John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. To paraphrase Mr. Churchill, This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. It is perhaps the end of the beginning, the beginning of an explosion in technology and invasion. It will not be many years before Americans are going to be startled and people across the world startled about the kinds of goods and services and products coming through their television receivers in their homes. This, I believe, would be the most important job-creating bill of my career in this House. I was excited to have been privileged to be a part of working on this since early summer as a member of the Committee on Rules and even involved in some of the technology. It was an example, the whole process, of how the two sides can work together and cooperate. I have already commended the chairmen, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I think the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] were very helpful through the whole process. They worked with each other. I was proud to be a part of that process. I would like to say especially, nobody helped me more in the rule and dealing with the amendments than the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. I want to say, I am grateful. 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], another member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 353 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 in the Record.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 353 provides for the consideration of the conference report for S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The House rules allow for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees. In addition, the regular rules of the House provide for a motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a complex piece of legislation that is the product of many long months of negotiation. I believe that the conferees have worked in good faith to create a balanced bill which equalizes the diverse competitive forces in the telecommunications industry. This entire process has involved countless competing interests which include consumers long distance companies, regional Bell operating companies, cable, newspapers, broadcasters, and high-technology firms, to name only a few. We are opening up competition to those who have been protected for a very long time, and all of the players are anxious to gain an edge on their new competitors. I am absolutely confident that the legislation before us today will produce competition that will be good for all Americans. I want to commend the tireless work of Chairmen Tom Bliley, Jack Fields, and Henry Hyde, and ranking members John Dingell, Ed Markey, and John Conyers. Their handling of this long and difficult conference will ensure that the United States maintains the lead on the information superhighway as we move into the 21st century. We have before us a bill that has undergone a great deal of revision and assembly in order to reach this point. In the past, telecommunications reform has fallen victim to one problem or another, from legislative resistance to the opposition of various powerful interests. Today, we have a good bipartisan bill, which has endured a rigorous process. It is a tribute to this process that this bill has broad support from consumers, industry, the U.S. Congress, and the White House. The goal of our telecommunications reform legislation is to encourage competition that will produce innovative technologies for every American household and provide benefits to the American consumer in the form of lower prices and enhanced services. This legislation will achieve this goal. Existing companies and companies that currently exist only in the minds of innovative dreamers will take advantage of this new competitive landscape and bring new products and a new way of life that will amaze every American. Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft Corporation, envisions an information revolution that will take place in the world communications marketplace. While he has expressed his frustration that the sweeping advancement in technology would not come for about a decade, we have the opportunity today to speed the advance of this technological and information revolution. We have the ability to set the pace by passing momentous legislation that will bring immeasurable technological advancements to every American family. The massive barriers to competition and the restrictions that were necessary not long ago to protect segments of the U.S. economy have served their purpose. We have achieved great advances and lead the world in telecommunications services. However, productive societies strengthen and nourish the spirit of innovation and competition, and I believe that S. 652 will provide Americans with more choices in new products and result in tremendous benefits to all consumers. This legislation will be remembered as the most deregulatory telecommunications legislation in history. The philosophy of this Congress--and our Nation in general--is to encourage competition in order to provide more efficient service and superior products to the American consumer. This bill will strip away antiquated laws, create more choices, and lower prices for consumers and enable companies to compete in the new telecommunications marketplace. This resolution was favorably reported out of the Rules Committee yesterday, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may complete consideration on this historic legislation. I strongly support the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which will assure America's role as the high-technology leader and innovator for the next century, and I am absolutely certain that this will be the best job-creating legislation that I will see in my years in this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 351 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 2546, the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, and waives all points of order against this bill. This rule provides for the orderly consideration of this conference agreement and will facilitate its consideration. Normal procedures of the House allow for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Finally, House rules provide for a motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the appropriations process is clearly more difficult when you attempt to pass fiscally responsible legislation. The District of Columbia appropriations conference report will not satisfy everyone and does not cut as much spending as many of us would have liked, but I am hopeful that the President will sign this commonsense bill which will move us closer to restoring the District's fiscal health. Mr. Speaker, this bill will stem the fiscal crisis that the District has created. The gentlelady from the District of Columbia has stated that we all have a duty to help raise our Nation's capital out of its fiscal crisis, and I believe that this bill fulfills that obligation. The District must now restore fiscal sanity and create a more efficient and productive Capital City for its residents and all Americans. The conference report provides a total appropriation of $4.99 billion for fiscal year 1996. In addition, the conferees have included a number of legislative provisions that will ensure that a few specified activities are achieved by the local government. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes reforms that are imperative to the revival of the D.C. school system. The conference agreed to include low-income scholarships of up to $3,000 that qualified students could use to attend private schools in the District. The conference also designates $15 million dollars in order to repair deteriorating schools and produce an acceptable environment for our children's education. Representative Gunderson deserves high praise for his persistent efforts to reform the District's school system. Mr. Speaker, given the size and population of the District, it is difficult to argue that a bill that provides this city with about $5 billion dollars is not generous. For those who still believe this bill is unfair, consider this: the Federal per capita spending equals about $9,000. I would argue that no other city in America receives so much Federal funding and has so many mismanaged and inefficient services to show for it. Nonetheless, the District shamelessly comes to us with yet another exorbitant wish list for funding. The House has been very charitable in preserving home rule, but we have a constitutional duty to keep the District's budget in balance. To fulfill this obligation, Congress will appropriate funds for the District and set the fiscal and policy parameters. The Financial Authority will then provide guidance for a sound financial operation. We are giving the District a golden opportunity with this bill to prove that it can control spending in a disciplined and competent manner. It is a fiscally responsible solution that is more than generous and the District cannot expect any better. I certainly hope that the District will be held accountable for the expenditure of this funding by the District Financial Management Assistance Authority which has been tasked to quickly implement commonsense money management. We are all aware of the apprehension that remains about the District's ability to govern itself competently, and I hope that we can agree that this bill is a proper vehicle to drive the District into an era of financial stability. This is a city that has been wasting other people's money for an awfully long time and has wanted unconditional freedom in doing it. The city has reached a point where it cannot pay its bills, protect its streets, or even plow its streets, for that matter. While the bill may not go as far as many would like, the House needs to pass an appropriations bill to keep the District going. The conferees, under the leadership of Chairman Jim Walsh, have worked well to balance an assortment of concerns, including home rule, and made difficult choices with the limited funding available this year. As is the case with the other appropriations bills, the product of their work reflects the Nation's new budget realities. While we currently do not have a Balanced Budget Act with tax relief and entitlement reform, we will continue to move toward our goal as a Nation to spend within our means. This fiscal emergency requires drastic action, and the conference report is designed to insure, once and for all, that the available funding is spent efficiently and where it is needed most. Mr. Speaker, this rule was favorably reported by the Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may complete our work on the District's 1996 funding and start the process of restoring the District's financial health. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we just heard the colloquy on this side of the aisle regarding capital gains, and the gentleman wonders how it could have a $9 billion number 1 year, none the next year, and a $10 billion the next year. I do not know how CBO scores this, but no matter how it scores it, it is wrong, because reducing capital gains every time we did it has increased revenues. When Jimmy Carter cut the capital gains tax in 1977 there were $50 million in venture capital pools. The revenues from the capital gains category increased in every succeeding year until 1986, when the venture capital pools had more than $5 billion in them. That, frankly, is what funded the increase in jobs during the Reagan revolution. When you raised the revenues in the capital gains category, immediately the revenue fell off the table because it is too expensive to transact business when the Government takes its large share out. We know there is somewhere between $6 trillion and $9 trillion in this country being held by mom and pop stores and farmers, and just people who would like to sell their assets. There are $6 to $9 trillion being held captive by the high cost of government that would become transactions that would increase revenues dramatically in the capital gains category, so the scoring system used by the CBO, the system is wrong, and we would have more revenues than we ever dreamed. This happened twice in the last 30 years. It will happen again. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out that the revenues to the Treasury doubled between 1980 and 1990. Tax cuts doubled revenues; that can add to debt. Let me just say about the President's budget, the gentleman says it was one that the Republicans could not agree with. That is not the point. It is one that we want to negotiate. That is what we have not had. We do not know where he stands, because we have never seen a budget that he has put on the table, a balanced budget in 7 years, with his priorities. All we want to do is say, you can open the Government tomorrow, Mr. President; just put your priorities on the table. We will then negotiate within those parameters. That is all.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for an honest question?

