John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, some years ago Governor Cuomo of New York made the statement that you are going to hear on the floor of this House during this debate. He said, I am personally opposed to abortion, but I will not vote to end a woman's right to choose. George Will responded to that in an article in the newspaper, where he pointed out that it is a morally incoherent statement. It is morally incoherent. He further pointed out that 141 years ago this year, Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the Dred Scott decision, which said essentially that Americans may continue to own African-Americans as chattel. What was not broadly known at that time was, 30 years prior to that, Justice Taney released his own slaves to freedom. He personally did not believe in slavery, but he did not mind if you did. That is morally incoherent. There have been three times in the history of this great Nation when we have declared portions of our population to be nonpersons under the constitutional protections. The first was Native Americans, when we took their land. The second was black people, when we took their freedom. The third is unborn children, when we are taking their lives. We are still repenting for the first two. We face yet the third. Let me just close by saying this. When a Nation puts people in jail and fines them for destroying the potential life of unborn loggerhead turtles and bald eagles, and pays people for destroying the potential life of unborn babies, that Nation has lost its way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who said that the Texan law was bipartisan, unlike this one, that the last time it met the floor of the House it got nearly 300 votes, including the vote of his leader. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 457 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this evening a ``Dear Colleague'' letter was sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of March 13 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, March 14, to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. LINDER

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, 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 423 is a fair structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000. H. Res. 423 provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order the Committee on the Judiciary's amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. House Resolution 423 makes in order those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. These amendments may be offered only in the order printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in the report. Additionally, these amendments, may be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment, and cannot be divided in the House or the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has made in order three amendments offered by Democrats and one amendment offered by the majority. I want to briefly discuss the amendments that will be discussed on the floor following general debate. First, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) would permit a court to exceed the $250,000 cap on punitive damages if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with specific intent to cause the type of harm for which action was brought. Second, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) would clarify that the term ``punitive damages'' does not include civil penalties, civil fines or treble damages assessed or enforced by a government agency under Federal or State statute. Third, an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) to eliminate a provision in the bill which precludes Federal court jurisdiction. Finally, the rule makes in order a comprehensive amendment that will be offered jointly by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 423 permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if that vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, with all of the accolades that have circulated in recent days as the country enters its 107th month of tremendous economic growth, I place my congratulations with the American worker. With that, we must make special recognition for the small businessman. It is these innovative, determined and resourceful employers that employ 60 percent of America's workforce and have been the engine behind the economy that has brought our Nation so much success. However, despite their success, many small business owners still operate out of fear. But they do not fear missing a rent payment or sending a shipment late. Instead, small business owners alter their business plans, forego promising opportunities, and avoid hiring the next employee because they fear the ambiguous concept of ``liability.'' When I was an owner of businesses before coming to Congress, I thought it was hard enough to manage the here and now: financing, sales, and competition. Today, though, thousands of employers have to consider what could be, simply because they know that a lawyer is always waiting for them to misstep. One hit from a liability lawsuit will kill the average small business, and when that happens, they have not only lost their savings, but they have put their employees out of work and ended their dreams of building their business into an important part of the American economy. The Small Business Liability Reform Act will end this culture of fear and return some measure of security to important decisions that come daily for the average small business owner. The bill establishes uniform liability rules that will promote fairness within the justice system, prevent frivolous lawsuits, and restore sanity to a tort system that often employs a scattershot method to liability. Specifically, the bill ensures that small businesses pay their fair share of noneconomic damages without exposing them to disproportionate penalties that threaten the viability of otherwise law-abiding businesses. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my friend from California (Mr. Rogan) for his hard work on this legislation which provides small businesses with a measure of stability and predictability when considering how best to direct their operations in the current legal climate. I encourage every Member to support this fair rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 423 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a leader in the technology age in this Congress. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the amendment to the rule, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 386 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), 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, H. Res. 386 is a typical rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3194, the conference report for the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. H. Res. 386 also provides that, upon the adoption of the conference report, the text of the concurrent resolution printed in the rule tabling the conference report accompanying the Department of Interior appropriations bill shall be considered as adopted. Finally, House rules provide 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Appropriations and one motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, this rule and this conference report bring the budget process for the fiscal year 2000 to a close by implementing a bipartisan compromise on the remaining appropriations bills, District of Columbia, Interior, Commerce-Justice-State, Foreign Operations, and Education, Labor, Health and Human Services. Only three times in the last two decades has the Congress passed all 13 appropriations bills by the fiscal deadline. I point out one was recently when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was