John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, John Shuler, a Montana rancher, was fined $4,000 in 1993 for violating the Endangered Species Act. What was Mr. Shuler's crime? He shot and killed a grizzly bear that charged him on his own property. Welcome to Bill Clinton's America. This is just another of the many examples of outrageous Federal regulations that are hurting American competitiveness and, more simply, ticking Americans off. I think it is incredibly important to understand the regulatory mindset that is at work in this administration. It is a mindset that assumes the worst about our fellow Americans, whether they be businessmen, property owners, or workers. But all that begins to change when we pass the Regulatory Transition Act, which will institute a moratorium on new regulations. This moratorium will allow us time to carefully consider the entire issue of Federal regulation and to pass laws that preserve important safeguards while repealing those regulations that are counterproductive. This is what Americans said they wanted on November 8. And this is what we will deliver.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a fellow citizen of the State of Georgia and a great American, Mr. Robert L. Callahan, Jr. Over nearly 35 years of legal practice in the field of administrative law, Mr. Callahan has made tremendous and far-reaching contributions to the development of administrative law in general, as well as to the development of food and drug law in particular. He has been a tireless worker, without fanfare or public recognition, in support of common sense and fair play in the practice of law. Mr. Callahan's efforts have helped to shape much of a U.S. system of food law and regulation that is generally taken for granted but which literally affects every American daily. It is because of these accomplishments that I ask my colleagues to join me today in this commendation of Mr. Robert L. Callahan, Jr.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it amazes me the length Democrats will go to try to save Federal bureaucrats their jobs. Yesterday, the Democrat leadership and President Clinton launched a mean-spirited attack on Republican attempts to provide school lunches through block grants. But once again, just like a broken record, they did not tell the whole story. The Republican approach will actually increase spending for school lunches by decreasing administrative costs, which translates into cutting the Federal bureaucrats. But Democrats shy away from anything new because they just cannot seem to get over their love affair with a bigger bureaucracy and a failed welfare system. However, sinking to scaring needy children-- Mr. Speaker, it is time to get on with making the Federal Government smaller, less costly, and more efficient. That is what the people want, and it is what the Republican majority is all about.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for 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 purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 91 is a completely open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 830, legislation that is designed to reduce the information collection burdens on the public, maximize the utility of Government information, and assure a more efficient and productive administration of information resources. In short, this legislation reasserts and enhances the commitment of Congress to uphold the principles of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, after which time any member will have the opportunity to offer an amendment to the bill under the 5-minute rule. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit. Under this rule, members may offer amendments to H.R. 830 at any time, regardless of whether they have been preprinted in the Record. Mr. Speaker, today, we mark the 50th day of the 104th Congress. By all accounts, this Congress has allowed more votes, more hours of debate, and more bipartisanship in this Chamber than we have seen in decades. I must say that the Rules Committee has worked well together to provide Members on both sides of the aisle with every opportunity to engage in extensive debate and offer significant amendments on every piece of legislation considered this year. It has been a busy 50 days with more to come, and I believe that the efforts by every member of the Rules Committee to open the process have empowered us all to work in bipartisan fashion. I am pleased this bill will be considered under an open rule, which was unanimously approved by the Rules Committee yesterday. While the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee testified to the Rules Committee that they do not expect many amendments, there were a number of amendments that were either withdrawn or not approved during committee consideration of H.R. 830. Hopefully, this rule will provide these Members and the entire House with sufficient time to review these amendments and express any persisting apprehension about the bill. I strongly support the goals and purpose of the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act. However, it is clear the bill was not entirely effective in reducing the paperwork burden, as the total pages of rules printed in the Federal Register increased from an average of 50,618 during President Reagan's terms, to an average of 53,596 during President Bush's term, to an average of 61,000 pages during President Clinton's term. The 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act is designed to reduce these paperwork burdens, and H.R. 830 has received considerable support. I believe that the Government Reform and Oversight Committee has crafted a good piece of legislation, and the members of the Rules Committee simply want to enable any member to offer perfecting amendments to the whole House that may enhance the benefits of legislation to the American people. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 830 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight by a vote of 40 to 4, and this rule received unified support from the Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I look forward to a thoughtful and deliberative debate on H.R. 830. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, for reporting this unrestricted rule to the House floor and I want to acknowledge the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for his support of the rule. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize Terrance Nelson Hoskins Medina on his accomplishment of earning the rank of Eagle Scout. This is a substantial achievement demonstrating his abilities and perseverance, as only 2 percent of all Scouts ever achieve the Eagle rank. Terrance began Scouting in 1988, as a member of the Emory Presbyterian Church-sponsored Troop 55. However, in just 2 years Terrance had moved from Troop 55 to Troop 455, where he was elected to the Order of the Arrow. On February 7, 1995, he completed his Eagle Scout requirements having reconstructed a 60-by-5-foot bridge for the Morningside Presbyterian Church. Aside from Scouting, Terrance has maintained an ``A'' average, while still allowing enough time to devote himself to his music. For the past two summers, Terrance has participated in the highly competitive program at Interlochen, MI, where he specialized in the flute. He has also performed for the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra and Olympic band and was also named to the All State band in 1994. After graduation, he plans to attend a conservatory where he can continue his study of music. I extend my congratulations to Terrance, who should be justifiably proud of his accomplishments. I also congratulate his parents, Augusto and Norma Medina, and his adult Scout leaders whose support and encouragement helped make his goal a reality.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, just over 14 years ago, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President on the West Front of this building. His remarks that day were brief, but exceptionally stirring and profound. I recall one paragraph that is as timely now as on that inauguration day. The words speak to the motives and goals of the Contract With America and are superior to my own. He said: You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter--and they are on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They are individuals and families whose taxes support the Government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet but deep. Their values sustain our national life. Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan will be 84 on Monday, and on that day this House is going to give him a birthday gift, something he has wanted for a long time: the line-item veto.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my support for House Resolution 55, an open rule which allows for thorough consideration of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2 and I strongly support this fiscally responsible piece of legislation, but I am pleased that all Members will have the opportunity to debate a significant number of alternatives on the House floor in coming days. While I agree that, by itself, the line-item veto does not provide a silver bullet to end all wasteful Federal spending. I am confident that, with a cooperative congressional-Presidential effort to cut spending, we will be able to remove much of the wasteful spending that so offends the American people. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for his hard work in crafting the language that establishes the expedited procedures which set forth a specific timetable for congressional action in responding to a President's line-item veto message. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 was favorably reported from both Government Reform and Oversight and the Rules Committee, and this open rule received unanimous support by the Rules Committee members. The rule allows any Member the opportunity to perfect the line-item veto, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for 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. yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 53 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 440, legislation to resolve title disputes between Plumas National Forest and landowners in Butte County, CA. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Resources Committee, after which any Member will have the opportunity to offer an amendment to the bill under the 5-minute rule. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 53 allows for the consideration of H.R. 440, legislation designed to resolve longstanding boundary issues along the Plumas National Forest. Due to inaccurate boundary surveys, a number of landowners have about 30 acres of land in dispute. This bill will permit the Secretary of Agriculture to convey all right, title, and interest of the United States regarding the affected land back to the owners. The gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] has crafted a piece of legislation that will effectively clear up the title disputes between the Plumas National Forest and the landowners. His legislation was approved without amendment in the Committee on Resources, and I expect that it will easily pass the House as well. I am pleased this bill will be considered under an open rule. In the 103d Congress, those of us in the minority had ample opportunity to express our distress about the number of months that passed between bills with open rules. As we complete 2 weeks of discussion on H.R. 5 under an open rule, I am now pleased to continue the practice of full deliberation in this Chamber by calling up another open rule today. Let me respond to those who have argued that this legislation could have simply been considered under suspension of the rules. The suspension of the rules is an effective tool, but it is a legislative shortcut which requires the House to suspend its customary procedures and does not allow for amendments to be offered on the House floor. Until the 94th Congress, motions to suspend were only in order on the first and third Monday of each month. As we all know, subsequent changes now allow motions to suspend on every single Monday and Tuesday. I worry that the abuse of this process gives the impression that the legislation in question has not undergone complete and open deliberation in the House. While I admit that the suspension of the rules is an effective procedure to expedite legislation, I believe that the process of open rules and open debate will better restore the faith of the American people in this House. Therefore, the new majority of this House will remain steadfast in its efforts to transform the way Congress carries out its business and make every effort to engender open debate for all Members on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 440 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Resources by voice vote, as was the rule by the Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and continue the spirit of openness and internal reform that has returned free and deliberative debate to its traditional role in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we, too, 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 53 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the Chair has ruled on several occasions that talking on other matters and rules not included in this rule are out of order and the gentleman is insisting on doing so. The gentleman is out of order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] is speaking to the motion before the House.

