John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia would like to inform the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) that, as soon as he uses up his 3\1/2\ minutes, I intend to move the previous question.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying this is a fair rule, considering the fact that this entire bill was debated openly and at great length on July 27 or 28, that we have keen knowledge of what is in this bill from both sides. I urge the House to support this 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, the prayer this morning was offered by Rabbi Ronald D. Gerson, who comes to us today from my district in Athens, Georgia, the largest city in the Eleventh District of Georgia. Rabbi Gerson has been a rabbi for a quarter of a century and now serves at Congregation Children of Israel in Athens, Georgia. I am delighted to introduce him to the House of Representatives and thank him for his inspiring words of prayer for today's session. Rabbi Gerson has devoted his life to public and spiritual service, and I was honored to first meet Rabbi Gerson when I visited his congregation a couple of years ago. I want to also recognize his wife and daughter and brother-in-law who are visiting today also, and I have been informed that Rabbi Gerson's mother, who lives in California, is probably watching her son at the early hour of 7 a.m. on the West Coast. His knowledge of the tradition of faith and his ability to share his understanding of it with others has found an appreciative audience in Georgia and today across the country and the world as he carries the eternal message to others. I am proud to share the floor with Rabbi Gerson because of his religious convictions, his commitment to the service of others, and his faithful devotion to his congregation. I join all my colleagues in the House in thanking our distinguished guest chaplain for bringing us an inspirational message to commence this day of the House session.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 295 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 such time as he might consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for the closing arguments on a very fair rule. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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, House Resolution 295 a modified, open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 295 provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the 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 the Judiciary now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. House Resolution 295 also provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be open to amendment by section. The resolution provides for the consideration of pro forma amendments and those amendments printed in the Congressional Record which may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, and shall be considered as read. The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in the series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to eliminate the abuse of the current class action rules. Today, an attorney can devise a theoretical case, write it as a class action, and argue that he is pursuing the claim on behalf of millions of people, none of which solicited that attorney's assistance. Using this practice, hundreds of frivolous lawsuits are filed in favorable State courts and used as high-stakes, court-endorsed blackmail devices against companies which usually settle rather than face a long and arduous court battle. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Federal Judicial Conference has reported that class actions have increased 300 to 1,000 percent per company in the last 3 years. This explosion of class actions, done in the name of the consumer, has cost businesses and consumers billions of dollars in legal fees and higher prices. Even worse, legitimate legal claims have been collusively resolved by lawyers in back rooms while the real victims have gotten, at best, a handful of coupons for their favorite laundry detergent. One of the rules that allows the attorneys to abuse the class action process is the ``diversity'' requirement. Foreseeing the possibility that attorneys that would seek the most favorable State court to hear their case, the Founding Fathers included a provision in article III of the Constitution that cites numerous situations in which Federal courts would have jurisdiction when a case included different parties from different States. Since that time, however, the threshold for removal of a Federal case to Federal court has been significantly raised to require that the claim by each member of the class exceed $75,000 and members of the class are of different States. These new standards have promoted ``venue shopping'' by attorneys, who go looking for States that would be particularly favorable to their claim. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 would end this abuse. Under new rules included in the bill, interstate class actions could be returned to the proper venue, the Federal courts, where both plaintiff and defendant have an equal standing. Either a plaintiff or a defendant could have the right to remove the case to the Federal level. Further, attorneys would have less of an incentive to file frivolous claims when the venue could be changed from their favorable State courtroom to a more balanced Federal bench. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1875 also protects the jurisdictions of State courts by ensuring that class actions involving less than $1 million in claims or fewer than 100 people could still be heard at the State level. Cases in which State officials or agencies are the primary defendants would also be left to State courts. Unfortunately, some will argue today that this bill will prevent Americans from getting justice. Do not be fooled. What they really mean is that trial lawyers will not be able to fill their coffers in State courts at the expense of both the businesses they sue and the citizens that they supposedly represent. Under current rules, if two lawyers have entered competing class actions in court, the first to be decided gets all of the relief and the other action is moot, which leaves the members of the other action without any recourse in court. H.R. 1875 would allow plaintiffs to remove their case to Federal court, where these similar actions would be coordinated into a single action, benefiting the people seeking redress and not the trial lawyers. H.R. 1875 also includes provisions to ensure that these new rules will not place unreasonable burdens on the Federal judiciary. While CBO estimates that H.R. 1875 would have only a minimal impact on the Federal bench, the bill requires the GAO to complete a study on the effect that the changes in diversity rules would have on the Federal judiciary and report to Congress no later than 1 year after the bill's enactment. I applaud my friend from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for their good work on this action, which returns our class action system to the fundamental principles intended by our founders when they created the Federal judiciary. This bill is fair to all parties and restores the impartial venue of the Federal courts to class actions. I encourage every Member to support this fair rule and the underlying rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the last person in the well made the case very clearly as to what the debate is about. The Republican's $792 billion tax cut gives money back to the people who earned it. The Democrats want to spend it. It is just that simple. We heard the gentleman say we did not have enough money for education and for the programs he wants to spend it on. We want you to spend it; they want to spend it for you. It is a very, very simple issue. The one thing that we are very clear on is that we passed the Social Security lockbox. Not one penny of Social Security surpluses will go for spending or for tax relief; it will go for Social Security. I will repeat it again. We want you to spend it; they want to spend it for you.