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I will be willing to admit that it is unfortunate that Federal employees are being furloughed in this great debate. But they are not the only hostages. They are not the only innocent ones. There are several hundred million people in this country who are held hostage by this whole process. The most innocent are our children and grandchildren, who are inheriting from this body a $5 trillion debt that will cost them in their lifetime, if they are born this year, $187,000 just to pay interest on the debt. This is a great debate. It is not a sandbox fight. It is about the direction of the Government. The dollar amounts are insignificant. What the President cannot tolerate is turning back to individuals the right to make decisions about their own lives. The nanny state will wither away and the left will lose control over the lives of people. That is what this debate is about and I am on the side of the innocent children and grandchildren.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it within the regular order of the House and the correct prescription under the Constitution that this House can override the President's vetoes and put everybody back to work this afternoon?

Mr. LINDER. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a great debate over the direction of the country. It is messy. It has always been thus. No one, however, is questioning the integrity of the people on either side of this House on this debate. We do not question those on the left and they should not question us on the right. We are intending to reshape the Government, and that requires a great debate. I think the speeches and the positions of individuals on both sides are dignified. There is no less dignity or more dignity by just stating opinions as to the question of the safety of the Members of the House. I see no one here unsafe. I think the Chair should rule against this question of privilege. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. LINDER. I object.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the question I have is, Have there been other occasions when matters that large segments of this body wanted to vote on have not been allowed to come to the floor of the House?

Mr. LINDER. Regular order.

Mr. LINDER. Regular order.

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise only to respond to the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations's remarks about our obligation to provide services that have already been paid for. That is the point of this debate. For 26 years we have been providing services that have not been paid for. We have passed the bill on to future generations. That is why we are here and having trouble. But we insist on a balanced budget so we stop passing the bill on. That is why we are here.