John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that is one of the gentleman's more interesting bits of prose. I suppose there is a kernel of thought lurking in it, but I did not detect it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 609 provides us the opportunity to take H.R. 5063, with the Senate amendments, and to consider without intervention of any point of order a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means or his designee. The motion provides the opportunity for the House to concur in each of the Senate amendments with the amendment that has been printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. The rule also waives all points of order against consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate amendments with amendments, and it provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 609 provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to complete the work of the 107th Congress and take H.R. 5063 from the Speaker's table, there are a couple of items of importance that will be inserted in this vehicle that the House will now have the opportunity to support following the adoption of this rule. First, the amendments provide for a full extension through March 31, 2003, of current funding and program rules in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the Child Care, Abstinence Education, and Transitional Medical Assistance programs. In 1996, the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program fixed block grants for State designated programs of time- limited and work-conditioned aid to families with children. It also created a mandatory block grant to States for child care for low-income families, funded through fiscal year 2002. While the first continuing resolution passed by the House in September extended these programs through December 31, 2002, the CR passed by the House this week further extended those programs through the date of January 11, 2003. Unfortunately, in terms of the feasibility of approving funding for these programs through January 11 of next year, it makes much more programmatic sense for us to provide funds to the States on a quarterly basis and therefore extend the funding and program rules through an entire quarter to March 31, 2003. Second, the amendment extends federally funded temporary unemployment benefits of current recipients and those in high unemployment States through January of 2003. In brief, this amendment will extend unemployment benefits for up to an additional 5 weeks per individual by moving the cutoff date to February 1, 2003. I believe that the House and Senate will eagerly support this provision that provides supplementary weeks of employment benefits to over 800,000 persons across the United States. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and the subsequent motion to be offered by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. 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 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will agree that this is not the best we can do, but it is the best we can do at this hour. I would agree that it is perhaps true that the other body may not take it up and pass it, just like they have not passed other things we have passed. This bill going over there unpassed will have lots of company, but it is trying to do the right thing. It is trying to help with unemployment, it is trying to help with TANF, and it is trying to help with reimbursement. It is worth our consideration. I urge this body to pass the previous question, to pass the rule, and I will support the underlying legislation.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York said he wished somebody could explain it to him. I think somebody will. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 598, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Hon. Paul D. Wellstone.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California. Let us contemplate for a moment the ramifications of substituting this amendment for the underlying Hastert-Gephardt resolution. If next February Saddam Hussein limits the ability of U.N. inspectors to check for weapons of mass destruction, the Lee amendment says let's talk. If next April Saddam Hussein kills several thousand innocent Iraqi men, women and children using biological agents, the Lee amendment says again, let's talk. If next June a terrorist attempts to use a crude nuclear device facilitated by Iraq against a major U.S. city, the Lee amendment says, let's talk. Mr. Speaker, the lack of enforcement contained in this amendment is a bit like a senior citizen trying to stop a mugging by suggesting they dance the polka. Supporters of this amendment say, let's support the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. We have done that. They say, let's go to the U.N. for a solution. We have done that. They say, let's engage our allies in this effort. I say again, we have done that. Mr. Speaker, what cannot be disputed today is that peace and freedom are the ends to which we now seek our means. President Bush has demonstrated the courage to lead and to draw a line in the sand. Now is the time for Congress to support his leadership. I am proud to join a broad bipartisan coalition of Members by standing up to tyranny and oppression and opposition to freedom by voting no on this amendment. By rejecting this spurious amendment we will ensure that America's promise to uphold the rule of law and to protect the peace-loving people of the world actually has meaning.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying legislation which authorizes the use of our Armed Forces by the President of the United States against Iraq. In addition, this rule will allow for the consideration of two amendments in the nature of substitutes, thus allowing the Members of the House to choose among several measures on this grave and important issue. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for his thoughtful deliberation in bringing this rule to the floor today. Over the next few days, this body will find itself engaged in a debate of historic proportions; and, once the debate has concluded, we must give an answer to our President who has asked the Congress to unite with him in opposition to the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. I am proud to stand with President Bush and cast my vote in support of H.J. Res. 114. Since 1798, the United States has involved itself in approximately 310 separate military actions worldwide. Of that total, Congress has authorized the use of force through legislation 11 times and has declared war on sovereign states five times. Thus, the vote we will cast on this legislation will be among the most profound of our careers. Yet a careful review of the evidence that President Bush has put before the country, the United Nations, and the world makes it clear that this difficult choice is our only reasonable choice. Of course, a peaceful resolution to the problems that Saddam Hussein poses in the world would be ideal, and continued diplomacy should be our preferred tool. Yet what has been going on for the last 11 years if not that? The failures of the United Nations' actions are well known. Shall we continue down that same road and expect to arrive at a different destination? The President has made clear that we will continue to work with the United Nations for a peaceful result, but absent that the United States must be prepared to take strong action. This resolution makes it clear to Saddam that, if he fails to immediately comply with a host of United Nations resolutions, then he must be fully prepared to accept the consequences of those failures. The fundamental question before us today is: Will the United States of America, in coalition with the peace-loving nations of this world, allow the tyranny of Saddam to continue, or will we take steps to rid the world of this growing menace? What is clear today, Mr. Speaker, is that a peaceful world is the end we seek, a world in which free nations can pursue their own dreams unthreatened by warring despots whose only pursuit is power. The people of Iraq should and must be free from the oppressive, tyrannical and dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein. The peace-loving people of the Middle East, the European continent, Asia, Africa, and, yes, North America, too, must be freed from the fear that weapons of mass destruction visit upon them. It is indisputable that the United States has been, for over two centuries, the beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world. Our military ambitions have been forever leavened by our dream of peace and freedom in the world. I see no reason now to answer this call with a message of timidity or caution. I urge my colleagues to join with me so that Congress can speak with a clear voice and support the President for peace throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying, H.J. Res. 114, which authorizes the use of our Armed Forces by the President of the United States against Iraq. In addition, this rule will allow for the consideration of two amendments in the nature of substitutes, thus allowing the Members of the House to choose among several measures on this grave and important issue. I commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, for his thoughtful deliberation in bringing this rule to the floor today. Over the next few days, this body will find itself engaged in a debate of historic proportions. And, once the debate has concluded, we must give an answer to our President, who has asked the Congress to untie with him in opposition to the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. I am proud to stand with President Bush, and cast my vote in support of H.J. Res. 114. Since 1798, the United States has involved itself in approximately 310 separate military actions worldwide. Of that total, Congress has authorized the use of force, through legislation, 11 times, and has declared war on sovereign states five times. Thus, the vote we will cast on this legislation will be among the most profound of our careers. Yet, a careful review of the evidence that President Bush has put before our country, the United Nations and the world makes clear that this difficult choice is our only reasonable choice. Of course, a peaceful resolution to the problems that Saddam Hussein poses to the world would be ideal, and continued diplomacy should be our preferred tool. Yet, what has been going on for the last 11 years if not that? The failures of United Nations actions are well known. Shall we continue down that same road and expect to arrive at a different destination? The President has made clear that we will continue to work with the United Nations for a peaceful result, but absent that the United States must be prepared to take strong action. This resolution makes clear to Saddam that, if he fails to immediately comply with a host of United Nations resolutions, then he must be fully prepared to accept the consequences of those failures. The fundamental question before us today is: will the United States of America, in coalition with the peace-loving nations of this world, allow the tyranny of Saddam to continue, or will we take steps to rid the world of this growing menace? What is clear today, Mr. Speaker, is that a peaceful world is the end we seek. A world in which free nations can pursue their own dreams unthreatened by warring despots whose only pursuit is power. The people of Iraq should and must be free from the oppressive, tyrannical, and dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein. The peace-loving people of the Middle East, the European continent, Asia, Africa, and North