John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I am pleased that the Atlanta community and Atlanta Jewish Federation is seeing fit to make a memorial to this occasion at this Olympics at this time. But how many memorials must there be? How many more opportunities to shed tears over the deaths of innocent Israelis and Jews must we have before we get real peace? All of us who sat here in this Chamber and heard Prime Minister Netanyahu deliver probably the most bold speech I have ever heard in this Chamber since I have been here, are encouraged by his commitment to building Israel. But I have been there, and you cannot go through those streets in Jerusalem and not feel the vulnerability of this Nation and the anger of their neighbors. We should all go there, often. How many more memorials do we need? Since the peace process began on the south lawn of the White House and the great handshake occurred, more innocent civilian Israelis have been murdered than in all the rest of the history of Israel. These brave athletes who just came to Munich in 1972 to celebrate a wonderful international experience, with their talents and their practice and their training, were gunned down, and they are only fit in a long line of those who have been gunned down in the Middle East over this very serious problem. It is to be hoped that this effort on behalf of the Jewish community in Atlanta will lead to broader efforts across the country; that we will not begin to think that this is just one more memorial in the history of memorials but this may be the beginning of the end of memorials. We are moving toward the process of peace in the Middle East. We have much more to go, but when they gun down innocent athletes in innocent games in the pursuit of athletic prowess and it does not get recognized, we make a mistake. I am proud of our Jewish community in Atlanta, and I hope that other communities across the country will understand that these games are more than just games, they are opportunities to put aside anger and bitterness and fighting among parochial groups of people and begin to put together a real peace in which innocent people do not continue to die. I congratulate the community in Atlanta for what they are doing. I hope it will be emulated across the country. I yield back.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I have just heard several Members speak on the floor of the House with respect to matters that they claim the Ethics Committee is doing or not doing with regard to claims made against the Speaker. Is it appropriate, under the rules of the House, to refer to matters that are before the Ethics Committee when no one is supposed to know what they are discussing?

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, the references by the gentleman from Texas as to whether or not he believes the Ethics Committee has faithfully carried out its duty refers specifically to matters he appears to know are before the Ethics Committee, and I think it is out of order.

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration has sunk to new depths of incompetency and unethical behavior. The President is sending his spin machine into overdrive in a massive attempt to prove that his actions were not unethical or illegal, but simply a bureaucratic snafu. Think about it, Mr. Speaker. This administration is making every effort possible to prove that its actions were incompetent. That is the best news that can come out of their inexcusable mishandling of these files. Mr. Speaker, we do not need Clinton's spinmeisters to prove to us that this administration is incompetent. We need the Clinton spin doctors to prove to us that they can tell us the honest truth about just one of the Clinton scandals without changing their story on a daily basis. And we need for them to prove to us that this administration is truly sorry and willing to cooperate with us in an effort to find out why the rights of individuals could be so haphazardly violated as they were in this case.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to deal specifically with Members of the other body by name in making or casting aspersions on the motives?

Mr. LINDER. Trent Lott is.

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the people who are complaining about cuts to Medicare are offering no program to save it. The President's own trustees on the Medicare trust fund said it will go bankrupt a year ago by the year 2002, and I will say it will be bankrupt in 5 years, and no program from this side is trying to protect it. This budget we are about to vote on is going to give us a $5 billion surplus in the year 2002 to begin the downpayment on our grandchildren's debt, an immoral debt, I might add, that we left them after 30 years voting ourselves wonderful government programs and just choosing not to pay for them. This budget is going to preserve and protect Medicare for our Nation's elderly for many years, but not enough yet until the baby-boomers come, and we are going to have to still deal with that. It is also going to give some tax relief for families with children up to $100,000 in income $500-per-child tax credit. These are for middle-class American families. All this baloney about the wealthy, but there are not capital gains cuts in this budget. These are for middle-class families, $500 per child tax relief. It is time to pass a responsible budget that comes to balance.