chairman. It is true that we did not make this deadline this year. However, it is also true that keeping our fiscal house in order does take a little longer than the free-wheeling, big-spending days of the past because we must ensure that all funding is spent efficiently and where it is needed the most. The conference report before us this afternoon not only holds the line on the President's additional spending requests, but also responsibly funds areas important to every American citizen and protects the American people from waste, fraud and abuse across the entire Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Republican Congress made a commitment to end the 30-year raid on Social Security and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we have now completed that task. The President began the budget negotiations by taking a large step toward our position on the Social Security issue and joined us in locking away every penny of Social Security. We worked with him in a bipartisan fashion to protect retirement security. We were determined to protect American seniors and this Congress and its leadership denied any piece of legislation on the House floor that spent one penny of it. To achieve our goal of protecting American seniors and responsibly funding important programs, we are including in this bill a plan to direct every Federal agency to reduce spending by less than one-half of one percent, .38 percent of 1 percent, by routing out waste, fraud, and abuse. Surely the government can save less than about half a penny out of every dollar. This Republican Congress is simply asking those who run Federal agencies to make fiscally responsible budgeting decisions with the money taxed out of our paychecks. We all know the agency directors and executives know where the waste is, and I am relatively certain they will be able to weed out at least that much in savings with this sensible plan. In addition to meeting the fiscally responsible objectives, this conference report also ensures that our principles of quality and flexibility in the funding for teachers have been met. In the Labor-HHS section of the bill, this Congress ensures that funding may no longer be used to hire unqualified teachers, provides that schools will have more flexibility in using their funding for improving the quality of uncertified teachers, and increases the amount of funding that may used for professional training for teachers. The administration pushed for a one-size-fits-all mandate in which Washington controlled the 100,000 New Teachers program. Not every district needs new teachers. Some need better-trained teachers. Other districts need books, high-tech equipment, and updated math and reading programs. I think it is foolish for the Washington bureaucracy to tell every school district in America that Washington knows best how to spend tax dollars to educate our children. The debate in Washington is not only about money. It is also about how that money should be spent. This bill moves us closer to the right balance of education funding by providing additional funds for America's students through programs like Pell grants and special education while lowering the bureaucratic burden imposed by Washington through programs like Goals 2000. The Commerce, Justice, State section of the conference report maintains our commitment to enhancing local law enforcement without involving Washington bureaucrats. We also provide funding for 1,000 new border patrol agents, funds for increased criminal and illegal alien detention, and the resources necessary to end the severe naturalization backlog at the INS. The District of Columbia continues to receive the high level of funding provided in each round of this process. The conference report paves the way for dramatic improvement in the education of Washington's children, the safety of our streets, and the management of our Nation's Capital. H.R. 3194 also brokers a responsible compromise on the environment in the Interior appropriations section of this conference report. Republicans rejected attempts to impose the restrictions of the Kyoto global warming regime on Americans without Senate consideration of the treaty. Nevertheless, the bill maintains our high environmental standards and ensures our air and water will be cleaned into the next millennium. While I will permit the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to describe fully all the contents of the appropriations bill, I did want to note the inclusion of the satellite copyright legislation about which many of our constituents have expressed concerns during the past year. I am pleased that this bill will provide a new copyright license to satellite television that will allow constituents to receive their local television channels over their satellite service. In addition, this bill will bring real competition, ensure better prices and choices for our constituents, protect existing subscribers from having their distant network service shut off, and make it easier for consumers to get either a waiver or an eligibility test for distant network service in the event the waiver request is denied. This bill is good for our constituents, and I am pleased to support it. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), each of the subcommittee chairmen on the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their tireless efforts over the past few weeks to reach an agreement on the budget. This rule was favorably reported by the Committee on Rules yesterday, I think that might have been this morning, at about 3:30 a.m., and I urge my colleagues to support the bill on the floor so we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of this important conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the State Flexibility Clarification Act, and I commend the hard work in the gentleman from New York in ensuring its passage. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Committee on Rules subcommittee with jurisdiction over the mandates legislation, I held a hearing earlier this year on the effectiveness of the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and proposals to expand that Act. We have now had 3 full years to observe how the law has worked. It has worked well. The bill has simply forced Members to review reliable information from the CBO in an effort to increase not only Member consciousness of the cost of legislation, but also public awareness. The bill under consideration today is similar to language in the Mandates Information Act that we considered in February of this year. I am pleased that the State Flexibility Clarification Act will now pass as a stand-alone bill today. The reason this bill is necessary is because in 1996 the Congressional Budget Office decided that Federal entitlement programs such as Medicaid, child nutrition, and foster care are considered exempt from the unfunded intergovernmental mandates requirements if Congress imposes new conditions, places caps on funding, or cuts funding without giving the States the authority to adjust to those changes. The CBO interpretation exempted more than two-thirds of mandatory entitlement programs from coverage under the 1995 mandates bill. As a result, the point of order against unfunded requirements on State and local governments would not apply in these circumstances. Therefore, the bill on the floor today will help clarify that any cut or cap of entitlement programs constitutes a Federal intergovernmental mandate, and would require committees and the CBO to report on new or additional flexibility and the authority to offset the cut or the cap. This is a good bill that clarifies what was intended by the Congress when it passed the original mandates bill in March of 1995. I urge Members to strongly support it.