Mr. LINDER. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Regular order.

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, ``The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.'' These words were spoken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. True words are timeless. Today, the Republicans are going the answer the country's demand for less Government and more freedom. Common sense tells us that the burgeoning bureaucracy of the past 40 years has failed. So it is time to try something else. The balanced budget has passed. A presidential line item veto, term limits, cutting spending first, and cutting taxes will follow. Our country can no longer afford to hold on to the 40 years of failed methods simply for sentimental reasons. The rationale that ``that's the way we've always done it'' no longer applies. It is not good enough do try more and more of the same thing. We must try something different. And we will start with keeping our promises.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] did say that he understood the rules of the House, that he had been censured under the rules of the House for what he said, and he will not speak for the next 24 hours on the floor of the House, and it strikes me that we are operating under the rules.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, this is an extraordinary day for those of us Federal Government is too big and it spends too much. For too long Government has been incapable of managing its finances in a responsible manner, and the passage of a balanced budget amendment is an important first step in assuring that this Nation is fiscally sound as we move into the 21st century. Madam Speaker, I also strongly support the rule, which will allow consideration of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Many duplicate amendments were offered to the Committee on Rules, but I am pleased that six distinct constitutional amendments will be considered on the House floor in the coming days. Madam Speaker, it is important to note that in the past the House refused even to hold a markup on this bill. I believe that the Committee on Rules has been extraordinarily fair and prudent in approving twice as many minority amendments as majority amendments in this debate. The balanced budget amendment with the three-fifths tax limitation provision will force Congress to curb its spending, and will go a long way toward eliminating Government waste and Government abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. There should be an investigation of Mr. Murdoch. I appreciate your point.

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate your point. I do not take my advice on politics from----

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, while it is tempting to debate the contents of the unfunded mandate bill at this time, this debate is actually on the rule. The debate we begin this morning shows that the new majority continues to keep its promises that we made to the American people. Two weeks ago we opened up the House and today we begin with free and open debate on H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and the rule attendant thereto. As a member of the Committee on Rules, I want to comment on two specific aspects of this bill affected by the committee. First I am pleased that every Member of the House has the opportunity to vote on a rule that we did not see very much of in recent years, an entirely open rule. During the past 2 years it was extremely rare for us to encounter many rules which allowed the House to engage in free and open debate. In fact it was not until May 1993 that we saw our first open rule in the 103d Congress. Second, while the Congress has recognized the fiscal crisis that our State and local governments face in their attempts to absorb the costs of Federal mandates, Congress has been unable to find the will to curb its addiction to imposing these costly regulations. As a result, title III of this bill institutes new House enforcement procedures to terminate the casual practice of passing these unfunded mandates. First, any bill reported by a committee containing intergovernmental or private sector mandates is subject to a point of order on the House floor unless the committee has published a CBO estimate. This is a straightforward, fiscally responsible reform. If a Member is not willing to find out how much a bill costs, then the bill cannot be considered. Second, any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report which imposes mandates over $50 million on State and local governments is subject to a point of order on the House floor, unless the mandate is funded. This new rule plainly states that legislation exceeding the declared threshold and not paid for will not be considered. And third, any rule waiving the point of order is also subject to a point of order. This special obstacle assures that the Rules Committee will not merely suspend the thoughtful deliberation and accountability that the bill is designed to enforce. I am certain that federalism in America was not intended to mean that our Governors and State and local officials were elected simply to serve as administrators of expensive Federal programs. This legislation allows the Congress to move away from coercive federalism and permits the States to focus on State and local priorities. I strongly support the passage of H.R. 5 [[Page H339]] and I welcome the free and open debate. Let me add that the Democrats arguing about the lack of a hearing are being disingenuous at best considering that in the last Congress, the Government Operations Committee never held a hearing or a markup on three bills that were brought to the House floor: H.R. 1578--Expedited Recission Act; H.R. 4907--Full Budget Disclosure Act, and House Concurrent Resolution 301--sense of Congress on entitlements. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this open rule.