America, too, must be freed from the fear that weapons of mass destruction visit upon them. It is indisputable that the United States has been, for over two centuries, the beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world. Our military ambitions have been forever leavened by our dream of peace and freedom for the world. I see no reason to now answer this call with a message of timidity or caution. Passing this resolution with a broad, bi-partisan majority gives the U.S. Congress the opportunity to bring a troubled world together under the flag of freedom, a flag that has been unseen in much of the Middle East for too many generations. I ask my colleagues to join with me, so that the Congress may speak in one clear voice, to answer the President's call for peace throughout the world, to remove those who seek to harm not only their own people, but everyone who believes in liberty and justice, and to bring freedom to the people of Iraq--by any means necessary.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, which makes a number of desirable changes to the duty rates on certain imported goods and makes technical corrections to the Trade and Development Act of 2002. I appreciate the diligent efforts of Subcommittee Chairman Crane and other members of the Trade Subcommittee in bringing this important bill to the floor. H.R. 5385, the ``Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2002,'' includes some important measures that I introduced as freestanding bills to help manufacturing businesses in Georgia's 11th District remain competitive and save jobs. Passage of this bill will protect jobs in Georgia and across the nation, in addition to promoting the U.S. economy. In particular, certain provisions of H.R. 5385 will eliminate the tariffs on high tenacity rayon filament yarn, which is imported for use in tires and industrial hoses. Although this industrial yarn is not produced domestically, it currently faces high tariffs. The elimination of this unnecessary tariff will promote lower-cost goods and protect jobs across the United States. Another noteworthy provision of H.R. 5285 will correct a premature liquidation by the U.S. Customs Service on the importation of aramid fibers. This error resulted in the assessment of costly antidumping duties on aramid fibers imported for use in ballistics, tires, friction, mechanical rubber goods, and optical fiber cables. I am pleased that this fair measure has also been included in H.R. 5385. In closing, this comprehensive bill will help American businesses to stay competitive with foreign companies, thereby providing lower-cost goods to American consumers, protecting jobs for American workers, and, ultimately, making the American economy more prosperous. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution sponsored by my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) which expresses a sense of the U.S. House of Representatives that all 50 States should examine their laws governing special elections to fill vacancies in the House with an eye toward developing expedited procedures for such elections in the case of such a catastrophe. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America learned many lessons about need for enhanced homeland security from the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Given that it is widely believed that the United Airlines Flight 93 was headed for the U.S. Capitol that Tuesday morning, we can only imagine the damage that would have been done to the legislative branch of our Federal Government but for the truly remarkable bravery of Flight 93's passengers. Their heroic actions have, however, given us a chance to make contingency plans for the future. In the case of another attempt to disrupt or destroy our democratic system of government, we should be prepared, and that is why a prompt and overwhelming passage of H. Res. 559 is so important today. The U.S. House of Representatives is urging the States to take whatever steps they deem appropriate to modify, change, or update their laws governing special elections to fill vacancies in the House such that a catastrophic event would not unduly hinder the ability of the U.S. Congress to conduct its business in the future. I am pleased to serve as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology and the House of the Committee on Rules. Among the matters under my subcommittee's jurisdiction are the rules of the House. As has been noted by some, the House rules do not speak to how this institution would conduct its business in the event of a catastrophic disaster, and that is an issue that I fully expect we will explore in the 108th Congress next year. In the meantime, I know that my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), are currently chairing a commission of distinguished individuals, including former House Speakers Gingrich and Foley, who are looking into this matter in greater detail with the hope of bringing forward other recommendations for how best to deal with the myriad of questions involving ensuring the continuity of Congress. In this respect, I look forward to working closely with the Cox-Frost Commission and other Members of the House on both sides of the aisle in the next congressional session. Nothing less than the future stability of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Government's legislative branch, and the rule of law are at stake. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 528 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 Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a fair, structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1701, the Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act. H. Res. 528 provides 1 hour of general debate, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services, as amended by the amendment recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. H. Res. 528 makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. This rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report. Finally, H. Res. 528 provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in support of this fair rule, which would enable the House to work its will on H.R. 1701, and two separate amendments, one offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and another offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). In summary, H.R. 1701 seeks to create uniform national disclosure standards for the rent-to-own industry. It provides greater cost information to consumers who are considering rental purchase agreements. I would like to commend the work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), my friend and colleague of the Committee on Financial Services, in bringing this legislation to the House floor, which I was pleased to cosponsor earlier this year. I also want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for being the primary author of this measure. Again, in closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this fair rule so that the House can proceed to consider the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that if one is buying a house, in the typical payment, one is paying roughly 200 percent of the cost of the house after it is over. Most people are not complaining. And to the gentlewoman from California, who said twice she has a list of 52 attorneys general writing in against this, I would love to see that list. 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, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Today is the 1-year anniversary of the most horrific attack on American soil in our history. On September 11, 2001, freedom-hating terrorists took from all of us our sense of innocence. They took from all of us the idea that innocent men, women and children going about their daily lives are immune from the horrors of war. They took from all of us the sense of safety and security to which we had become accustomed. What they did not take from us and what they could not ever take from us, no matter how hard they tried a year ago, is our freedom and liberty, our way of life, our government of the people, by the people and for the people. New York Governor Pataki opened the memorial ceremony at Ground Zero this morning with the reading of the Gettysburg Address which President Lincoln delivered in 1863, barely 100 miles from where the passengers of United Flight 93 heroically stopped terrorists from their attempt to, I believe, destroy this very building. Part of President Lincoln's address includes these words: ``That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.'' We, too, are dedicated to a new birth of freedom here in this new century. The horrible events of last September 11 have reawakened in all Americans a new sense of patriotism; a strength, a resolve that had lain dormant for far too long. The flags we see flying in every neighborhood across America today were not put up this morning. They have been there for the last year. The support of the American people for our men and women fighting overseas has remained unwavering, and the kind words and deeds of our fellow man seem all the more common today, 1 year later. Eugene McCarthy once observed that America can choke on a gnat, but swallow tigers whole. This is a tiger that we as a Congress and as a Nation must deal with, and we will. There is no lack of resolution here. There is no rancor. We will continue to stand behind the President. We will continue to do what we must do to keep those who hate our values and ideals from committing evil acts against us ever again. Today let us honor and pay tribute to those who were taken from us before their time and resolve to remember them always. But let us also resolve that our commitment to the Republic that our Founders risked their own lives to create more than 200 years ago is stronger than ever. The foundation of our Nation is solid, and so is our dedication to her. Mr. Speaker, God bless America.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of both the rule and the underlying legislation, the conference report on the Trade Act of 2002. First and foremost, as a member of the conference committee on the 2002 Trade Act, I wish to express my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his leadership and diligence in bringing this important legislation to the floor today. I commend the chairman for his devotion to promoting the principles of free trade and ensuring the U.S.'s prominence in the international marketplace. Mr. Speaker, in one of his first requests to the 107th Congress, President Bush requested the authority to negotiate trade agreements with credibility in the international arena. The President understands what so many macroeconomists have proclaimed, trade is beneficial to all nations and all peoples. Through trade agreements with other nations, new horizons are opened for U.S. exports, helping to create high-quality new jobs for Americans while American consumers gain access to lower-cost goods. The President knows that free trade benefits the U.S. economy. Given our recent economic uncertainty, it is important that we finally grant his request for the authority to negotiate trade agreements in order to help strengthen our economy. Finally, without this legislation, the House of Representatives has no voice in the negotiation of trade agreements. The House is elevated by the trade promotion authority provisions included in the 2002 Trade Act, which require the President to consult with both the House and the Senate throughout trade negotiations. Once an agreement has been reached, the House and Senate each have the opportunity to approve or disapprove the agreement. Mr. Speaker, this conference report gives the House of Representatives a voice in trade negotiations, a voice which would otherwise be silent. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the rule and the conference report to ensure that we may participate in future trade negotiations.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of both the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5005. This is a fair rule that will allow the House to work its will on the Homeland Security bill. First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I think we should all say thank you to our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the Select Committee he headed. They have done a first-rate job under very difficult circumstances, and for that the people of this Nation owe them a debt of gratitude. For 200 years, we have been the most open, casual, and free Nation in the history of the world. We had the most powerful military in the world and our economic strength was challenged by no other. Our people enjoyed civil freedoms and liberties of which other citizens could only dream. I daresay we took it for granted that we are Americans. September 11 changed that forever. Because of that day we feel and are vulnerable. Because of that day, we feel helpless. In 1777, John Jay, America's first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and a vigorous defender of the Constitution, wrote, ``Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first.'' Today, we have the opportunity to make things right. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides us with a chance to uphold what the Founders considered to be the Federal Government's highest responsibility, to protect the people of this country. We will have a whole new list of heroes to look forward to. They will be first responders, firefighters, police officers, State troopers, and EMTs. They will be on the front lines here. All of us have in our memories seared images of heroism. Whether it was the doughboys at Vimy Ridge, or the Marines putting up the flag over Iwo Jima, or the boys at Pointe du Hoc climbing that treacherous cliff at Normandy under withering machine gun fire, only to take Europe and free it in 11 months. I have a new image of that heroism. It is the image of 50,000 people scrambling in utter fear out of burning buildings for their safety, and another group of Americans in firefighter uniforms running into those buildings to save them. Those are the ones that this homeland security bill will start to look toward to get support for. We must remember that no one department has been clearly entrusted with the security of this country. All will be involved. As such, I stand with the President and his efforts to create a new Department of Homeland Security. I support this bipartisan measure. I urge my colleagues to do the same to ensure that our Nation is prepared, and that the freedoms and liberties we hold dear are never threatened again.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 4965, the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002. This rule will allow adequate time for debate on this measure in addition to a motion to recommit with or without instructions, which will allow the House to work its will on this bill. Today I will spare the House the horrible details of partial-birth abortion, for I am certain that many of my colleagues are all too familiar with the gruesome reality of this deadly procedure. I am also well aware of the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart and the attempts by opponents of this bill to use that 5-4 decision as a safety net for their pro-abortion agenda. Opponents of this measure will tell us that H.R. 4965 is unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court's Carhart decision. They will tell us we have no right to legislate a ban on this horrible practice because the Supreme Court says we cannot. I find that argument ironic, considering 413 Members of this body voted to pass a child pornography bill last month after the Supreme Court told us in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition that we could not. Although I certainly respect the Supreme Court exercising its article III duties, I believe the Congress has its own duty to create and pass laws that protect the people of this country. Before today, the House of Representatives had passed a ban on this procedure by veto-proof majorities in the last three Congresses. Why? Because an overwhelming bipartisan majority of this body, Members who represent the collective voice of the people of this country, believe that the line differentiating this practice and homicide is gray at best. How can any Member of the House turn to their constituents and tell them yes, I support a practice where the legal definition of murder and abortion are separated by mere inches? I, for one, cannot. As such, I support both this rule and the underlying measure. It is time we put an end to this procedure which has been historically opposed not only by an overwhelming majority of this body but by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country. We will not relent on this issue. We will continue to fight for a ban on partial- birth abortions, and I ask that Members join with us in prohibiting this abhorrent practice. In closing, let me say that when a Nation puts people in jail and fines them for destroying the potential life of an unborn loggerhead turtle or bald eagle, and then pays people for destroying the potential life of unborn babies, that Nation has lost its way.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 439) honoring Corinne ``Lindy'' Claiborne Boggs on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Congressional Women's Caucus.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), I suspect a long- time friend of the Boggs family.