John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Regular order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes to point out to the gentleman that just spoke in the well that all of these wonderful bills and all of the previous approaches by the Democrats in previous Congresses left out one minor piece; that is, the special interests that spend more money in politics than all the rest combined, the labor unions, which spent, in the last cycle, in the last election, somewhere between $300 million and $500 million according to a Rutgers University study. Are they at all impinged by any of these bills? Of course not. That is not soft money. You see, that is Democrat money. We will not abuse it at all. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said that the Shays- Meehan bill codifies the Beck decision. What the Beck decision says is that labor union members must approve their money being used for political activity. This codification of the Beck decision says you may get your money back if it was used for political activity so long as you are no longer a union member, which is to say you have to leave the money to get your money back. This is the sham. This is the game that is being played. Stop the union or stop the corporate soft money accounts. That is fine. We both get about $140 million a year. We both get $140 million over a 2-year cycle from three committees. But eliminate any opportunity from impinging on the labor unions which support the Democrats 100 percent. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said that the airwaves are flooded with negative political attacks. Yes, of course they were, by unions. Of course they were. He was not there stopping them. In fact, he was welcoming them. When the unions this year decided that occasionally they would support some friendly Republicans, the Democrat leadership wrote a whining letter to the union leadership and said, do not dare support Republicans. You are our guys. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) also said that, in this process, no political voice is heard unless they contribute up to $50,000. It is only a rich guy's game. He may be speaking from personal experience; but from my experience, and anyone that I know, we listen to all. We hear from everyone, whether or not they are contributors. If it is his experience only to listen to those who contribute $50,000, that is his problem, not the country's problem. There is, indeed, an outside influence. If we are going to treat them fairly, we treat them all, including the labor union's money. But I will point out to the gentleman there is no controlling legal authority to do that.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we have jeering back here on this side. Can we get some order in the House?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express strong support for this wide-open rule and for H.R. 2883, the Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments. President Reagan used to say that the most frightening greeting was, ``Hello, I'm with the Federal Government and I'm here to help you.'' I think a close second would be, ``I'm with the Federal Government, and you can trust me to spend your money wisely.'' Mr. Speaker, when it comes to common-sense decision making and spending money wisely, the grades on performance by Federal agencies are in. Unfortunately, the average score has risen only from 29.9 to 46.6. I think most American children could imagine the reaction of their parents if they brought home report cards that looked like these. This is, unbelievably, an improvement, but it is still obviously inadequate. We must insist on a smaller, smarter, common-sense government. That is why this legislation sends a message to agencies to come up with a more solid strategic plan that allows us to monitor performance clearly and directly. Congress passed the Results Act to hold Federal agencies accountable for efficiency and achieving results. This bill can be a tremendous tool to eliminate waste and fraud in the government, and today's legislation is designed to maximize the use of this tool. The Federal Government spends trillions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money, and it is very important for all of us to remember that it is not the Federal Government's money. On the first day, an American citizen pays a cent in taxes, that citizen becomes a shareholder in the Government and wants to see a healthy return on their investment. I support reinforcing the Results Act, because I cannot believe that any shareholder in any company would every tolerate mismanagement, waste, or illogical planning. In our commitment to hold the Government accountable to those who pay for it, this bill creates the framework for the American people to judge how their money is being spent.

Mr. LINDER. As for those who express concern that this bill does not include in it oversight of committees of Congress, let me remind them that this bill was passed in 1993, when the Democrats were in the majority, and they chose not to include oversight of the committees of Congress that they were at the time sharing. This is merely a technical amendment to that act, following their lines. I strongly support enhancing this performance-based management system in order to ensure that this government achieves results-oriented goals and reacts to serious management problems. The American people expect smarter decisions based on common sense and they want to see results as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote in favor of this very important legislation.

