John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman will yield further, it will be the adoption of the rule will strike the language.

Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman would yield further, I think we know where to start now.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the impact of this amendment would just delete any possibility that any increases or expansions of dental care or vision care will be expanded.

Mr. LINDER. That is correct. The adoption of the rule will put in place limiting language that will prevent any expansion of those benefits.

Mr. LINDER

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

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

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, on my time, I would like to ask the Clerk to reread the rule.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I thought I was correct. This is a rule on suspensions, not on Medicare. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not agree with my Massachusetts colleague who said it is dumbing down democracy to do suspensions and not have amendments. To get to a conclusion at many times is good for the process, good for the country.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I have explained this rule, and the Clerk has read it twice. I do not know what the gentleman does not understand about it or what needs to be discussed about it. This was a rule that was passed in April under unanimous consent. If the gentleman wants to discuss the rule, I will be delighted to engage him. But if the gentleman wants to discuss something else, he is all on his own.

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

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

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

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 297 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 297 is a simple, straightforward measure that authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays for the remainder of the 108th Congress. I strongly supported this proposal and urge all of my colleagues in the House to join with me in approving this measure. This past Monday, the Rules Subcommittee on Technology and the House, which I chair, held a hearing to consider this very proposal. The chairman of the Committee on Rules testified on this proposal, and the subcommittee gathered testimony from the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) as well. During the debate on H. Res. 297, I urge my colleagues to keep their remarks to the underlying measure, rather than use this modest proposal as an excuse to debate other matters. Extending the Speaker's ability to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays provides the House leadership with another tool that can be used to easily move noncontroversial legislation through the Chamber. By way of background, when the House convened on January 7, 2003, we adopted H. Res. 5, the House rules for the 108th Congress. Specifically, clause 1 of rule XV provides that it is in order for the House to entertain a motion to suspend the rules on Mondays, Tuesdays, and in the last 6 days of session of Congress. That very same day, the House also approved a standing order that authorized the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays, through the second Wednesday in April. On April 30, 2003, the House adopted a unanimous consent agreement that extended the authority of the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through yesterday, June 25. There have been a total of 16 Wednesdays this year on which the House could have considered legislation under suspension of the rules. Through yesterday, this authority was exercised 13 times. Entertaining motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays has been a valuable and helpful tool for the House leadership. In fact, just a few weeks ago, the minority showed how much clout they can have actually in defeating these suspensions when they opposed two Senate-passed public lands bills and both measures failed under suspension of the rules. Eventually, we brought both measures back to the floor where they were overwhelmingly approved. There is simply no evidence to support any claim that permitting the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Wednesdays limits or infringes on the rights of the minority. Madam Speaker, approving this resolution is the right thing to do. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to give the gentleman 2 minutes.

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

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that this is a typical rule on a tax bill, and it gives the minority an opportunity to put all of their eggs in one basket and to vote on a substitute; and that is fair. But let me speak to the underlying issue, the bill. I was with President Bush some months ago at Harrison High School in Cobb County, Georgia. He spoke for about 30 minutes in a gymnasium that was filled to the rafters. And at one brief time he said we must make permanent the repeal of the death tax, and the place exploded in spontaneous applause and cheering. I turned to the person I was sitting next to, and I said there are not 40 people in this auditorium who are going to benefit from that. They are cheering it because they think it is a moral issue. People should be able to pass on what they earn and keep. Mr. Speaker, why are we so angry at success in this body? What do rich people do with their money? They give it away, and they do not give it away for tax reasons. Some of the great fortunes that were given away, the Fricks, the Carnegies, the Mellons, were given away before we had a Tax Code. They were given away because they wanted to, and we think they have a right to decide where their money goes. Bill Gates gives it in Africa for health reasons; Ted Turner gave $1 billion to the United Nations. Let them make that choice, rather than take it away from them and make the choice for them. I have said this before on this floor, and I want to say it again. Some years ago and maybe today, if you want to start a business in some great cities, you are visited by a pretty scruffy guy who says we are going to let you stay in business, but we want 30 percent of your profits. And if you sell the business, we are going to take 20 percent of what you make off it; but even the Mafia does not show up at the widow's doorstep asking for their share of what is left over. Our government does. It is immoral, and it ought to end.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me this time. I rise in support of House Resolution 269 and urge the House to approve this rule so that we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation, H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. This structured rules makes in order a total of four amendments. In fact, three of those amendments are sponsored by Democrats. The other amendment has bipartisan sponsorship. Thus this rule will allow the House to work its will on the key issues that these amendments raise, and H. Res. 269 should receive bipartisan support for doing so. The editorial staff for The Washington Post once wrote that ``no portion of the American civil justice system is more of a mess than the world of class actions. None is in more desperate need of policymakers' attention.'' I agree. Class action litigation is one of America's most embarrassing judicial practices, pitting settlement-hungry lawyers against unsuspecting consumers seeking redress for their grievances. I know that all of the Members of this House are very familiar with some of the outrageous class action settlements that have become depressingly common in States all across the Nation. In these instances, skillful trial lawyers earn million-dollar fees for filing meritless class action lawsuits which are frequently settled rather than litigated in court. When this happens, trial lawyers are the primary beneficiaries, and the individuals with the class action lawsuits receive very modest financial payments or even, in some cases, just coupons toward future purchases. Surely we can do better than that for the American people. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1115 contains a number of commonsense reforms all designed to curb these abusive lawsuits, while still ensuring that legitimate lawsuits can move through the court system. The fact that this class action reform was crafted in a bipartisan fashion is a credit to its authors, the gentlemen from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and (Mr. Boucher). I support their responsible collection of legal reforms, and I hope legislation of this nature can be enacted during this Congress.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

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

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).