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to my colleagues on House Joint Resolution 62, a resolution to ratify an interstate compact that corrects a long-standing border dispute between the States of Georgia and South Carolina. It is not every day that Congress deals with borders between States. Sometimes it seems that borders are some of the only constants in the changing social and political landscape of America. Nevertheless, Georgia and South Carolina come to Congress today to settle a dispute that has gone as high as the United States Supreme Court concerning their common border where the Savannah River meets the sea. The issue at hand is essentially a product of time and geography. The original line between the States was set in 1787 at the Beaufort Convention. Much of the interior of the two States had not been surveyed, and officials had not even dreamed of the precise coordinate systems of today. Therefore, the delegates to the Convention used the natural landmarks they have available and set the boundary as the northern branch of the Savannah River, reserving all islands to Georgia. This line has stood in question for 140 years until 1922, when the Supreme Court clarified the line in a case between Georgia and South Carolina involving the stage of the river that should be used to determine the boundary. In this decision, the Court stated that where there were islands in the Savannah River, the boundary would fall at the midpoint between the island's bank and the South Carolina bank at normal stage. Where there were no islands, the border would fall at the midpoint between the two banks at normal stage. In the years following this decision, the obvious question arose concerning whether islands that had formed since the Beaufort Convention automatically belong to Georgia or to the State in whose territory the islands would have fallen at the time of the Convention. Dredging performed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Savannah River and additional questions involving the mouth of the river further complicated the border dispute. The expansion of the Port of Savannah and the economic interests in the region began to be disrupted by the confusion. Finally, Madam Speaker, in 1990 the Supreme Court decided the issue by assigning the particular set of islands in dispute, the Barnwell Islands, to South Carolina. Further, the Court found that the Beaufort Convention did not control the islands formed in the river since its ratification. The Court directed the States to draw up new boundary agreements based on these principles. The two States have worked with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, using the best mapping and surveying equipment available to set a boundary that is in keeping with the Court's findings. It is this new agreement that we bring before the House today. H.J. Res. 62 ratifies the boundary agreed upon by both States and codified into law by both State legislatures. The line runs roughly along the center of Savannah River and incorporates the findings of the Supreme Court in its latest decision. I understand that there are some discrepancies between the authorizing bills from the two States, but I believe that this resolution will allow Congress to approve the agreement while giving the States the flexibility to make any final corrections that may be necessary. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for his hard work on this legislation and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner). This joint resolution satisfies the Constitution's requirement that Congress ratify all interstate compacts. I hope that the House will look favorably on our States' efforts to legally clarify our borders using today's sophisticated mapping technology, and I appreciate this opportunity to address the Nation that uniquely affects the people of my State.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the Chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, again at the risk of sounding remedial, I would like to point out that our budget reduces the debt $200 billion more than the Clinton-Gore budget. 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 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274 provides for the consideration of the conference report for H.R. 2488, the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. House Resolution 274 waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration, and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, the rule provides that clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which requires a three-fifths vote on any amendment or measure containing a Federal income tax increase, shall not apply to the question of adoption of the conference report and to any subsequent conference report or to any motion to dispose of an amendment between the houses on the bill. Mr. Speaker, the growth in Federal tax revenue has consistently outpaced the growth in income of the American people paying those taxes. For the first time in American history, taxes have reached war era levels during peacetime. Budget projections show taxes at above 20 percent of the gross domestic product for the next 10 years. Last year, and at least for the next few, this ratio exceeds the levels of taxation during 1945, when America was involved in every corner of the world during and after World War II. In short, the American people are paying too much taxes. The American people have given the Federal Government too much of their money, and we have to decide what to do with it. We committed ourselves to a certain cost of government in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. Since then, the American people have grown the economy so much they have paid too much for their government, and it is time to give it back. That is exactly what the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act proposes to do, make change for the American people on their tax bill. On every other bill we get in the mail, for credit cards, the power bill, the phone bill, if we overpay, the company notes a little CR credit on the bill, crediting that amount for the next month. What