington that without President Washington stepping forward, our Nation might have failed. He said that George Washington, and I quote, ``was a man of deep faith who believed the pillars of society were religion, morality, and bonds of brotherhood between citizens. He personified a people who knew it was not enough to depend on their own courage and goodness. They must also seek help from God, their father and preserver.'' As we begin this process, we must put our trust in the courage and judgment of this sober body. We must put our faith in God to lead us during this very difficult time. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I find it curious how many times the Constitution seems to get in the way of this administration. It did so in Kyoto, when rather than get a treaty agreed to by the Senate, they are trying to put it in effect by regulation. They did it with the INS during the last election. Now the Constitution is in the way again because they want a poll to find out who lives in America, count 90 percent of them and poll the rest. And guess who they are? Polling is what statistical sampling is. I know my colleagues do not want to use that word because the President sent a memo saying do not use that word. They tested it and it does not test very well. But statistical sampling is polling. I oppose the Mollohan amendment. I support the carefully crafted bill of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). The chairman has succeeded in crafting an effective plan to ensure that the administration and the Congress jointly decide how to conduct the 2000 Census. Unfortunately, the Mollohan amendment undermines their plan in favor of an untested, unproven population polling scheme. Supporters of the Mollohan amendment are always quick to cite the National Academy of Sciences as a supporter of their population polling ideas. Unfortunately, much like sampling, the statement appears true in the abstract but falls apart under scrutiny. Is it true that the National Academy of Sciences has created an ad hoc committee to study the census? Absolutely. Is it true that these committees are composed of National Academy member scholars? Absolutely not. In fact, only one Academy member serves on the 15-member committee looking at the 2000 census. Are the committee members carefully selected for service? Absolutely not. Are they carefully selected to get a broad range of views? Absolutely not. The panel members come from liberal think tanks and Democrat politics and are chosen because of their pro-polling views. In my review of the panel members, I could not find a single neutral thinker, much less a conservative one. How easy it must be to get a favorable report from a hand-picked panel stacked with sympathetic thinkers. When your panel believes in population polling as a concept, the only question they are left with is how, not why or whether. Mr. Speaker, when answering why or whether to engage in this population estimation, even this much-trumpeted, hand-picked, Democrat- defined pro-population polling panel would agree with me that even if sampling works in theory, it can fail in practice. It can, it has, and it will. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Mollohan amendment and support the base bill.

Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. LINDER. I have no doubt that the chairman thinks he is a fine person.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, today the American people are feeling the pressure of rising health care costs paired with dwindling health care choices. They have called on us to do something that will make their lives better, to put health care decisions back in their hands. Given that mandate, we have two choices. We can choose to task the government and lawyers with improving our health options. Or, we can choose to task the marketplace with offering us more health choices. My constituents have tasked me to do the latter. For those who believe in the benevolence of lawyers, for those who believe in the wisdom of bureaucrats, the Dingell substitute is available to you today. But for those who believe that the individual makes better choices about his family's health care than a government official does, you will share my excitement about the Patient Protection Act introduced by Speaker Gingrich and Mr. Hastert. The Patient Protection Act protects the patient in three key ways. First, this legislation protects the patient's choice of doctors. For those patients in HMO's, the bill provides that they have a point-of- service option--so that patients can visit doctors outside of their HMO network. For those patients not in HMO's, the bill expands their access to Medical Savings Accounts--accounts that offer complete freedom of doctor and treatment. For all patients, the bill--for the first time-- allows a woman to choose an OB/GYN as her primary care physician and allows a parent to choose a pediatrician as his child's primary care physician. These new choices assure patients that they will be able to choose the best doctor for their health care needs. Second, the Patient Protection Act protects the individual's access to the care to which he is entitled. The bill moves the decision about access to care away from the insurance company and back to the patient and the doctor. For example, when a patient reasonably believes he or she is having a medical emergency, he or she should be able to seek care at a local emergency room and that care should be paid for by his or her insurance plan. Under the Patient Protection Act, the patient now has that freedom without being second-guessed by the insurance company. The Act also prohibits ``gag rules''--insurance company restrictions on what information a doctor can give a patient. With the prohibition, we restore the complete disclosure--the complete freedom of communication--that is so essential to the doctor patient relationship. Finally, the Patient Protection Act protects the individual from arbitrary decisions from the insurance company to deny care. We are all aware of the too familiar pattern of a patient calling his or her insurance company to request care and having the untrained, non-medical reviewer deny the care without even reviewing the patient's medical history. The Patient Protection Act ends that practice forever. Under this bill, if the patient and her doctor believe that a certain medical procedure is indicated--but the insurance company declines to cover the expense--the patient has the right to an immediate appeal to a panel of doctors--not bureaucrats--who will decide whether the medical care is necessary. This new right of appeal will ensure that only medical professionals will make decisions about a patient's need for health care. We have heard so much in this debate about the patient's right to sue. I'm so tired of that red herring. Patients sue their doctors and sue their insurance companies every day. While I abhor the litigious nature of our society today, I certainly support the patient's right to be made whole when malpractice of breach of contract or any other misconduct occurs. In all my years, however, I've never met a patient who really believes that the legal process makes them whole. When you lose some of your hearing, or part of your sight, or any of your abilities, money is no substitute. Unfortunately, after the harm has occurred, money is all that society has left to offer. After the harm has occurred, it's too late to be made whole. This is why the Patient Protection Act focuses on preventing the harm from occurring. Why spend two years to win a lawsuit for your injury when you can spend 1 hour on an appeal to your doctor that will prevent the injury all together. Our bill is about patients and doctors and healing. We provide access to the doctors, assure choice for patient, and believe that gives us the best chance at healing. My constituents and I thank all of my colleagues for the many months of hard work that went into this bill. With the very first patient that is healed by a doctor rather than frustrated by an insurance company, we can all be certain that we have succeeded in our efforts.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, regrettably I was not present to vote on Rollcall Numbers 337, 338 and 339 last Friday afternoon. Had I been present I would have voted aye on 337, no on vote 338 and aye on vote 339 which was the final passage of the Patient Protection Act.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Republican alternative.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut points up the flammability language in this bill, and there was a technical error in drafting it, and the money provided for the Consumer Product Safety Commission says $5 billion in the report. It was meant to be $5 million, and I ask unanimous consent that that technical correction be agreed to.