John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes just to respond to some of these remarks we have been hearing. The liberals have always trotted out liberal so-called nonpartisan organizations to argue against letting people keep more of what they earn, and we are seeing it now. How do these people get wealthy? Let me tell my colleagues how the administration determines who is wealthy. They determine what one's income is, say it is $50,000 a year, and then the Treasury Department says, but, aha, if one is living in one's own home and one could rent it for $10,000, one must consider that as more income, even though one does not get it. If one owns an asset that has appreciated in value and have not sold it, their proposal says, if it has grown in value, one must consider that as part of one's annual wealth. So they have bogused up these numbers to make everybody appear wealthy so they can transfer more money as welfare to the poor. This is an effort to undermine last year's welfare reform. I would like to also point out that their arguments go against the Joint Tax Committee's argument, which is the only official organ for determining distribution tables. The Joint Tax Committee says the following: Ninety-three percent of the benefits go to people with incomes of less than $100,000 a year; 76 percent of the benefits go to people with incomes below $75,000 a year. That simply is a fact. It is not a comfortable fact for liberals, but it is a fact. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

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. Speaker, I apologize and ask unanimous consent to withdraw the words.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts who is so concerned that we have not completed our work. The same argument came up 1 year ago on this same issue because the Democrats at that time were again not cooperative on unanimous consent. My colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], went back 6 years prior to 1996 and discovered that not once, not once during those 6 years were all 13 appropriations bills passed by the July recess; and indeed, if we go back 40 years, one time, 1988, were all the appropriations bills passed by the July recess. . . . .

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 176 provides for the consideration in the House of a concurrent resolution providing for the adjournment of the House and Senate for the Independence Day district work period. All points of order are waived against the resolution and its consideration. As Members are aware, section 309 of the Budget Act states that the House cannot adjourn for more than 3 calendar days in July if it has not completed actions on all appropriations bills. In addition, section 310 requires that reconciliation legislation if directed by the budget resolution, be completed before such an adjournment. Ordinarily, these two potential points of order against an adjournment resolution for the Fourth of July District Work Period are waived by unanimous consent. In fact, we attempted to work with the minority to reach an acceptable unanimous consent agreement. When we were in the minority, we consistently allowed these unanimous consent agreements. This year, however, the minority rejected our request. It is true that the Congress has not completed its work on the appropriations bills and the reconciliation legislation, and I guess I can understand the despondency of the minority. The past few days have not been enjoyable for those who support high taxes and big government solutions. However, these are extraordinary times for those of us who support the axiom that the Government is too big and spends too much. In fact, I would say that this Congress, more than any other, has led the way in exhibiting fiscal sanity. No, the appropriations bills and the reconciliation legislation are not yet complete. However, balancing the budget is more difficult than the practice of past Congresses, which simply passed irresponsible debt on to our grandchildren. America was headed for a future in which interest on the debt would surpass spending on the defense of our Nation, a future in which Medicare would go bankrupt by 2002, and a future which had taxpayers giving more and more of their hard-earned money to support a bloated Washington bureaucracy. Our Nation could have lost control of its destiny, but this Congress took action to save Medicare, pass a balanced budget and provide massive tax relief for our families. These are truly historic accomplishments. Independence Day is a time to celebrate the birth of this Nation and the perseverance of the Founding Fathers who fought the heavy hand of government and oppressive taxes. The budget passed by this Congress reduces the oppressive taxes on American families and balances the budget. Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply allows us to go home to our friends and neighbors to listen to what our constituents have to say about issues that are important to their lives. As we celebrate the birth of our Nation with them, I believe they will be very pleased to celebrate the triumph of lower taxes, less Government and more freedom. 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 176 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to denounce in the strongest possible terms the ghastly policy of the Palestinian Authority, which imposes the death penalty on Palestinians who would sell their land to a Jew. Clearly, this abhorrent practice is contrary to the Oslo agreements, international law, and common decency. I would like to join my colleagues--the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Paxon and Mr. Engel, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch--in condemning the actions of the Palestinian Authority. Time and time again, the United States has tried to work with the Palestinian Authority in good faith, but our efforts have not been reciprocated. We can not help this holy region toward peace of one of the parties abandons all sense of decency and order. I urge my colleagues to support this condemnation, and I urge Mr. Arafat to renounce this practice of murder and racism.