John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast rollcall votes 478, 479, and 480 on September 21, 2005, because I was unavoidably detained on official business. Had I been present I would have cast the following votes: on rollcall No. 478, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 479, I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 480, I would have voted ``aye''.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast rollcall votes 415 and 416 on July 22, 2005, because I was unavoidably detained on official business with President George W. Bush in Atlanta, Georgia, at a roundtable discussion on retirement security for future generations of Americans. I was also unable to cast rollcall votes 417, 418, and 419 on July 25, 2005, as I was traveling on official legislative/policy business. Had I been present I would have cast the following votes: On rollcall No. 415, I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall No. 416, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall No. 417, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall No. 418, I would have voted ``yes''; and on rollcall No. 419, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I was actually here when NAFTA was passed, and I voted for it. And I represented northeast Georgia, where all the textile mills closed over the next 10 years. When we voted on NAFTA, the unemployment rate was 6.0 in Georgia, and 10 years later it was 2.8. They did not have textile jobs, but they had jobs. I spoke with President Clinton about it, and he said this is a jobs bill. And I said, Mr. President, this is not a jobs bill. Jobs come and jobs go. They go to cheaper fingers. It is a modest foreign policy agreement between two increasingly friendly countries that share a 2,000 mile border. I actually own a plant in Mexico. You can pay them 58 cents an hour. But you pay them on Friday and they do not show up on Monday, and it gets very expensive as a businessman to rehire and retrain your workforce every Monday. So we now pay them $5.50 or $6.00 per hour, plus health care and profit sharing. And they are buying houses, planting grass, and buying American products. This is what happens in the world. You make their economy better, and they buy more American products. And we should continue to do that. This is a modest foreign policy agreement between America and five countries plus the Dominican Republic that will make them safer and us safer in our hemisphere. In one of the speeches that Chris Patton made, who was the last British Governor of Hong Kong around the time of NAFTA, he said ``If a spaceship had come from some foreign galaxy and landed in the teepee huts of North America or the typhoid streets of London or the warring clans of France, they would have concluded within a millisecond that China would rule the world for centuries. China had discovered gun powder, the printing press, and had a rich and engaging culture. And then she built a wall around herself and history told a different tale. Free trade agreements are about tearing down those walls.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, also known as CAFTA. While CAFTA countries also enjoy duty-free access to U.S. markets for the majority of their products through U.S. trade preference programs, these countries often have high tariff and nontariff barriers for U.S. exports. Under CAFTA, barriers to U.S. exports in these countries would be drastically reduced. More than 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports and over half of U.S. farm exports to Central America would become duty-free immediately with the agreement's enactment, and the rest would be phased out over time. CAFTA would also benefit the State of Georgia, which I represent, by providing new market access for our State's products. CAFTA will also help the U.S. and CAFTA countries compete with China, a growing economic force in the world market. Seventy-one percent of apparel from CAFTA countries currently enters the United States using U.S. yarns and fabrics, while only one-tenth of 1 percent of apparel from China enters the United States using U.S. yarn or fabric. Mr. Speaker, this body must pass CAFTA and give the United States the same access to the markets in South America that they have to ours.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this week I organized a subcommittee visit to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help our Members learn about efforts to support the DHS mission to prevent bioattacks. We were briefed on aerosolized anthrax and botulinum toxin, among other things, and also the horrible things that terrorists could do with these deadly pathogens. While the CDC is focusing on how our enemies could attack us, our military is focused on who may attack us. Among those who would attack are those held at Guantanamo Bay. These detainees are a far cry from the innocent millions who lost their lives at the hands of Stalin, Hitler, and the Khmer Rouge. These are terrorists who would put the botulinum toxin I saw on Monday in the food our families eat. If we had specific information this bioweapon was about to be used in one of our towns or cities, we would not hesitate to question and detain those we believed had information on such a plot. And that is exactly how we must always act because we are certain there are enemies out there that mean us grave harm. The American people expect us to be uncompromising in our mission to ensure the security of our citizens.