John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is a lot like a 1965 model car. It is comfortable transportation, but it may not always be reliable. The 1965 model lacks the efficiency of the newer cars and is expensive to maintain. The Medicare Preservation Act would allow folks to have the health care equivalent of a new car with air-conditioning, better gas mileage, or other options of their choice. The technology has improved and the new safety features are important. Of course, those who prefer the classic car are welcome to keep it. I urge the American people and particularly our senior citizens to be informed consumers. Do not be hastily swayed by the advertising of AARP and other groups which depend on Government spending and bureaucracy for their livelihoods. When individuals in my district in Georgia understand the facts of the Medicare crisis they soon realize that the Medicare Preservation Act is the best solution. They know we must act [[Page H 10087]] now to save Medicare for today's retirees and preserve it for the next generation.

Mr. LINDER

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. Speaker, House Resolution 235 is a simple resolution providing for consideration of the conference report making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for fiscal year 1996. House Resolution 235 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. I am pleased that the rule was unanimously approved by the Rules Committee. This was a productive conference and it is important to note that the conference report provides a total of $63.2 billion, which is $4.8 billion less than was appropriated last year. The conference report is also $3.3 billion lower than the amount requested by the Clinton administration, and $630 million lower than the Senate-passed bill. It is clear that the appropriators have to balance an assortment of concerns and make difficult choices with limited funding at their disposal this year. I want to recognize Chairman Bob Livingston and Subcommittee Chairman Joe Skeen for their efforts to keep the appropriations language as close as possible to the provisions included in the original House bill during the conference with the Senate. The product of their work under extraordinarily tight fiscal constraints will help guarantee that the available funding is spent where it is needed most. Among the notable appropriations and provisions in the conference report is funding for rural water and waste disposal grants and loan, funding for conservation programs to sustain agricultural productivity, the retention of a provision prohibiting the use of Market Promotion Program funds by the mink industry, and the establishment of priorities for the women, infants and children nutrition program. While the conference report makes its contribution to balance the budget and continue the consolidation of the Department of Agriculture, this bill also effectively maintains functions that are crucial to the health and safety of the American consumer and to the future success of this Nation's farming communities. I am encouraged to note that the Clinton administration has indicated that it is supportive of this bill. In light of this support, I hope that the President will sign it. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with debate and consideration of the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 235 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond to the comments of the gentleman who just spoke before me because I happened to be in that room two nights ago and what he said was simply wrong. I know it is against the rules to call people liars in here, so I shall not do that. I will just say that everything he said is wrong. Doctors in this country under the new Medicare plan are going to give back in lost revenues about $26.1 billion. They are not happy with that, but they are happy with the overall thrust of the bill, which will, for the first time in 30 years, bring market forces to play for seniors just as well as it has for other people in the health care arena. People who want to keep their own system in Medicare as they have right now have that right. No one is going to be forced to change. But if you want to try something different, something that all the rest of America has been using in the last 20 years in changes in health care delivery, whether it is [[Page H 9904]] HMO's, managed care, or high deductible insurance policies, they will have that choice. The important thing to note is this: They will choose, not a bureaucrat, not a politician in power; they will choose.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. Furthermore, the gentleman from Texas did not yield for that.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it is my great good pleasure to welcome to the House today, Dr. James Merritt, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Snellville, GA. Dr. Merritt is not my pastor--but he is my friend. I enjoy attending his church to listen to a man of God speak the truth. His knowledge of the Bible, and his ability to share his understanding of it [[Page H 8912]] with others, has found an appreciative audience beyond Georgia as he has carried the eternal message to others. His commitment to family has led him and his wife, Teresa, to home school their sons James, Jonathon, and Jushua. His and Teresa's concern for their son's education is worth the immense commitment of time and energy required of them. Last, it is always good politically to find myself in the company of such a respected public person who is more conservative than me. Dr. Merritt is truly committed to faith, family, and freedom and it is my good fortune to call him friend.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 215 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, House Resolution 215 is a completely open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1594, the Pension Protection Act. This rule provides for 2 hours of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, after which any Member will have the opportunity to offer an amendment to the bill under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and each section shall be considered as read. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. I am pleased this bill will be considered under an open rule, and I believe that 2 hours of general debate and an open amending process will assure that the legislation in question undergoes thorough deliberation in the House. The rule makes every effort to engender open debate and assures all Members the opportunity to modify this legislation on the House floor. House Resolution 215 allows for the consideration of H.R. 1594, legislation that will prohibit Federal agencies from encouraging private pension plans to invest in economically targeted investments. This bill also benefits the American taxpayers by saving over $\1/2\ million by appropriately abolishing the clearinghouse hired by the Labor Department to encourage investments in ETI ventures. While ERISA requirements state that a fiduciary must manage funds solely for the benefit of the plan's participants, Interpretive Bulletin 94-1 sanctions the administration's gambling of trillions of dollars in pension assets in exchange for incidental social welfare benefits. The promotion of these political investments is truly government irresponsibility at its worst. As a cosponsor of this legislation, I have long believed that the ETI plan is among the worst ideas to come out of the Clinton administration. Studies done on targeted social investments demonstrate that they are extremely risky and yield much lower returns than conventional pension investments. We guarded seniors from socialized health care last year; we will work to save Medicare in the coming months; and I look forward today to safeguarding their pensions with the passage of H.R. 1594. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will assure that the pensions of millions of Americans will be managed solely for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to pension participants. H.R. 1594 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, as was the open rule by the Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule, so that we may proceed with consideration of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, for the Record I include the following material:

