John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 516 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3719, the Small Business Programs Improvement Act of 1996. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. The rule waives points of order against the bill and its consideration for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule 11, which requires rollcall votes to be printed in committee reports. In addition, the rule waives points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of the substitute for failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule 21, which prohibits appropriations in an authorization measure. Mr. Speaker, this rule continues two approaches that have been used during the 104th Congress. First, the rule accords priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule does not require pre-printing, but simply encourages Members to take advantage of the option in order to facilitate consideration of amendments on the House floor and to inform Members of the details of pending amendments. Second, House Resolution 516 provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the Chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, provided that the vote immediately follows another recorded vote and that the voting time on the first in a series of votes is not less than 15 minutes. This will provide a more definite voting schedule for all Members and hopefully will help guarantee the timely completion of this important legislation. Finally, House Resolution 516 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. The Rules Committee was informed that a limited number of Members wish to modify the bill through the amendment process, and the rule permits those members who have amendments every opportunity to offer them. Because of our current fiscal restraints and the commitment of the 104th Congress to balance the budget, the Committee on Small Business and its Chair, Jan Meyers, diligently worked with the minority members of the committee to provide the House with some fiscally responsible improvements. I want to commend Jan Meyers and ranking minority member John LaFalce for a work product that will preserve these small business lending programs, assist entrepreneurial Americans and encourage job creation. This Congress has already passed legislation that would control the rising costs of Federal regulations and provide needed tax relief for small businesses. This bill adds another level of assistance to small businesses by assuring that these lending programs continue to operate efficiently and within the limits of the budget. H.R. 3719 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Small Business, as was the open rule by the Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with general debate and consideration of the merits of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 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. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. King].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 499 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 499 is a modified closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 123, the English Language Empowerment Act of 1996. House Resolution 499 waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI, regarding 3 day availability of committee reports. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. The rule further makes in order, for the purpose of amendment, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3898. The rule waives points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule 16, relating to germaneness. The rule also provides for the consideration of the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report on the rule only in the order specified; if offered by the Member designated in the report; debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and which shall not be subject to amendment or a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. House Resolution 499 waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report. The rule also authorizes the Chair to postpone and cluster votes on amendments. Finally, the resolution provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority. The rule for this bill is a fair one. House Resolution 499 allows for an hour of debate on a minority substitute, and specified time for a number of amendments which give those in opposition the opportunity to refine the bill. I believe the Rules Committee has been extraordinarily fair and prudent in that minority amendments outnumber majority amendments by a count of 4 to 1. Mr. Speaker, the English Language Empowerment Act of 1996 is designed to empower a new generation of immigrants. This bill declares that English is the official language of the Federal Government, mandates that the Federal Government conduct its business in English, eliminates the Federal bilingual ballot requirement, and requires officials to conduct naturalization ceremonies in English. This bill assures that we have a uniform government policy that does not undercut incentives to learn English and is consistent with established immigration policy that new citizens demonstrate an ability to read, write, and speak English. It is a modest bill which does not restrict, in any way, the use of foreign languages in homes, neighborhoods, churches, or private businesses. The argument will be made that this bill will result in cost savings to the American taxpayer as a result of the termination of documents and services currently provided in different languages. I agree that it is unrealistic that the Government should accommodate the printing of government materials in countless languages, and some cost savings will be achieved. This debate, however, is about more than simply the cost in dollars. For the past three decades we have come to realize that well-meaning programs intended to help have actually evolved into programs that hinder the advancement of our citizens. In this case, costly bilingual policies have acted as a disincentive to some immigrants who have been encouraged to use their native languages rather than learn English. The problem again is not that the Government has done too little--it is that the Government is doing too much. In this case, the Government's actions are inhibiting the social and economic advancement of new immigrants. Throughout this Nation's history, we have opened our ports to immigrants from countries across the globe, and each generation of immigrants has understood the importance of learning to communicate in English. New immigrants continue to understand that the knowledge of a common language will propel them along the road to prosperity and will unite all immigrants with a common bond as Americans. Unfortunately, this Government is impeding their integration into American society. This legislation will facilitate the opportunities for non-English speaking persons in this country, and I disagree with the argument that this bill would isolate them from society. It is the failure to promote English as our common and unifying language that has hindered some Americans from building a solid future for their families and gaining access to the American dream. During a meeting with a group of businessmen I asked a gentleman who had immigrated to the United States why his community has achieved such great educational and professional accomplishments in this country, and he proudly responded that there were two reasons for this success in the United States--intact families and the adoption of the English language. It is becoming painfully clear that those who have not adopted the English language have had a much more difficult time achieving success in our schools, in our businesses, and in our society. For those who use English, we have seen a great rise in achievement. Mr. Speaker, this is an equitable rule that permits opponents of the bill the opportunity to alter extensively the original bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with consideration of a bill that I believe will help to open the door to the American dream to more of our follow Americans. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material from the Committee on Rules for the Record:

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], who has worked on this issue for many, many years.

Mr. LINDER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that we see what is precisely being tried before we decide whether or not to object.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just say this is a modest attempt to do what the people of this country have wanted for some time in overwhelming numbers, to establish English as the first and official language of this country. For over 200 years, the glue that held the fabric of this society together was a common language. Thirty years ago, we began to change that. We began to deal with people in different languages. That isolated them. This bill is going to bring them back together. The isolation that was created by putting people in pockets of communities that spoke a different language kept them apart and out of the American dream. This is a modest effort to change that. I urge support for the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1 printed in the report on the rule may be offered in the following modified form: At the beginning of the amendment, insert: Page 1, line 4, insert before ``English'' the words ``Bill Emerson''.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]. (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is a fascinating debate, because a week or two ago nobody offered an amendment in committee, nobody showed any opposition to this bill. The President has said he supports this bill. All of a sudden, then, the labor unions jerked the chain and lap dogs become pit bulls to kill an effort, a modest effort, in non-union shops between employers and employees who agree voluntarily to take compensatory time as opposed to time and a half, and it is going to be tried to be stopped on this floor, the same as the TEAM Act in the Senate, because labor union leaders cannot stand it when employers and employees get along. They thrive on conflict. They create conflict. Then they come to the rescue. Mr. Chairman, this is a modest bill. It merely says if employers and employees want to get together and voluntarily agree on this, this should be legal. I do not understand this debate about adversarial relationships. I have built 7 businesses. If you are building businesses, you soon begin to understand that the most valuable resource you have is your employees. You cannot treat them this brutally as you are implying. They leave. It costs you twice as much to train a new one. You learn as a business owner. But if you get along with your employees and treat them right and reach voluntary agreements with them, they make you money. They are the most valuable things you have. Mr. Chairman, this is simply not about this bill, this is about big labor bosses jerking the chain, turning lap dogs into pit bulls to try to stop a convenient arrangement that already exists in many union contracts, and, indeed, throughout the Federal Government. Why can they not have, in the private sector, what we have in the Federal Government? This is a good bill and it deserves to be passed for the very reasons President Clinton said so.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman will yield, I think it is appropriate you are bringing this to the floor. We in Georgia are celebrating the 100th Olympiad, the centennial games, and there is great joy and great excitement in Atlanta for all the 11,000 athletes participating there. But for all the winners, we need to look back at the Munich games and remember there were some losers. Throughout history, the free history, it always seems to be the Israelis who were the losers. They were the ones that were murdered. In fact, they are the only ones about whom we have now in Atlanta been forced to double our security, triple our security, because of terrorists trying to do damage to Israelis. I am told on Sunday evening in Atlanta there will be a ceremony honoring those who died and their families. Unfortunately, I will be here and not there, or I would be delighted to attend it. But it is appropriate to bring this issue up in the midst of the excitement and the glory of the games and when all are watching, that we think back to those 1972 games, where great athletes, who had trained, who looked to the gold, who tried to win, were shot down by terrorists in our own midst. I will yield back and continue to enjoy your speech.

Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman would continue to yield, your bringing this to the floor tonight and your foresight to precede the celebration or the ceremony in Atlanta at 7:30 on Sunday night may be enough, it is to be hoped, to spur the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games to correct a wrong. We know that this is a very large enterprise with 10,000 or 11,000 athletes and 2 or 3 million people in our city, and the world focused on it. It is understandable if some things have slipped by and not been noticed by the planners who have been working long days for long years. But it is to be hoped that perhaps your bringing this to the floor of the House and our airing the concerns of the family members, the 14 family members, about their 11 parents from the 1972 Olympics will come to their attention and will, indeed, have the opportunity, we have enough days left in this Olympics, to perhaps allow the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games and the International Olympic Committee to find a spot in the closing ceremonies to close the door, to give honor and credit and attention to those who tragically died 24 years ago. I would hope that those who are watching will make contact with the committee. There is plenty of time to find a small opening in those marvelous closing ceremonies, which will be, I am certain, at least as exciting as the opening ceremonies, and perhaps we can close this door and put to rest and put to peace the concerns of these family members. I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the Congress and thank him for his perspicacity.