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues the following comments of the Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich delivered to the Georgia Public Policy Foundation this week. Excerpts from House Speaker Newt Gingrich's Remarks Outlining the Republican Agenda What we have done is pretty remarkable. Four years ago a very small group of leaders, 38 years in a minority at a time when the news media told us that we were going to have the largest tax increase in peacetime history, and we were going to nationalize health care so the government controlled everything, and we were going to have left wing social policies--one of which led to a dramatic increase in drug use in this country because it lacks in teaching our children. Because the American people then stook up in 1994 and said ``No,'' we clearly don't want to go in that direction. They repudiated it, and things began to change. We had the largest voter increase in off-year election history. We had nine million more people voting Republican and one million fewer voting Democrat and for the first time in 40 years there was a majority on the conservative side of the House. Then, we worked for two years at keeping our word. And we accomplished a great deal. In fact, we did pass a bill to apply to Congress every law that applies to the rest of America; we did pass a bill to reform the telecommunications system which will create about three million new jobs; we did pass a bill which ended the agricultural entitlement in the Midwest; and we did pass a welfare reform legislation tha ended 61 years of federal entitlement for welfare and dramatically improved the opportunity for poor people to move from welfare to work and from poverty to prosperity. Then last week we put the capstone on what we promised four years ago. We reached an agreement on a balanced budget by 2002 with lower spending and lower taxes. Let me tell you what's in this agreement so you understand why I can say with authority we won. First of all, spending over the next 10 years compared to current law will be one trillion, 100 billion dollars lower than it otherwise would have been. Taxes will be a net of $250 billion lower over the next ten years that they otherwise would have been. You have the president's agreement that he will sign a capital gains tax cut, that he will sign a cut in the death tax and that he will sign a $500 per child tax credit and all those will be passed into law before he gets a penny of additional discretionary spending. Our goal is to pass this by the Fourth of July to give America a birthday present. Yet I want to suggest to you the greatest example of the balanced budget is not economic. It is the fact that four years ago, leaders set out to work with the American people on something that the American people believe in. And if the American people have leaders who are disciplined and persistent and are willing to take a beating from opponents, work together the constitutional system works. Yes, it takes time, but that's the way the founding fathers designed it. The founding fathers were afraid of a dictatorship. They wanted to design a machine so inefficient that no dictator could force it to work. The corollary is that sometimes it is very hard for us as volunteers to get it to work voluntarily. That's fine. The fact is, it worked. I believe we have three great challenges for the future. I want to analyze what we have to do over the next four years. Imagine a January, 2001. The first morning of the 21st century, the first morning of the new millennium, it just happens to be a Monday morning. Imagine that on that morning you wake up in an America that was for all practical purposes drug-free, an America in which every child was learning at their best rate, an America in which children were born into families capable of taking care of them because we had ended the long process of teenage pregnancy outside of marriage. Now how much healthier would that America be? Now let me repeat those three clear, definable achievements. An America that is for all practical purposes drug-free, an America in which every child is learning at their optimum rate, and an America where girls don't get pregnant outside of marriage as teenagers and there is an expectation of children being born into families capable of raising them. How much healthier and how much better would that be? I know that the first time you hear that said, it sounds like one more politician offering some big goal that sounds good and nothing will happen. But I came here today to say something very different. We have proven over the last four years that if you take something seriously and you stay focused on it and you work at it every day, you can achieve it. It's not just a campaign slogan, it's not just an idea, it is a fact that this summer we are going to pass the implementing legislation for a balanced budget. It is a fact that you will have tax cuts in your next tax report. It will be the first tax cut in 16 years by the federal government. And so I'm talking today about dedicating the country in exactly the tradition that de Touqueville talked about in Democracy in America in 1840. He said it wasn't the Constitution, it wasn't the government, it wasn't the politicians. It was the spirit of individual Americans working on an individual basis at a community level across the country that made America so remarkably different from Europe, a spirit that Marvin Olasky caught in his great work, The Tragedy of American Compassion, who pointed out bureaucrats that simply redistribute money cannot save people. And in the 19th century when you had a much lower tax system, much higher take home pay as a percent of income, you had one volunteer for every two poor people. The volunteers knew who was the alcoholic, who was the drug addict, who beat their children, who was worthless and needed to be retrained. And you had a much higher level of human to human contact and that is the spirit that I believe you have to reestablish. Let me suggest to you that this is the core challenge and intellectually mentally about where we are going. Can we stop drugs? Yes. Can we stop drugs with a liberal bureaucracy and a social policy and an intellectual theory that is wrong. No. Can we have every child learn? Yes. Can we have every child learn in a failed bureaucracy dominated by tenure and unionized work rules with an education theory that doesn't work? No. Can we save teenage