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to recognize our guest chaplain, Dr. Johnny Hunt, the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia. It is a remarkable life story. He spent time many years ago in jail, and on a snowy night in January of 1973, he met his Lord and he spent much of the last 32 years on his knees. He travels the country speaking on behalf of his beliefs and his faith. He has built a remarkable church in Woodstock, Georgia, with 14,000 members. Since his life has changed, he has changed the lives of thousands of other people at First Baptist and has made it his goal to tell as many people as possible about the new life that can be experienced through faith and spiritual guidance. Today, the First Baptist Church of Woodstock serves the community in a number of ways, conducting Sunday services, providing mission training for trips abroad, providing daily child care, conducting English-as-second-language classes, and allowing individuals the chance to discuss a variety of issues affecting daily life. His inspiring prayer will remain with us, and his dedication to the ministry will always be appreciated. I am very proud to have Dr. Johnny Hunt serve as our chaplain to the House today.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for working so well together in the interest of national security to bring this measure to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817. History has provided us with many examples of leaders who have taken the steps to ensure the safety and security of the American people. Today this House takes its place in that historical record through consideration of an unprecedented measure that authorizes the activities of the new Department of Homeland Security. In addition to authorizing over $34 billion in funding for DHS operations in fiscal year 2006, this legislation calls for DHS to accelerate its efforts to identify and deploy homeland security technologies and creates mechanisms by which State and local leaders can effectively communicate with Federal homeland security officials. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I have been tasked with overseeing the Department's efforts to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States using nuclear and biological weapons. I cannot think of a more devastating event both in terms of loss of life and economic fallout than an attack on this country involving a weapon of mass destruction. H.R. 1817 refocuses the mission of DHS to follow a similar path. First, this legislation authorizes full funding of 2,000 new border agents. It is no secret that much of our Nation's 7,000 miles of border with both Canada and Mexico are vulnerable to illegal crossings. The addition of these agents will strengthen our Nation's ability to protect those borders and to prevent terrorists from smuggling nuclear or biological material into our country. Prevention, however, should not be limited to our borders, and H.R. 1817 authorizes approximately $200 million in funding for a new nuclear detection office which will play a substantial role in coordinating the overseas nonproliferation efforts of the Federal Government. Moreover, H.R. 1817 provides nearly $140 million in funding for the Container Security Initiative and requires DHS to conduct a risk assessment of each foreign seaport that is designated as a CSI port. While we should do everything possible to ensure that the free flow of commerce between countries is not inhibited, we cannot ignore the possibility that terrorists may use foreign seaports to transport weapons of mass destruction into our country. We cannot simply wait at home for terrorists to come to us. These efforts must be conducted in areas of the world that have, or can obtain, weapons of mass destruction but lack the responsibility of ensuring that such weapons do not fall into malevolent hands. Mr. Chairman, government has no greater responsibility than that of protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking an additional step forward in this effort by supporting H.R. 1817.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I rise in opposition to the Thompson substitute. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, I want to point out that the minority's substitute proposal is not, contrary to its billing, complete, especially in the area of nuclear terrorism. Mr. Chairman, while some consider the probability of nuclear attack to be low, I fear that this lax position could have devastating consequences on the United States. If a terrorist organization were to smuggle and detonate a 10-kiloton nuclear device, which is not unreasonable for a basic terrorist bomb, in downtown Manhattan, it would immediately kill more than half a million people. The consequences, however, would not stop with the tragic loss of life. The New York Stock Exchange could lose trillions in business transactions alone and the world's financial markets would be immediately crippled. Cleaning up the radioactive mess could cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars and take years to complete. We could, in essence, witness a total economic meltdown in the United States. The Thompson substitute does little to prevent such a catastrophe. H.R. 1817 does. Section 105 of H.R. 1817, for example, authorizes funding for a Nuclear Detection Office within the Department to coordinate and advance weapons of mass destruction detection efforts domestically as well as abroad. The Thompson substitute does not. In addition, section 213 of H.R. 1817 revises the 2002 Homeland Security Act to ensure that the appropriate analytical expertise is employed by the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection in the Department to discern specific threats involving use of nuclear weapons or biological agents to inflict mass casualties. The Thompson substitute does not. Furthermore, section 214 of H.R. 1817 establishes an entity within the Department that will be responsible for alternative analysis of threats to ensure that the government's efforts at our borders and at foreign ports to prevent the importation and subsequent use of nuclear weapons or biological agents are actually effective. The Thompson substitute does not. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine a scenario whereby this government has to answer the question of how we failed to prevent an attack by terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction on the American people. Such an attack is much too important and too critical for our national security to simply include it as a footnote in a 220-page substitute. I can assure my colleagues that my subcommittee will, in the coming months, vigorously work to produce legislation that focuses on the Department's attention on preventing such catastrophic terrorist events. H.R. 1817 is not the final word on this issue, but it is an important first step, and as such, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing the Thompson substitute and supporting H.R. 1817.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of both the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 1544. In 1787, John Jay wrote, ``Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first.'' More than 215 years later, we all agree on the importance of protecting the people. However, this House today finds itself debating the question of just how best should the government protect the people. In 2001, Congress enacted many sweeping changes to our Nation's anti- terrorism laws, including the formulas by which States would receive homeland security grants through the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Under the PATRIOT Act, each State is guaranteed to receive three- quarters of a percent and each territory .25 percent of the total amount appropriated each year for terrorism preparedness grants. The balance of the funds is then distributed to each State and territory based on population. In hindsight, we can see that this system of allocation is flawed. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the minimum allocation for each State is $11.25 million. Using that total, based on current census numbers, the State of Wyoming would receive a minimum guarantee of $22.23 per person in homeland security grants while the State of California would receive a minimum guarantee of just 31 cents per person. In other words, the Federal Government would allocate approximately 7,100 percent more funding per capita at a minimum to the State of Wyoming than it would to the State of California for homeland security grants. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1544 and voted to support the bill in committee. It is the responsibility of this government not only to ensure that we are protecting the people but also to ensure that we do so in an efficient and measured fashion. Let us be clear about one point. H.R. 1544 does not eliminate minimum guarantees for the States. Under this legislation, each State, regardless of population, would receive a minimum of .25 percent of the total amount appropriated each year for terrorism preparedness grants. H.R. 1544, however, does require the government to move away from its arbitrary approach to anti-terrorism funding toward a more rational approach. Rather than continuing to simply allow homeland security grant programs to become Federal cash cows for States and localities, this legislation focuses our efforts on what is truly important, namely, our Nation's vulnerabilities.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, as the bill's sponsor, I rise to support H.R. 135, the 21st Century Water Commission Act. H.R. 135 will bring together our Nation's premier water experts to recommend strategies for meeting our water challenges in the 21st century. I would like to thank several Members who have worked with me to bring this proposal to the floor today. First, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the former chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), who worked so hard in getting this bill to the floor in the past Congress. H.R. 135 was approved in the 108th Congress by a voice vote on November 21, 2003. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act on the legislation before the Congress adjourned. Creating a comprehensive water policy to meet the needs of the 21st century is a matter of human survival and quality of life for the United States. I am excited about continuing to move this bill through the legislative process early in this Congress. Water-related issues have been of interest to me for many years. I wrote an article in 1978 that predicted that one of the two major challenges for our country during the next century would be providing enough fresh water for a growing population. Since that time, about 25 years ago, America still does not have an integrated or comprehensive water policy, even with the hundreds of thousands of Federal, State, local and private sector employees working to solve water problems. The difficulty is that there is little communication and coordination among these experts. If we wait another 10 or 20 years to get serious about meeting the demand for clean water, it will be too late. We must act now to meet these challenges. As my colleagues are aware, many States across the Nation are currently facing a water crisis or have in the last few years. Once thought to be a problem only in the arid West, severe droughts a few years ago caused water shortages up and down the East Coast. States once accustomed to unlimited access to water realized they were not immune to the problems that the West has experienced for decades. In addition to drought, aquifers are being challenged by salt water intrusion, crops are being threatened, and our aging water pipes leak billions of gallons of freshwater in cities all over the Nation. For example, New York City loses 36 million gallons per day, Philadelphia loses 85 million gallons per day through leaky pipes. Let me be clear about one thing. My bill does not give the Federal Government more direct authority or control over water. Rather, this Commission will make recommendations about how we can both coordinate water management issues on all levels so that localities, States, and the Federal Government can work together to enact a comprehensive water policy to avoid future shortages. The 21st Century Water Commission would be an advisory body, and its recommendations would be nonbinding. Some of the highlights are these: The Commission will look for ways to ensure fresh water for the next 50 years. The Commission will be composed of nine members appointed by the President and key leaders in the House and Senate. The Commission will look for ways to eliminate duplication and conflict among Federal agencies and will consider new and all available technologies to optimize water supply reliability. The Commission will hold hearings in distinct geographical regions of the United States and in Washington, D.C., to seek a diversity of views, comments and inputs. Not later than 6 months after the first meeting and every 6 months thereafter, the Commission will transmit an interim report to the Congress and to the President. A final report will be due within 3 years of the Commission's inception. The report will include a detailed statement of findings and conclusions of the Commission, as well as recommendations for legislation and other policies. The United States cannot afford to reevaluate its water policies every time a crisis hits. Now is the time to get ahead of the issue, and I believe the Commission can serve as a channel for sharing the successful strategies and ideas that will allow us to do so. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 135.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 25.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I was informed by one of my staff that a childhood acquaintance of his, U.S. Marine Corporal Christopher L. Weaver, was killed in action in Iraq just last week. His death is a reminder that this current war on terror has affected American families and their friends every day since September 11, 2001, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across the globe. In this case, Corporal Weaver grew up in the city of Fredericksburg, Virginia. This quiet but intelligent and energetic young man was a lifelong Boy Scout who eventually attained the rank of Eagle Scout. He was also a graduate of Virginia Tech University, where he became a Reservist for the United States Marine Corps. After serving for 6 years in the Marine Reserves, Corporal Weaver was asked to serve his country by going to Iraq. It was there, in the Al Anbar Province of Iraq, that Corporal Weaver was killed on January 26, 2005. I do not pretend to believe that all will share the same views of our presence in Iraq, and while I am encouraged by the acts of democracy playing out over the nation's countryside this past weekend, only history can tell whether our means will inevitably lead to their intended ends. Nevertheless, while we may not all agree on the substance or rationale behind this war, we can agree that this war has had a profound effect on all Americans. History immortalizes those whose selfless acts and deeds of bravery were made in the hopes of bringing a greater good not just for their country, but for humanity as a whole. We know them as heroes. I am proud of the service and the sacrifice made by those troops who have given their lives so that people can live in freedom. Corporal Weaver and those across the nation that we have lost may not have considered themselves to be heroes. America, however, should. And though these heroes may no longer be in this world, their families and their fellow citizens should know that they continue to live on in our minds, in our hearts, and in our prayers now and forever.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, today I reintroduced my proposal, the ``21st Century Water Commission Act.'' This proposal, which was approved by the House on November 21, 2003, but unfortunately not considered by the other body before the 108th Congress adjourned, will bring together our nation's premier water experts to recommend strategies for meeting our water challenges in the 21st century. Some highlights of my 21st Century Water Commission legislation are as follows: The commission will look for ways to ensure fresh water for U.S. citizens for the next 50 years; The commission will be composed of nine members appointed by the President, and key leaders in the House and Senate; The commission will look for ways to eliminate duplication and conflict among federal governmental agencies; The commission will consider all available technologies and other methods to optimize water supply reliability, availability, and quality, while safeguarding the environment; The commission will hold hearings in distinct geographical regions of the United States, and in Washington, D.C., to seek a diversity of views, comments, and input; and A final report will be due within three years of the commission's inception. The report will include a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the commission, as well as recommendations for legislation and other policies. I want to be clear that this bill does not give the federal government more direct authority or control over water. Rather, this commission will make recommendations on how we can coordinate water management efforts on all levels so that localities, states, and the Federal government can work together to enact a comprehensive water policy to avoid future water shortages. As Benjamin Franklin noted in 1746, ``When the well's dry, we know the worth of water.'' Nothing could be truer, and many states across the country that are currently facing a water crisis, or have in the last few years, understand the wisdom of these words. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House in moving this bill forward promptly. The U.S. cannot afford to reevaluate its water policies every time a crisis hits. Now is the time to get ahead of this issue, and I believe that the 21st Century Water Commission can serve as a channel for sharing the successful strategies and ideas that will allow us to do so.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 868 is a rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to the same day consideration against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, this rule waives a requirement for a two-thirds majority vote by the House to consider a rule on the same day that it has been reported by the Committee on Rules. This rule's waiver applies to any special rule reported on the legislative day of December 7, 2004, providing for the consideration or disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill S. 2845 to reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government and for other purposes. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in approving H. Res. 868. We are close to completing the 108th Congress, and the passage of this rule will help expedite the consideration of sweeping reform of our security and intelligence operations to keep America safe. Representatives from multiple committees have been working tirelessly to negotiate the best possible legislation, and they have completed their work on this legislation today. By approving this same-day rule, the House will ensure that we can move forward expeditiously in making the substantive changes that will inevitably help better protect the citizens of this country. Mr. Speaker, this same-day waiver rule provides for prompt consideration of important legislation before the adjournment of this Congress. The Committee on Rules approved this rule late yesterday afternoon. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our 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. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 870 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional rule for consideration of the conference report for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and approving the underlying conference committee report on truly historic reform legislation, S. 2845. Mr. Speaker, final passage of this legislation today will be viewed by many as one of the most noteworthy accomplishments of the 108th Congress. Playing critical roles in getting us to this point in time have been the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLAY), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and a host of others. The American people owe these Members an enormous debt of gratitude. A world in which the enemy is easily identifiable has changed. We face more and more states without solid institutions, national consciousness and internal cohesion which are providing new threats such as the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and an increasing number of nonstate actors such as terrorist networks. Terrorism has existed for hundreds of years, but the last decade has seen a rise in terrorist networks and their coordination amongst themselves. Many terrorists groups actively share hostage-taking tactics, weapons training, and planning techniques with one another. More than ever the terrorist networks are finding it easier to blend into society and are becoming harder for intelligence agencies to track. Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency James Woolsey put it best when he said, We have slain a large dragon, the U.S.S.R., but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes. In many ways, the dragon was easier to keep track of. The job of keeping track of these terrorist networks belongs to the U.S. Intelligence Community, and we thank the CIA and all the other members of our Intelligence Community who make it a vital contribution to our Nation's security. More than ever, timely and accurate intelligence is recognized as a critical weapon in the global war on terrorism. We have already begun to rebuild our intelligence capabilities, and law enforcement and intelligence agencies are now working closer together. As the 9/11 Commission concluded, we are safer today than we were 3 years ago, but we are not safe enough. As such, great changes and reform are needed. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 before us today will do much to keep America safe, and it is important that we act to enact this legislation now. Protecting the American people is the number one priority of this President and the United States Congress. This legislation builds on the steps we have already taken since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and improves our intelligence-gathering apparatus. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act is a broad-based approach that seeks to reform our government agencies and strengthen our Intelligence Community to make them more effective to address the global terrorist threat. Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional rule for conference reports. I urge support for the rule and for the underlying measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood). (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). (Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).