Mr. LINDER

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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 451 is an open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3603, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives clause 2(l)(6) of rule 11, clause 7 of rule 21, or section 302(c) of the Budget Act against consideration of the bill. The rule also waives clause 2 of rule 21--which prohibits unauthorized appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bill--and waives clause 6 of rule 21--which prohibits reappropriating unexpended balances of appropriations in general appropriations bills--against provisions of the bill. Under the conditions of House Resolution 451, after the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion to rise, if offered by the majority leader or his designee, will have precedence over a motion to amend. Mr. Speaker, this rule continues two new approaches on appropriations bills that were implemented during last year's appropriations process. 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 451 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 follow 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 the appropriations bills. House Resolution 451 also provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority Members of the House. Finally, in section 2 of the rule, House Resolution 451 provides that the section 602(b) allocations in the budget resolution conference report will be in effect for the consideration of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 451 is a typical open rule to be considered for general appropriations bills. This rule does not restrict the normal open amending process in any way and any amendments that comply with the standing rules of the House may be offered for consideration. I know of a number of Members who wish to modify the bill through the amendment process, and I look forward to a thorough debate on those measures. While a vast number of amendments is not expected, the rule permits those Members who have amendments every opportunity to offer them. H.R. 3603 appropriates a total of $53 million, which is $10.3 billion less than was appropriated last year and is $5.8 billion less than the amount requested by the President. The Appropriations Committee has once again had to balance a wide array of interests and make tough choices with scarce resources. Specifically, the bill provides $8.7 billion for child nutrition programs which is $706 million more than last year and $3.7 billion in funding for the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. It also provides $768 million for conservation programs, $1.87 billion for rural economic and community development programs, $27.6 billion for the food stamp program, and $7.41 billion for agricultural programs. It is also important to note that the appropriations and authorizing committees provided full freedom to farm contract funding. I also wish to note that, under title 6 funding for the Food and Drug Administration, the Appropriations Committee has redirected funds from program management to assist with the medical device approval process. For some time, the FDA has not met its deadlines for approval of some food additive petitions, drugs and medical devices and I hope that we have sent the message that this Congress expects the FDA to meet their statutory approval requirements. As we work to get our fiscal house in order, we must ensure that all funding is spent efficiently and where it is needed most. This bill achieves this goal. Notwithstanding the constraints we now face after decades of fiscal irresponsibility, H.R. 3603 effectively funds programs for food safety, human nutrition, rural development, environmental conservation and agricultural research. In terms of our agricultural base, we must assure the well-being of our farmers, the health and nutrition of our citizens and the state of the environment. This bill responsibly maintains functions that are crucial to the health and safety of the American consumer and the future success of this Nation's farming communities. H.R. 3603 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, 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 submit the following material for the Record:

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 451 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the last 20 minutes discussion on Medicare is only a symbol of what has been wrong in this town for 30 years. This body and the other has been voting benefits to America's citizens and said do not worry, you are not going to have to pay for them. We are going to pass this bill on to your grandchildren. That is why we must have a balanced budget and a balanced budget amendment and it makes sense. But more than just common sense. It is a promise to our children and grandchildren that we will not continue runaway government spending at their expense. When my grandsons are old enough to ask me, I do not want to have to explain to them why they are paying $3,500 every year in taxes just for interest on the national debt and why over their lifetime they will pay $187,000 in taxes just to pay interest on the debt. I refuse to say to them, your future is mortgaged and your country is bankrupt. That is why House Republicans have kept their promise to the American people and passed the balanced budget amendment. Now the Senate can do the same. All we need is for President Clinton to keep his word. Governor Clinton supported a balanced budget, but last year President Clinton persuaded six Democrat Senators to change their vote and defeat the amendment. I hope the President will begin to get his actions in step with his words.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to oppose my friend from Indiana's amendment. I am convinced that most of what should be said has already been said tonight. I am worried that the adoption of this amendment would play into the hands of elements in India who would like to turn back the clock on the economic improvements and reforms that have led to our improving relationships and also turn back the hands on an improving human rights record. Nobody is here to defend the human rights record of the State of India forever, but we must admit, even as our State Department has, the human rights report that substantial progress has been made in the area of human rights. India has an Independent Human Rights Commission, which is headed by a former justice of the Indian Supreme Court. Last year it prosecuted more than 200 human rights violations. The State Department has applauded this commission's independence and aggressiveness. There are human rights abuses across this globe, including on behalf of some of India's most close neighbors. None of that can be defended, but we should not be punitive. We should not single out a nation to try to make a political point here. There is no question that improvements must be made, but India, the largest democracy in the world, has done more than any other nation in that part of the globe to bring in disparate ethnic groups and include them in the electoral process, give them opportunities to be heard, such as we just heard from the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], about the Punjab, to be heard not only publicly but with the vote. No nation in that part of the world has done as much as India has done to include ethnic diversity in their political processes. They should not be punished for trying to do well. They should be criticized for not doing well enough yet, but they are doing far better than some of their neighbors. I would urge Members to defeat the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I did not know Mike Boorda personally, but I knew of him and followed a career that was meteoric. I heard of this this afternoon, standing back there talking to Ron Dellums, and he was crushed, as was I. Our Nation is going to suffer a great and tragic loss. Our side, as well as yours, is going to miss this great man.

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at least our colleague has admitted now that they are burdening business with the cost.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts has more speakers.

Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to question why the minority, which was in the majority in both the House and the Senate and had the White House 2 years ago, had no concern whatever for the minimum wage.

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