would we think if businesses one day decided they could spend that overpayment better than we could, and just added it to their income statement at the end of the year? Why would we let the Federal Government do this to us? That is what many of our colleagues in the House and the President are trying to do. Just a few months ago President Clinton said, we could give it all back to you, and hope you spend it right, but. But of course he believes that he knows how to spend our money better than we do, and he would rather let the Federal Government decide how to use our overpayment. We in the majority believe our constituents have overpaid enough and are burdened every day by oppressive taxes. Let us think about what Americans must pay. First we are taxed on our income, then we are taxed on our savings and investments. Then we are taxed on our business, and irrationally, if we get married, we get a marriage penalty tax. If that is not enough, there are death taxes levied on us after we have died. Our tax relief bill begins to change this pattern. This bill entirely eliminates the death tax, which has prevented thousands of Americans from keeping their family-owned businesses or family farms. It provides a 1 percent reduction in every American's tax rate, ensuring that every American who has been overcharged for their government will receive a refund. The bill seeks to expand on the investment that has helped to give us this surplus by cutting capital gains. The Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act also provides $100 billion in relief from the marriage tax penalty, a tangled web of tax provisions that have punished Americans for marrying for far too long. H.R. 2488 expands opportunities for families to save for their children's education or their retirement, and it allows the self- employed to deduct the full cost of their health care. In total, this bill provides $792 billion in well-deserved tax relief for the American people. Tax relief is about freedom, freedom to save, spend, or invest, as we see fit. It is about returning dollars and decisions back home to the American people and American families. With this bill, hard-working Americans will not have to work as long to pay the IRS. That means parents will have more time to spend with their kids or take care of an elderly parents. They will also have the financial freedom to do the things they want to do. I trust the American people to make these decisions for themselves. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot today about how we are supposedly slashing funds for education, social security, Medicare, and every other program in the Federal budget. Frankly, though, if Congress wants to reduce revenues to the Federal Treasury, cutting taxes is one of the worst ways to do it, because every responsible tax cut in the past has increased revenue, not reduced it. The tax cuts passed in 1981 doubled the revenues to the Treasury because they doubled the size of the economy. We are not cutting taxes to reduce the size of government, we are doing it because it is the right thing to do, the honest thing to do, and the best way to manage the people's trust and their hard-earned money. Let us be clear from the start, we are not talking about debt reduction because the Republican budget, calls for $2.2 trillion in debt reduction over the next 10 years. We are not talking about social security, either, because the Republican budget, enforced by the lockbox legislation passed this year, protects every dollar of the social security surplus. What we are talking about here is taxing and spending. This bill cuts taxes by $792 billion over 10 years, and the Clinton budget hikes spending by $937 billion over the same period. It is regrettable that the President has chosen to turn this opportunity to refund Americans' tax overcharge into a political game, but I feel confident that the American people agree that their money is safer in their pocketbooks than in Washington. I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the conferees for their hard work on this historic legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of the merits of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to that silliness. The top 1 percent of all the income earners in this country earn 17 percent of all the income and pay 32 percent all the taxes. The bottom 50 percent of the income earners pay 4.8 percent of all the taxes. We now have 40 million American families that pay no income taxes, and that is who the Democrats want to help. They want to turn this into welfare. If we are going to cut taxes because we have overtaxed in this country, the people who pay taxes are going to get the tax relief. The top 10 percent of the income earners in this country earn 42 percent of all the income and pay 63 percent of all the taxes. If we are going to cut taxes because it is hurting the economy by taking too much into Washington, the people who pay taxes are going to get the tax relief. That is what the Democrats cannot stand, because they want this money to stay in Washington so they can dole it out to folks who do not pay taxes. My biggest fear, my biggest fear is that one day they will be back in charge of this House and pass their tax relief that will take 60 percent of America off the tax roles entirely, and we will have a huge bias in favor of more government, more spending and, ultimately, more taxes because most of America is not paying taxes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume to respond to a couple of things. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that what we are proposing to send back to the American people, $792 billion, the President's budget proposes to spend, not on chickens and not on manure and not on Medicare but on 80-some new Federal programs. The question is do we give it back to the American people or does Washington spend it with new bureaucracies? Having said that, I would also like to finish Mr. Greenspan's quote. He has been quoted here as saying that his first priority would be to let the surpluses run. He then went on to say this. ``As I have said before, my second priority is, if you find that as a consequence of those surpluses they tend to be spent, then I would be more in the camp of cutting taxes, because the least desirable is using those surpluses for expending outlays.'' Read the President's budget. He wants to spend that money. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) who could not have made my case more clearly. She wants to spend money. The Democrats want to spend it on more government. We want to give it back to the American people. In their entire presentation, she had 10 or 15 new spending programs that she wants it used on. We want to give it to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, reversed the President's 1993 budget to bring us the surpluses. If we will recall, by 2001 and 2002, the President's 1993 budget agreement predicted a $300 billion and $400 billion annual deficit. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) has turned that around. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).