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who can answer this is about to approach the microphone.

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the Rules Committee. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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. House Resolution 207 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995, and allowing 90 minutes of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees. The rule waives section 302(f) of the Budget Act against consideration of the bill. The rule also makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Commerce and provides that the amendment be considered as read. House Resolution 207 also waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI--prohibiting appropriation in an authorization bill--and section 302(f) of the Budget Act--against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. House Resolution 207 provides first for the consideration of the amendment printed in Part 1 of the Rules Committee report. This amendment, which will be offered by Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley, is debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent, and provides that the amendment be considered as read. The manager's amendment shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the whole. After general debate and the consideration of the manger's amendment, the provisions of the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule. House Resolution 207 makes in order only the amendments printed in part 2 of the Rules Committee report in the order specified, by the Members designated in the report, debatable for the time specified in the report to be equally divided between a proponent and an opponent of the amendment. The rule waives all points of order against amendments printed in the report, and provides that these amendments shall not be subject to division of the question in the House or Committee of the Whole nor subject to amendment unless otherwise specified in the report. This rule allows the chair to postpone votes in the Committee of the Whole and reduce votes to 5 minutes, if those votes follow a 15-minute vote. Finally, this resolution provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as in the right of the minority. Following final passage of H.R. 1555, the rule provides for the immediate consideration of S. 652 and waives all points of order against the bill. The rule allows for a motion to strike all after the enacting clause of S. 652 and insert H.R. 1555 as passed by the House and waives all points of order against that motion. Finally, it is in order for the House to insist on its amendments to S. 652 and request a conference with the Senate. I would also ask for unanimous consent to add any extraneous materials for inclusion in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1555 is a complex piece of legislation, and the final product that passes the House has been designed to ensure that the United States maintains the lead on the information superhighway as we move into the 21st century. The House has worked to create a balanced bill which equalizes the diverse competitive forces in the telecommunications industry. The complexity and balance of this legislation requires a structured rule, because it is conceivable that a simply constructed amendment would attract enough votes, on the face of it, to upset the balance of the bill. Let me take this opportunity to commend the diligent work of Chairman Bliley, Chairman Fields, and Chairman Hyde, and also recognize ranking minority members John Dingell and John Conyers, for their service in guiding this fair balanced legislation to the House floor. The overriding goal of telecommunication reform legislation must be to encourage the 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. The House Telecommunications bill will promote competition in the market for local telephone service by requiring local telephone companies to offer competitors access to parts of their networks, drive competition in the multichannel video market by empowering telephone companies to provide video programming, and maintain and encourage the competitiveness of over the air broadcast stations. The American people will be amazed by the wide array of technological changes that will soon be available in their homes. The massive barriers to competition and the restrictions that were necessary less than a decade 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 H.R. 1555 will provide customers with more choices in new products and result in tremendous benefits to all consumers. In order to achieve further balance and deregulation in H.R. 1555, the rule will allow the House an opportunity to debate a manager's amendment to be offered by Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley. This amendment represents a compromise that will accelerate the transition to a fully competitive telecommunications marketplace. This amendment is not a part of the base text, it will be debated thoroughly, and it will be judged by a vote on the floor of the House. Following the consideration of the manager's amendment, the rule allows for the consideration of