Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip for the House.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono). (Mrs. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that contains no controversial provisions, but which will aid in making the judiciary function more efficiently, and will clarify certain provisions of the law as they pertain to the third branch. In short, the amendment will extend the Judiciary Information Technology Fund, allow the judiciary to retain any additional offsetting receipts derived from increases in miscellaneous fees charged in the Federal courts, enhance membership in Circuit Judicial Councils, sunset the Civil Justice Expense Plan, and create certifying officers in the judicial branch. I urge my colleagues to support this technical amendment, which I believe contains no controversial matter. Summary follows for purposes of questions or explanation Extension of the Judiciary Information Technology Fund: This amendment eliminates the provision in the statute authorizing the Judiciary Information Technology Fund, which subjects the activities of this Fund to the management process of the executive branch. Offsetting Receipts: This provision would allow the judiciary to retain any additional offsetting receipts derived from increases in miscellaneous fees charged in the federal courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation. This provision responds to a directive from congressional appropriations committees that the Judiciary identify ways to increase offsetting receipts. Membership in Circuit Judicial Councils: This section amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 332(a) to enhance judge participation in the federal judiciary's internal governance process by equalizing the representation of circuit judges and district judges on circuit judicial councils and establishing the eligibility of senior circuit and district judges to serve as members of those councils. Sunset of Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plans: This provision would clarify that section 103(b)(2)(A) of the Civil Justice Reform Act is not to be extended. Provisions of the Civil Justice Reform Act have lapsed. An amendment to last year's Appropriations Act extended the reporting of old cases, but unintentionally also extended this section of the Act. This section was intended to sunset, but a technical change is needed to clarify that intent. This simply accomplishes that purpose. Creation of Certifying Officers in the Judicial Branch: This section would enable the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to appoint certifying officials in the various court units who would be responsible for the propriety of payments they request. It would also enable the Director of the AO to appoint disbursing officials in the various court units who would be responsible for ensuring that payment requests are proper, certified and approved.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts and I generally agree on this matter. I am not in agreement with him. I appreciate his comments, but the amendment was defeated in full committee during markup. I think, Mr. Chairman, this probably would gut the judicial taxation provision of the bill. The amendment would allow a Federal judge to, in my opinion, circumvent section 5 of the bill in the following manner. The provisions constraining the ability of a judge to order a State or municipality to impose taxes on affected citizens would apply only if a judge expressly directed a tax. To avoid the restrictions set forth in section 5, a judge, it seems to me, could simply order a State or municipality to construct a new school building, for example, according to particular specifications, without specifying how the project would be funded. The practical effect of this result, however, would be to compel the State or the municipality or whatever political subdivision to impose a tax if no other revenues were available. And I believe that the bill as written cures such a problem by applying section 5 to orders which expressly direct a tax or which necessarily require a tax. And for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COBLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Madam Chairman, the tenor here on the floor has gone from discord to harmony. I am not going to bring it back to discord, but I want to at least go on record as resisting the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas. The amendment was defeated during the committee markup of the bill. It is opposed by persons interested in privacy issues; as well as the business community, including the National Association of Manufacturers, NFIB; the Chamber of Commerce, and others. The amendment, it seems to me, would limit the ability of parties to negotiate private settlements and the authorities of a court to seal sensitive information after a final judgment has been reached unless a court makes a separate finding of fact that not revealing the information would not adversely affect public health or safety. Recent studies, the Harvard Federal Judicial Center, the Judicial Conference, they strongly suggest that protective orders issued under rule 26(c) are not causing health or safety problems. In fact, the Civil Rules Advisory Committee of the Judicial Conference met in March, last month, and determined that no changes to rule 26(c) were needed. Since many protective orders, and maybe most, are issued in employment discrimination and civil rights cases, the amendment would compromise the privacy rights of individuals, it seems to me. For example, a sealed order regarding medical records of an AIDS patient, for example. The amendment would also jeopardize the proprietary rights of businesses, trade secrets, and other confidential information, which a competitor might want to gain access to such information. The courts already have rather wide discretion not to issue protective orders or to modify or rescind them. Discovery and the discovery process are designed to encourage parties to share information with each other and to settle, if possible. The amendment, it seems to me, interferes with this process and may well impose a greater strain on limited judicial resources. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, one issue distinguishing the two major political parties is a five-letter word, ``taxes.'' Now, I am not suggesting that all Democrats favor high taxes nor that all Republicans favor low taxes. There are exceptions to every rule. But I am suggesting that the philosophy of the two major parties is clear and that it is genuinely recognized from sea to sea, from border to border, that the Republican Party is generally the party that advocates low taxes, that the Republican Party is the party that generally advocates and permits workers to retain more of their earnings. We talked for a long time about estate tax reform, capital gains tax reform. ``Oh, we can't do that. It costs too much money on collections.'' In fact, some of my Democrat friends about 5 or 6 or 7 years ago wanted to lower the exemption threshold on estate taxes from $600,000 to $200,000. Well, we have raised it, raised the exemption. We have delayed the call of the tax man knocking on the door at the estate's house collecting the tax. We advocate low taxes. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps the bar in raising taxes of a simple majority may be too low. Let us raise that bar and make it a little more difficult and a little more challenging to negotiate in the resulting tax increase. Make it tougher. I advocate the resolution that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is promoting and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I failed to mention this earlier. About five or six days ago I received a detailed letter from my chief judge in the Middle District of North Carolina, and I will not read it in its entirety, but I will allude to what he said about ADR. He wrote to me: ``This has been a significant benefit to litigants and the public and has been met with approval by the bar. You indicate,'' referring to me, ``that you are a big supporter of ADR programs. We have had a very successful ADR program in this district for several years.'' Now the Middle District of North Carolina of course does not have a corner on that market. Many districts have practiced the ADR exercise for some time, but this would just swing wide the gate and bring all districts in, and I know what Judge Bullock wrote to me would be echoed by district court judges across the land. Mr. Speaker, I said before it is a good bill, I urge its passage, and I ask the gentlewoman from Texas if she is prepared to yield back.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3528) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in United States district courts, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her generous comments and for her help on this. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3528 is designed to address the problem of high case loads burdening the Federal courts. This legislation will provide a quicker, more efficient method by which to resolve some Federal cases when the parties or the courts so choose. H.R. 3528 directs each Federal trial court to establish some form of alternative dispute resolution, popularly referred to as ADR, which could include arbitration, mediation, mini trials, early neutral evaluation, or some combination of those for certain civil cases. The bill also provides for the confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution process and prohibits the disclosure of such confidential communications. The version considered today furthermore includes several noncontroversial technical amendments which are supported by the Judicial Conference as well as the Department of Justice. This legislation will provide the Federal courts with the tools necessary to present quality alternatives to expensive Federal litigation. In sum, this is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, that will offer our citizens a reasonable and cost-effective alternative to expensive Federal litigation while still guaranteeing their right to have their day in court. I want to thank at this time, Mr. Speaker, the cooperation of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Barney Frank), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. And let me say this as well, Mr. Speaker: The high numbers reflected by the numerous backlogs represent far more than faceless statistics. They represent citizens, real people anxiously awaiting their day in court. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to pass H.R. 3528. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage in a colloquy regarding implementation of the unified motor carrier registration system with the chairman and the ranking member. In 1995, when the Congress enacted the ICC Termination Act, we instructed the Secretary of Transportation to establish a single, on- line Federal system for the registration of all interstate motor carriers. The purpose of the system was to enhance the monitoring of safety and insurance compliance. We required the DOT to promulgate final rules by January 1, 1998, but little has been done to accomplish that. The State program, it seems to me, needlessly cost the industry about $90 million a year and ought to be replaced by a single national system as this body intended in 1995. I ask the chairman or the ranking member, is there any optimism to resolve this? Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the bill managers in a colloquy regarding implementation of a unified motor carrier registration system. Mr. Chairman, in 1995, when Congress enacted the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, we instructed the Secretary of Transportation to establish a single, on-line federal system for the registration of all interstate motor carriers. The purpose of the system was to enhance the monitoring of safety and insurance compliance. We required DOT to promulgate final rules by January, 1998. That date has come and gone with little progress. This is largely because, I am advised, the DOT is uncertain what to do with state- operated insurance registration programs that duplicate the anticipated federal program. This House had given DOT clear authority to replace the state programs, while providing the states with free access to the safety and insurance data contained in the federal system. Unfortunately, the House bill was amended in conference to require DOT to preserve the revenues from these fees if DOT replaces the state programs. This change greatly complicated the development of a simplified, uniform federal program. The state programs needlessly cost the industry about $90 million annually. They should be replaced with a single, national system as this body intended in 1995. We need to rectify this problem which has needlessly delayed implementation of the uniform, on-line federal system to cover all interstate motor carriers. (I would greatly prefer that we resolve this issue in conference on this bill. If that proves not to be possible, we must see that we resolve it in some other bill before we adjourn this year.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous steps the committee is taking to significantly to improve donor States rate of return in this bill. BESTEA distributes funds equitably among the States by reforming the highway funding formulas so that they are based upon relevant transportation factors. Specifically, there are provisions in this bill which will guarantee that no State will fall below a 90 percent return on its contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, the committee repealed the penalty on discretionary grants for States that receive minimum allocation funding. While BESTEA is not perfect, Mr. Chairman, it certainly goes a long way to address the critical need of donor States, and I hope we can continue to work together to that end. This bill is not only about saving lives, it is about being honest with the American people. Many Members in the Chamber today will claim that this is a budget buster. I am a fiscal conservative, Mr. Chairman. This charge is simply not true. When Congress set up the Highway Trust Fund, it created a contract with the American people by instituting a gas tax with the promise that these taxes would only be used for transportation improvements. When these taxes are used to mask the size of the deficit or to increase welfare spending or foreign aid, the contract is broken and American lives are put at risk. Using the gas tax for other social spending is wrong and dishonest. We must, in fact, spend these taxes on what we promised we would spend them on. It is an honesty question and it is time to be honest with the American people. If we are not going to expend these monies for the purpose that was intended, then let us repeal the tax. Mr. Chairman, it is time to spend the Highway Trust Fund where it is supposed to be spent: Improving roads and enhancing the safety of the American motorists who use those roads.

Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, last evening I was the visiting lecturer at the Columbia University School of Law in New York and, therefore, unable to participate in the rollcall votes. Had I been present and voting on rollcall votes 81, 82, 83 and 84, the campaign reform issues, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, about 8 or 9 months ago, 4 or 5 of us from the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property were chatting one night, and in the group was the late Sonny Bono. One of the Members, I do not recall his identity, but one of the Members said to Sonny, Bono, you are a restaurateur, you are a song writer. Who do you support on this issue? Sonny said, can we not support both? He said, must I reject one in favor of the other? And I said to him, amen, Sonny. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has crafted such a compromise, a compromise I am told that the song writers and the restaurateurs, neither of whom is completely ecstatic, but both of whom can live with. I have said before, Mr. Chairman, I am a friend of restaurants in my district. Restaurateurs speak to me frequently, and if anybody accuses me of trashing restaurants just because I am supporting the McCollum amendment, I will meet him in the back lot, because that is simply not the case. But restaurateurs come to me and say, this issue is important, but there are other issues that are far more vital to us as operators of restaurants than music licensing. You all get that over with, and there will be other issues on our agenda that we want you to visit before you adjourn in the fall. We had conducted 2 hearings on this, Mr. Chairman. Fair and open- minded, we invited all parties who had interest in the matter to appear. The second hearing occurred in Washington last July. One of the witnesses, a tavern and restaurant owner from Mr. Sensenbrenner's home State of Wisconsin, in his testimony in response to a question, he admitted that his gross earnings for the current period were in excess of $400,000, and he furthermore admitted that his payment to play music was $500. Some of the folks almost fell out of their respective chairs when he announced that his gross was over $400,000, yet he was only required to pay $500. Now, I am not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that that gentleman typifies restaurant and tavern owners around the country; I am suggesting that he was the witness who was selected to appear by the coalition that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) represents. Now, Mr. Chairman, these are issues that talk about big business versus little business. That is not the case at all, and I tried to portray that earlier. I think both sides of the aisle have portrayed it, Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, mugwumps, if there are any, everybody has come to the plate on this.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, how much time does each side have remaining?