girls from getting pregnant? Yes. Can we save them in a liberal bureaucracy with the wrong signal policy and the wrong theory about how society works? No. So this is essentially an intellectual argument, what is the nature of reality. I think there are signs frankly that people are beginning to get it. Joseph Califano was one of the designers of the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson. In a recent magazine article he reports that on a tour of drug treatment centers every single ex-drug addict that he talked with said that religious belief was the key to their recovery. He said ``I don't see anything wrong with public funding for a drug treatment program that provides for spiritual needs,'' says Califano. This is a man who would have been a Great Society liberal, but he's at least willing to recognize that the reason Alcoholics Anonymous works is that it starts with the notion that you have to recognize that you have a problem inside you and that it takes a higher being to help solve that problem. I've had a number of recovering alcoholics report to me that they have been approached by federal officials who say ``Could we do an 11 step program, and skip that part about God.'' I don't think they get what makes this work. And again there's a simple test, if we reinforce drug rehabilitation that works and cut off drug rehabilitation that fails what we are going to find ourselves doing is helping institutions that are faith based and eliminating secular institutions that are simply bureaucracies that don't save anybody. We will save more people per million dollars the faster we move the resources to a faith based center but this is going to be an intellectual argument. It is going to be a big power struggle. A lot of folks who are not doing any good but are doing very well not doing any good are not going to like it. Some of you have wondered why I would make one of the three major challenges of the next few years end pregnancy outside of marriage for young teenagers. I have to say first of all that Kay Granger, the former Mayor of Ft. Worth, who is a freshman member of Congress, convinced me of this. She has a YWCA program in her city that has 800 at-risk girls. Statistically they should have 70 percent pregnancies, 560 pregnancies. In this particular group they have two. She said, you have to understand the cost. The United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the industrial world. Here are some of the costs. 50 percent of the girls who have a baby out of wedlock will be long-term welfare recipients. 70 percent of all juveniles in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes. Now rates of illegitimacy have passed 50 percent in seven of our 20 largest cities. Some numbers the president used are very sobering. A child born to a single head of household family will have 140,000 social transactions by the time they are four years old. A child born into a family of two parents will have 700,000 social interactions. That is learning how to speak, learning how to talk, learning how to read, learning how to interact. Think what the difference is of that child coming into Head Start, the child that has had 140,000 and the child that has had 700,000 social interactions, and then we try to play catch up with government employees at that point. Now the goal is not, as our liberal friends would say, a bureaucrat at the crib, and a bureaucrat for prenatal care and a bureaucrat that teaches them how to speak and a bureaucrat that stands next to the parent and watches over the children. What we need is to reestablish the healthy social patterns and the healthy social programs and the principles that simply made common sense to most people. One of them is: if you're a young boy and you get a girl pregnant, you have a responsibility. You have an obligation. Another is to reach out to girls and give them an understanding that they can have a better future. The program that has worked at the YWCA in Ft. Worth emphasizes the motivation of the young girl, the integrity of the young girl, the chance to be ambitious of the young girl. Because she sees herself with a better future, just saying no makes sense, because there is a life beyond one evening. It's very important to give people who are poor an opportunity for a better future and a belief in a better future because it changes their time horizon. Drugs and teenage pregnancy are in large part a function of the breakdown of society's belief that every person has the right to pursue happiness, and we need to reestablish that belief and make it real for the poorest children of America. In the poorest neighborhoods you will see a dramatic change in behavior because hope precedes discipline. And people, once they have hope will begin to discipline themselves. This is not a federal program. All elected officials are societal leaders who happen to be involved in the government. And our ability to lead our people is more important than fighting over legislation or fighting over bureaucracy. Take the example of Best Friends, an Elayne Bennett program. It's an abstinence program for fifth to 12th grade girls. It's now in 50 schools in 15 cities. Each year each girl gets at least 110 hours of adult attention, discussing problems, gaining skills, learning self confidence. In nine years, out of 600 girls who participated at least two years, there have only been two pregnancies. I would challenge anyone to find a government program with similar results. Because the fact is when you volunteer, you give of your heart and your time and your soul. You are engaged. But when you write a check to the IRS, you think you have bought permission to ignore the health of your country and you haven't. So we have an obligation to reestablish lower taxes with higher take home-pay, so we can then turn to every American and say, if America has been good to you, it's time for you to find a fellow American and be good to them. And that's the spirit that will truly save every young person in the next generation. What is at stake here goes far beyond the concept of simply waking up in a drug free society with everyone learning at their best rate and young children being born into families that can take care of them. This is about the very fabric of America. It's about what we are going to become. It is doable. I want to come back to this point. I am not today giving you a set of solgans for a nice political campaign. I am suggesting to you as the Speaker of the House and as one of the leaders of our two great parties that we should at every level of society make these three things happen by January 1, 2001. Now we know we can bring about great change because we are bringing about great change in welfare. In one year, nationwide welfare caseloads have dropped by 18 percent. 650,000 people left welfare in just the four months after we passed the reform. Fact is, people left welfare before the bill became effective. The word was on the street. Go to work. Get off welfare. You could literally talk to welfare workers and they would tell you once the news media began to describe it, once it began to penetrate the common dialogue and once people discussed it over coffee, behaviors began to change. The law followed the behavior change, but the act of debating the behavior change led to the law. In Wisconsin, where welfare reform has been far advanced because of the great leadership of Tommy Thompson, it reduced those on welfare by 33 percent in one year. The welfare rolls in Wisconsin are 50 percent lower than when Tommy Thompson first became governor. And it's beginning to be recognized. Here's what the New Republic, the bastion of modern liberalism, said: ``So far it seems the logic behind welfare reform is right. Now that the incentives have changes, welfare recipients are making better decisions. Liberals who opposed reform speak of the poor as if their were irrevocably crippled, lost forever. But as we have learned over the last six months, the problem is much simpler, a small core of people need tremendous health, a large majority seems to need only a small shove. That is the best news that we could have hoped for.'' So I just want to say to you, you are seeing real change in welfare, you are seeing real change in government spending, you are about to see real change in taxes. So if we talk about a drug-free America, with children learning at the optimum rate and being born into families that can nurture them, these are just the next wave of changes in a pattern that we began in 1994. The reason this is happening is that we are part of a worldwide movement of freedom and faith. You may think that sounds grandiose. So I brought a Washington Post article captured the rise of this worldwide movement of freedom and faith--and I'm quoting from the Washington Post: ``On a stool in his portable felt and canvas yurt, Yadamsuren, a 70-year-old nomadic sheep herder, offered a visitor chunks of sheep fat and shots of fermented mare's milk to ward off the unspeakable cold. Seventy miles of bleak desert northeast of Ulan Batur and many miles from the nearest neighbor, he spoke glowingly of the work of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party.'' I'm not making this up. This is what he said, quote, `` `I read the contract with the voter closely; everybody did,' explaining why he decided to vote for a new government in Mongolian elections last June. `In the contract, they clearly say what society and the people can do for each other.' '' They printed 350,000 copies of their contract with the voters. They distributed it by car, truck, horse and camel. The contract became the most widely distributed Mongolian publication in history. The Mongolian people responded with a 91 percent turnout, and elected a 43-year-old speaker, a 41- year-old prime minister and a 38-year-old majority leader. Over half the new legislators are under 35. They are totally part of a worldwide movement. There are things happening around the world. We are part of a worldwide movement of faith and freedom. We believe that if you combine the wisdom of the Founding Fathers with the opportunities of the information age and the world market then everyone has an opportunity to pursue happiness. Now as a historian, I know people have changed their countries more than governments have changed their countries. The greatest example is the rise of Wesley and the rise of the Methodist movement in the 1870. Those of you who are Methodists may be very familiar with the story. By reaching out across Britain, by saving souls, by reducing the number of people who were using gin. There was a crash in alcoholism among the industrial poor because of the Wesleyan movement. It not only saved Britain from the pressure of revolution. It saved the people Britain both from political turmoil and a tremendous amount of pain. And it set the stage for one of the great achievements of modern times. One of the amazing stories in all of history concerns how the institution of slavery, deeply rooted in the practice at the millennium, was virtually eliminated in one hundred years. The greatest achievement in the nineteenth century. The Abolition movement began among a small group of people in England known as the Clapper Sect. It's leaders were Henry Thornton, a wealthy banker and one of the fathers of monetary economics, and William Wilburforce, a Methodist and a member of Parliament. Their goal was the change the laws of England and abolish the slave trade. Their method was an amazing information campaign. Researchers associated with the group interviewed witnesses and gathered information on the horrors of slavery. Pamphlets were published. Actual specimens of leg shackles and whips were displayed to the public. A boycott of slave produced sugar was organized. The opposition in Parliament was strong, 56 members of parliament had a direct financial interest in slavery. But after 20 years of defeats they won in 1807 the beginning of the end for slavery around the world. Changes in sentiments and beliefs create the base for legal reform. And that leads to changes in government. It was after all the Royal Navy that actually suppressed the slave trade after it was banned, not prayer but ships. But it is the prayer that made the ships possible. Government action makes a secular reality out of the moral spiritual womb. And that's really the framework for what I am describing about where I think we need to go. Now, when I said if you combine the wisdom of the Founding Fathers with the opportunities of the information age and the world market, so that every person on the planet has their God- given right to pursue happiness. Let me show you something I learned two weeks ago at the Library of Congress which has a wonderful display of the treasures of the American collection. Part of that collection is Jefferson's personal Bible. It's a book there from Jefferson's own collection. It's called Essays on the Principles of Morality and National Religion. It's not what you think of a modern politician reading. Here's a quote underlined by Jefferson because it will change your thinking on one of the most common phrases in American political history. ``People have an innate sense of right and wrong. When they act virtuously they increase the general happiness of mankind, thus the pursuit of virtue and morality is the pursuit of happiness.'' Let me repeat that: Jefferson replaced what John Locke had written, ``the pursuit of property.'' Jefferson replaced it with ``the pursuit of happiness.'' Here is the meaning as underlined by Jefferson's own hand. ``Thus the pursuit of virtue and morality is the pursuit of happiness.'' Doesn't that place that in rather a different light than say situation comedies or modern theoretical thought? Doesn't that sort of suggest that the core principles of the American system are remarkably faith-based. There is a reason that Washington's first inaugural and Washington's farewell address are replete with references to God and morality, and there is a reason that the Declaration of Independence says, ``We hold these truths to be self evident, that we are endowed by our creator * * * that we pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.'' That Lincoln 12 times in the second inaugural refers to God as the almighty in explaining America. That Jefferson in his memorial has around the top of it, ``I have sworn upon the altar of God Almighty eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the minds of men.'' And to get to a drug-free America where every child is learning and children are born into families that can raise them does require a faith-based society and a society that returns to its roots. These may seem like big grandiose goals. Let me cite for you why it is very American to have goals that are in fact larger than you think. The story of George Nast * * * that the great seal of the United States was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1782. We weren't yet a free country. On one side is a majestic eagle. The other side, less familiar, is the unfinished pyramid with the date 1776 in Roman numerals on its base. Below is the motto: a new order for the ages, self-conscious break with history, identified with the hopes and the futures of mankind by design and intention. Nash adds, ``hovering above the pyramid is a symbolic unblinking eye, the eye of God. And placed there is another motto: He has favored our undertaking.'' I believe if we will return to that which has made us a unique country, that we will recognize that we are a great nation filled with good people who will call upon all those people, not the federal government, not the bureaucracy, not the law, but all of our people in all of our communities, we will in fact awake on January 1, 2001 a country that is virtually drug-free, in which practically every child is learning at their best rate, and in which children are born into families that can actually raise them. And I believe that those three tasks have to be done and when done we will be able to say to our children, we have given you a country that is economically in order, is socially in order and where we have reestablished the framework of freedom. And now it is your generation's turn to lead the rest of the human race to that kind of a promised land.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of this body an international legal issue of expropriation that has been lingering since the early 1980's, but began off the coast of Cartegina well over two hundred years ago. It is a tale of buried treasure that has resulted in the foreign defiance of accepted property rights in salvage laws at the expense of an American company. By way of background, after encountering an enemy British fleet, the Spanish galleon San Jose was sunk with a treasury estimated at over $2 billion in today's value. The San Jose and its treasure remained hidden at the bottom of the ocean for hundreds of years, until a United States company--known today as Sea Search Armada--discovered the wreck of the San Jose. Under recognized international salvage and admiralty laws, the discoverer of this find has the right to salvage the wreck and receive half of the value of the recovered treasures. Sea Search Armada discovered the San Jose wreck in 1983. Unfortunately, the past 14 years have witnessed an extraordinary effort by the Government of Colombia to claim exclusive ownership of the treasure of the sunken galleon. In clear disregard of accepted law, the government enacted retroactive changes in its salvage law that would have reduced the share of the treasure payable to the American company from the accepted 50 percent to a taxable 5 percent. Thankfully, the Colombian Constitutional Court declared the order unconstitutional. In an August 1996 letter to International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman, the Columbia government stated that a ruled had not yet been uttered by the Superior Court of Barranquilla and that the Government ``will not make any decisions until after a verdict'' is made by this judicial court. The decision of the Magistrates of the Superior of Barranquilla--like all previous court decisions--was in Sea Search Armada's favor and recognized its claim to 50 percent of the treasure of the San Jose. Regrettably, the Colombian government's attorney general will now be appealing the decision once again. This case has gone on too long. It is high time that the Government of Colombia end its decade-long litigation against the Sea Search Armada company and resolve this matter. We are faced with a situation in which the legitimate property rights of an American company have been expropriated in disregard to the recognized rights of ownership under Colombian and international law. When deprived of property in defiance of international law, American citizens should expect their government to ensure that preferential treatment is not given to the delinquent party, as this body has done in the past. Mr. Speaker, the rulings from every Colombian court and from experts panels have defined the rights of the discovering party. Following the decision by the Superior Court, the Colombian government has been provided with an important opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to abide by the rule of law. I believe that Colombia's recognition of the judicial ruling will send a reassuring message to potential American investors and will assure that the cooperation between our nation and Colombia improves in the future.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the 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 might consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 142 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 478, the Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. House Resolution 142 makes in order the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule also provides that the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, this rule continues the approach of according priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. It is not a requirement, but I believe it will facilitate consideration of amendments. Finally, House Resolution 142 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority Members of the House. Mr. Speaker, this is a standard open rule and the Rules Committee has ensured that all Members who wish to modify the bill through the amendment process have every opportunity to offer their amendments. The legislation that this rule brings to the floor will amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to improve the ability of individuals, local, State, and Federal agencies to comply with the act in building, operating, maintaining, or repairing flood control projects, facilities, or structures. In short, H.R. 478 will simply allow flood control experts the ability to repair and maintain existing man-made flood control structures in order to help protect American citizens and their homes, businesses, and farms from the destruction of rising flood waters. Let me be very clear. We all support species protection, and the Endangered Species Act has been instrumental in the preservation of a number of threatened species since becoming law. However, in some cases the programs of the Endangered Species Act have had an effect which is opposite the intent, and they often have a detrimental impact on the affected communities. It is also compromising human lives. This is one such case in which we should make a small modification where human lives are at stake. Unfortunately, the rigidity of current law has placed obstacles in front of those who wish to repair and maintain flood control structures. We heard testimony in the Committee on Rules of the opportunities to avoid flood tragedies that were lost because bureaucratic redtape delayed necessary levy repairs. Rather than taking the proactive endeavors that would repair levees, State and local officials were bogged down in studies and mitigation requirements that have resulted in levee failures, significant economic damage, and the loss of human life. It is my hope that this modification in the Endangered Species Act will save lives, safeguard property, protect species whose habitats are near flood control structures, and significantly reduce the demand for massive annual appropriations for emergency relief. H.R. 478 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Resources by the vote of 23 to 9, and the open rule was unanimously approved 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. Mr. Speaker, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 142 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 136 and ask for its immediate consideration:

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 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 136 is a closed rule providing for consideration of House Resolution 129, a resolution which authorizes funding for committee salaries and expenses for 17 standing committees of the House of Representatives and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the 105th Congress. House Resolution 136 provides for consideration of the committee funding resolution without intervention of any point of order. The rule also provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House Oversight will be considered as adopted. This resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman of the ranking minority member of the Committee on House Oversight. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the process established by this rule for the consideration of House Resolution 129 is not any different than the process established for previous committee funding resolutions. Under clause 4(a) of House rule XI, committee funding resolutions are privileged on the House floor and unamendable. As the minority knows, it is unnecessary to craft a rule to bring up the committee funding resolution unless there is a need to waive points of order that could legitimately be sustained against the resolution. In this case, such a waiver is necessary to address what is clearly a technical violation of the rules of the House. Specifically, clause 2(d)(2) of House rule X requires committees to vote to approve their oversight plans for submission to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the House Oversight Committee by February 15 of the first session of each Congress. In addition, the rule prohibits consideration of a committee funding resolution if any committee has not submitted plans by February 15. The House rule also prohibits consideration if these plans were not adopted in an open session with a quorum present. It is quite well known to both sides that certain committees were unable to organize before February 15 because the committee assignment process had not been completed by that time. As a result, those particular committees were obviously unable to assemble and vote to approve their oversight plans in a timely manner. Today, I am pleased to report that each committee has submitted an approved oversight plan to the Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the House Oversight Committee. I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman, for working hard again to produce sufficient funding for House committees to complete their work. It is clear that he had to balance an assortment of concerns with limited funding at his disposal, and the product of his work under extraordinarily tight fiscal constraints will help guarantee that the available funding is spent where it is needed most. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with debate and consideration of the committee funding resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam 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. 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 125 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1271, the Federal Aviation Administration Research Engineering and Development Authorization Act of 1997. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority of the Committee on Science. The rule also waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1997. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 125 makes in order the Committee on Science amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, with each section being considered as read. The rule waives points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Madam Speaker, this rule continues an approach that has been used effectively in recent Congresses by according priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule does not require preprinting but simply encourages Members to take advantage of the option in order to facilitate consideration of amendments on the floor and to inform Members of the details of pending amendments. Finally, House Resolution 125 provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority Members of the House. Madam Speaker, this is a standard open rule, and the Committee on Rules has assured all Members who wish to modify the bill through the amendment process that they have every opportunity to offer their amendments. Briefly, this legislation authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration's research, engineering and development programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2000. The bill provides important funding to enhance computer and information systems security for air traffic management to prioritize weather research projects and reduce delays in aircraft accidents and to develop new technologies that will ensure air safety. I want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the chairman of the Committee on Science, for crafting legislation that will ensure the preservation and security of the national aerospace system as we work to meet the increased air traffic demands that are expected in the next century. H.R. 1271 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Science, as was the open rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with general debate in consideration of the merits of this very important bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I call up a privileged resolution (H. Res. 114) and ask for its immediate consideration. The minority has been apprised of the contents.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fascinating to watch the hue and cry for campaign finance reform from the Democrats when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House 4 years ago and chose not to bring it up. The fact of the matter is we have two kinds of campaign financing systems in America; one is congressional. We could only take $1,000 from an individual or $5,000 from a PAC, we must report everything we receive and everything we spend, and that system did not break down, and no one is accusing it of having broken down. There is another system for Presidential campaigns. If they accept $75 million of taxpayer money, they may not spend a penny more. That is precisely what Bob Dole did; that is not what President Clinton did. He accepted the $75 million, and he spent $40 million more than that. He admitted to doing that, but he said it was necessary to break the law because ``we would have lost.'' Now, I do not want to see America pay for the congressional races, with ceilings on them like they did for the White House, and have that system so easily abused as it was by President Clinton. Let us move on with this bill which allows bringing up the bill for veterans' benefits, let us pass this rule and get on with the business of the House.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, as a Georgian, I am proud to cosponsor this bill to rename the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center in Watkinsville, GA as the J. Phil Campbell, Senior Natural Resource Conservation Center. For those who may not be familiar with Mr. Campbell and his contributions to Georgia and the Nation, let me give you a brief history of this great man. Born in Dallas, GA in 1878, J. Phil Campbell became a teacher of men at the early age of 17. By age 26, he had worked his way up to assistant superintendent at the first demonstration school in Georgia. In 1913, Mr. Campbell began working with the Department of Agriculture's Extension Service Demonstration Projects. Demonstrating his zeal for teaching and his enthusiasm for agriculture, J. Phil Campbell, in 1915, became Georgia's first Farm Extension Service Director, a position that he maintained until the 1930's. He then gave his educational efforts a national focus. After serving as a consultant to President Roosevelt's Department of Agriculture, Mr. Campbell was appointed as the Assistant Chief of the Soil Conservation Service, a position in which he proudly served until his death in 1944. Not only did J. Phil Campbell act as a catalyst to begin and sustain the farm education effort in Georgia, he focused the Nation's attention in this direction. Among other accomplishments, his efforts resulted in the establishment of the Southern Piedmont Conservation Center in Watkinsville. Though only a small gesture in comparison to Mr. Campbell's life work, renaming the Conservation Center to honor him is an act that I am proud to support. Though his work ended just over 50 years ago, the impact that J. Phil Campbell had on Georgia and the Nation is everlasting. Let the J. Phil Campbell, Senior Natural Resource Conservation Center be a constant reminder of our gratitude.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Point of order.