a number of divisive amendments that focus on cable television price controls, re-regulating cable broadcast ownership, and provisions for regulation of violence and gratuitous sexual images on local television that may be constrained by technology. The Rules Committee has made seven amendments in order in part 2 of the Rules report, including five minority amendments, a bipartisan amendment, and one majority amendment. A number of the amendments offered to the Rules Committee were duplicative, some were withdrawn and some were incorporated into the manager's amendment. In addition, some amendments have already been included in the Senate bill, and it is important to note that there will be room for negotiation in conference. The rule makes in order an amendment--to be debated for 20 minutes-- offered by Representatives Cox and Wyden which would ensure that online service providers who take steps to clean up the Internet are not subject to additional liability for being Good Samaritans. The rule also makes in order an amendment--to be debated for 10 minutes--offered by Representative Stupak which involves local governments and charges for public rights of way. The rule also allows for an amendment offered by the ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, which would enhance the role of the Justice Department with regard to the Bell Companies applying for authorization to enter currently prohibited lines of business. The chairmen of the Commerce and Judiciary Committees have worked diligently to reconcile this issue, and it was decided that the Department of Justice should receive a consultative role. Nonetheless, the rule permits Members the opportunity to vote on this measure. We have also been extremely responsive to the requests of the ranking minority member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, Mr. Markey, by allowing all three of the amendments he requested. Mr. Markey has a different, more regulatory view of the future of the telecommunications industry, and he has been afforded every opportunity to revise the bill by offering three rather controversial amendments. The first amendment--to be debated for 30 minutes--would amend the bill by changing the standard for unreasonable rates and imposing rate controls on the cable industry. While the goal of this legislation is to reduce regulations, the rule will reverse the deregulatory cable provisions in H.R. 1555. The second amendment--to be considered for 30 minutes--would retain the current broadcast cable ownership rule and scale back the audience reach cap in H.R. 1555 from 50 to 35 percent. While I believe that this amendment would selectively weaken the broadcast deregulation provisions in the bill, this is an issue that concerns many Members of this House and deserves a full and open debate. There will be a substantive debate over provisions for regulating certain violent and sexual images on television through technological constraints. While there is evidence that the increasing amount of violent and sexual content on television has an adverse impact on our society and especially children, the House has two options to consider in this debate. Mr. Markey has been granted the opportunity to offer an amendment requiring the establishment of a television rating code and the manufacture of certain televisions, which many fear will require a government-controlled rating system. The House will also have the opportunity to vote for a substitute offered by Representative Coburn that utilizes a private industry approach that does not impose strict, Washington-based mandates which raise difficult first amendment questions. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this legislation will be remembered as the most deregulatory legislation in history. The goal of this legislation is to create wide open competition between the various telecommunications industries, and this legislation in its final form will undoubtedly encourage a new era of opportunity for every company involved in the telecommunications industry and many companies heretofore unheard of. Those nations that have achieved the most impressive growth in the past have not been those with rigid government controls, nor those that are the most affluent in natural resources. The most extraordinary development has come in those nations that have put their trust in the power and potential of the marketplace. This bill states that government authority and mandates are not beneficial to economic development, and it will help assure this Nation's prosperity well into the 21st century. The resolution that was favorably reported out of the Rules Committee is a fair rule that will allow for thorough consideration on a number of amendments. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with consideration of the merits of this extraordinarily important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include the following information for the Record:

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 207 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], a member of the committee. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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