Mr. LINDER

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, H.R. 383 is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1432, the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, a bill designed to usher in a new era in U.S. African relations by stimulating market incentives and increasing trade. H. Res. 383 provides for 2 hours of general debate with 1 hour divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International Relations, and 1 hour divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides for the consideration of the Committee on Ways and Means' amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as modified by the amendments printed in Part I of the report of the Committee on Rules as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and considered as read. H. Res. 383 also waives points of orders against the committee amendment for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI, that is, the rule on germaneness. The resolution also makes in order six amendments printed in Part II of the Committee on Rules' report. The amendments shall be considered only in the order specified in the report, may be offered only by the Member designated by the report, and shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided between a proponent and opponent, and the amendments are not subject to amendment. This rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the voting time after the first of the series of votes provided that the first vote is not less than 15 minutes. This provision will facilitate consideration of amendments. House Resolution 338 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is designed to reinforce the positive developments taking place in the sub-Saharan African region by promoting a United States trade policy with those countries that are committed to market incentives, human rights reforms, and private sector growth. The countries affected by this legislation are moving toward democracy and opening their economies. This legislation will help expand this move by encouraging sub-Saharan countries that are truly reform minded to expand their trade and investment ties with the United States. I think it is important to note that this bill requires the President to identify those countries that are moving toward the establishment of a market-based economy and that there is a strong eligibility criteria to ensure human rights and penalize those caught engaging in illegal behavior. These conditions will continue to be helpful in terms of reforms that might otherwise not be made because these nations view this as a partnership and an opportunity to improve relations with the United States. The United States has proven adept at providing developmental aid and humanitarian relief to this region in the past. However, as we move into the 21st Century, this legislation is part of a new strategy designed to stimulate growth by promoting free trade and market economies. If we do not open these new markets, I fear that we will lose valuable economic activities and thwart job creation for American business and workers. The Committee on International Relations informs us that trade between the United States and Africa can be greatly expanded with over 11 million United States jobs, including one in five manufacturing jobs being supported by our exports. The potential for job creation is high. Over the last 4 years alone U.S. exports have created 1.4 million new American jobs. However, if the United States continues to opt not to participate, we all know that other nations will move forward in our place, forge free trade agreements with those countries and leave us behind. With regard to the consideration of amendments, the Committee on Rules has done its best to permit the consideration of amendments to this legislation that do not touch upon the Committee on Ways and Means' portions of H.R. 1432. In testimony yesterday, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, argued for the traditional protections for tax and trade provisions under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. In permitting only these amendments, the committee has followed precedent during the consideration of Ways and Means bills in an effort to preserve the integrity of the trade laws. H.R. 1432 was ordered reported unanimously from both the Committee on International Relations' Subcommittee on Africa and the full Committee on International Relations. In addition, H.R. 1432 was ordered reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means unanimously with only a single amendment offered and considered. I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the amendments and the merits of this important 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 383 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to urge everyone in the Chamber and everyone listening and watching to vote for this rule. There is no question on the resolution that some of the amendments others had wished to be debated were not put in order and will not be debated, under a longstanding practice in this House of not opening up the Ways and Means jurisdictional areas with respect to taxes. Anyone can imagine the kinds of mischief that could be created on this floor if people could openly amend any portion of the Ways and Means jurisdiction in respect to taxes. So to the extent it is a closed rule, it is a modified closed rule. There will be several amendments offered, longstanding opportunity for debate on this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support the rule. 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, that last speaker has just energized my chairman, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green). (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), a member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER 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 New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that government authority and mandates are beneficial to economic competition. In fact, nations that have achieved the most impressive growth in the past have not been those with rigid government controls. Our telecommunications bill last Congress was an example of our putting trust in the power and potential of the marketplace. For the past two years, however, I have watched and read about the latest regulatory battle or industry court battle. First, the telecom industries need to honor the intent of the act. Second, I am concerned that the FCC continues to advance in its own direction on many issues-- a direction this Congress did not authorize. Somehow, we have to demand that the FCC and the regulators commit to implement this act the way we intended. And for clarification--we intended less regulatory constraints and more competition in the marketplace. The competition we envisioned between the various telecommunications industries would secure lower prices for consumers, improve service to the American consumer, and accelerate the development of new technological breakthroughs in the telecommunications market. I hope we see the competition we envisioned as soon as possible.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond that while both the gentleman from Texas and I agree that reading is important, he thinks we should spend the money discovering they cannot; we should spend the money teaching them to read. This is an open rule. This rule does not prohibit any amendments from coming to the floor to amend this bill. If the gentleman would like to bring amendments to the floor that are simply not germane, that is their problem, not the problem with this rule. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the committee.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, for the 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 348 is a completely open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2846, a bill that will prohibit Federal testing unless specific and explicit statutory authority is given. H. Res. 348 provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule makes in order the Committee on Education and the Workforce amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment which shall be considered as read. This rule also accords priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and allows the chairman to postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question. These provisions will facilitate consideration of amendments. House Resolution 348 also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, this is a straightforward open rule for a straightforward bill that ensures that there will be no Federal education testing in the future without specific and explicit statutory authority. This is not the end of the debate on national testing. But simply a reassertion of the fact that any Federal testing measure must go through the proper committee process of the United States Congress first. I have been asked a number of times, what is so wrong about national testing for America's children? This is a legitimate question. I want to explain why we are so concerned about this nationalized planning concept. First, according to the chairman of the committee and Senator Ashcroft, the Federal Government's record in Federalized testing is substandard to be generous. In addition I am most fearful that a national testing standard would lead us down a slippery slope toward a national curriculum most certainly designed by some bureaucrat here in Washington. I dread the one-size-fits-all education approach contrived by someone who does not know the first thing about the citizens of Georgia. This idea also gets to the heart of what we believe. We are committed to providing more freedom and less government for the American people. Education decisions belong with local school districts and families and teachers in their communities. We cannot support additional multimillion-dollar testing mechanisms that waste money and strip local control of education. As Republicans prepare an education agenda which returns decisionmaking to parents and teachers, gives school districts more flexibility, gives children more opportunity, I grow increasingly frustrated as the President moves in the opposite direction toward a more bloated Washington education bureaucracy. We passed legislation forcing 90 percent of education spending to be spent in the classroom. Now in the President's budget, he has decided to increase the Education Department's bloated administrative budget and add $143 million in programs that would never send a dime to the classroom. Madam Speaker, we heard arguments in the Committee on Rules that consideration of this legislation is premature and unnecessary. On the contrary, with only about 86 legislative days in this session of Congress, Chairman Goodling deserves praise for moving this important legislation through the normal authorizing process ahead of the appropriations process. This bill deals very specifically with the issue of Federal testing, and there is no better time for this House to begin consideration of this matter than today. H.R. 2846 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce as was this open 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 very important bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield another 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee.