John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman continues, will the Chair rule that he sit down?

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut is referring directly to matters before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, further point of order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to enforce the rules of this House, because each of these Members has found ways to go back to the references to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, when they should be called out of order and asked to sit down.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that the rules of theHouse under regular order prevent people from speaking on the floor of theHouse with respect to matters before the Ethics Committee?

Mr. LINDER. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. Regular order.

Mr. LINDER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LINDER. I appreciate the gentleman's instructions on parliamentary procedure.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that references to matters before the Ethics Committee are out of order to be addressed on the floor of this House.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time that the gentleman has referred to matters on the floor that were in the Ethics Committee and ignored the admonition of the Chair. Maybe it is perhaps time for him to be seated.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is referring to matters again before the Standards Committee and the Speaker has ruled again and again that that is out of order. The gentleman should either continue in order or sit down.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry, he is engaging in debate.

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is not adhering to the rulings of theHouse again with respect to speaking on the floor regarding matters before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, in closing these 1 minutes this morning, I want to make the point that nobody here was gagged, nobody was prevented from speaking on a subject they wished to speak on. They can go outside these doors in the Speaker's lobby or upstairs and hold a press conference and say all they want to say about the matters they were referring to this morning. What they cannot do is talk about matters before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on the floor of this House because it is against the rules of theHouse to do so. And that is the only point that was raised consistently this morning and was also being ignored, even ignoring rule after rule by the Speaker. If we want to maintain some degree of civility on the floor of this House to engage in honest political debate, we should at least abide by the rules or try to change them and not continually ignore the Speaker's admonitions.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 516 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me urge Members to support this rule. Let me add to the kind comments of the gentleman from California about the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] who is retiring. The elegant gentlewoman has led this committee well for the last 2 years and she will be sorely missed. 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. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke referring to the IRS audit of the course did not point out that this may be the only college course given for credit that has been audited in the history of this country. I wonder why. The IRS is also auditing the Christian Coalition, the National Rifle Association, and Pat Robertson. I wonder if they are auditing the AFL-CIO. This is perhaps the most biased, the most tendentious, the most politically active IRS in the history of this country. And the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has a right to ask for an explanation. He did not order anyone to stop. He asked for an explanation. It is time that they explain their political activity.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule that will permit us to bring a number of modest antiterrorism provisions to the House floor under suspension of the rules. These proposals will provide a short-term response to concerns raised from the bombings at Oklahoma City, the Word Trade Center, Saudi Arabia, and the involvement of terrorism in the recent explosion at Centennial Olympic Park and, possibly, TWA flight 800. We remain vulnerable to random, cowardly attacks; and we have a duty to reassure our citizens that we will ensure domestic tranquility and protect every American's civil liberties. The terrorist's goal is to undermine free society, and we must not capitulate by infringing upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of our citizens. The President met with congressional leaders to discuss initiatives to combat terrorism. President Clinton supported a number of overreaching provisions that would have slowed the progress of its passage in the House. These proposals included increasing the wiretap capability of Federal law enforcement officers and mandating taggants. These proposals were controversial because of concerns about the serious constitutional questions they raised. We were able to delete from the bill the more troublesome suggestions, and we have before us a bill that will receive overwhelming support from the House. We have already appropriated increased funds and passed an antiterrorism bill in this Congress. However, the President has asked us to pass additional provisions before we go home for the District work period. The House wanted to act before the August recess on the provisions generally agreed upon by a consensus of the House, and the Suspension of the Rules process is the procedure that permits us to achieve this goal. The rule instituting a suspension of the rules procedure is not the best possible situation; but it does require two- thirds majority for passage, it expedites the passage of the bill, and it assures that these important measures will pass the House before our August adjournment. I am pleased that the bill urges the President to secure multilateral sanctions against international terrorist states, creates a commission to review all aspects of this Nation's terrorism policies, and requires the implementation of past legislation freezing the assets of foreign terrorist organizations and removing aliens convicted of a crime. We also reaffirm our disdain for the misuse of Federal power by including an important provision that increases the penalty for criminal violations of the Privacy Act from a misdemeanor to a felony, increases the minimum penalty for civil violations of the Privacy Act, and increases the punishment for unlawful disclosure of wiretap information from 5 to 10 years. We can also utilize new products to further protect our airports. To date, the investigation into the recent crash of TWA flight 800 in New York has not yet recovered conclusive evidence that the plane was brought down by an explosive device. However, the incident renewed concerns that this Nation has not elevated its security measures at domestic airports to keep up with advancements in technology. This legislation enables domestic airports to aggressively search for and prevent explosives from causing destruction through enhanced explosive detection procedures and baggage screening. I support the rule that will bring this bill to the House floor today under suspension of the rules. This is an important bill that has wide bipartisan support, and I support its swift passage.