John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of Members of the House the op-ed piece written by William Safire that appeared in the May 2, 1996, New York Times. In his essay, Mr. Safire points out the significance of the recent elections in India and the importance of strong United States-India relations. As a member of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans, I gladly submit Mr. Safire's article for the Record. Washington.--In 1975, when Indira Gandhi assumed dictatorial control of India and threw her opponents in jail, President Ford asked his U.N. delegate, Daniel P. Moynihan, what to make of that. ``Look at it this way, Mr. President,'' said Moynihan with a courtler's irony. ``Under your Administration, the United States has become the world's largest democracy.'' When Mrs. Gandhi later confidently stood for election, India's voters threw her out. Freedom was back, and the U.S. happily became the world's second-largest democracy. This week, with dignity, honest balloting and relatively little violence, 400 million of India's citizens--65 percent of eligible voters, higher than here--go to the polls to select candidates from 500 political parties. It is the most breathtaking example of government by the people in the history of the world. Americans don't hear a whole lot about it. President Clinton is busy being campaign manager for the Labor party in Israel's May 29 election, in effect telling Israelis to vote for Shimon Peres or else. When he is not intervening shamelessly in Israel's political affairs, Mr. Clinton is barnstorming with Boris Yeltsin, trying to help him defeat Yavlinsky's reformers and Zyuganov's Communists in Russia's June 16 election. Washington is also headquarters for the Clinton campaign for the U.S. Presidency, where he beefs up beef price to consumers while pouring strategic oil on troubled motorists. But in all the campaigning, no mention is made of India, where voters outnumber those in Israel, Russia and the U.S. combined. As a result of this uncharacteristic White House for bearance, television coverage here about the biggest election has been next to nil. Not only do Americans not know for which Indian candidate to root, but hundreds of millions of voters are forced to go to the polls ignorant of Mr. Clinton's preference. Why? Do nearly 900 million Indians not matter? American lack of interest is not new; a former Foreign Minister of India, one of Nehru's acolytes, told a U.S. envoy: ``We would far prefer your detestation in your indifference.'' One reason is that India strikes a holier-than-thou diplomatic pose, remaining nonaligned when there is no longer one side to be nonaligned against. Year after year, India is near the top of the list of nations that consistently vote against the U.S. in the United Nations. We're wrong to let that overly irritate us. China votes against us, too, and unbalances our trade and secretly ships missiles to rogue states and jails dissidents and oppresses Tibet and threatens Taiwan and (cover the children's eyes) pirates our CD's--but we care more about what happens in China than what happens in India. That's a mistake. Contrary to what all the new Old China Hands and other Old Nixon Hands tell you, India will draw ahead of China as a superpower in the next century. Yes, China's economic growth rate has doubled India's, and China's Draconian control of births will see India's population exceed China's soon enough, to India's disadvantage. But China does not know what an election is. Despite the enterprise and industriousness of its people, despite the example of free Chinese on Taiwan and the inspiration of the dissident Wei Jingsheng, jailed in Beijing, China is several upheavals and decades away from the democracy India already enjoys. Without political freedom, capitalism cannot long thrive. Already the requirements of political repression are stultifying the flow of market information in China, driving wary Hong Kong executives to Sydney. The suppression of dangerous data undermined technology in Communist Russia; it will hurt China, too. Though more Chinese are literate, many more Indians are English-literate (more English-speakers than in Britain), and English is the global language of the computer. American software companies are already locating in Bangalore, India's Silicon Valley. Bureaucratic corruption scandals abound; India's free press reports and helps cleanse them, China's does not. I'm rooting for Rao, the secular Prime Minister, who is more likely to move toward free markets than Vajpayee, his leading opponent. But whoever wins, it's a glorious week for the world's largest democracy.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize a company employing many of my constituents--the employee-owned, international project delivery and consulting engineering firm of CH2M HILL--for their current role as the environmental adviser to the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta. Much of the Olympic work is being performed from CH2M HILL's long-established Atlanta office, one of the firm's 122 locations worldwide. CH2M HILL will supply on-call environmental counsel before, during, and after the games to the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic games [ACOG] as they complete the environmental framework for staging the largest peacetime event in history. Thus far, the firm's activities have included: documenting innovative environmental approaches and achievements during venue planning and construction; assessing the impact of the games on environmental media--air, water, solid waste; linking sponsors to environmental management planning and addressing any sponsor-related circumstances, for example, heat, air quality, and supplying support in the areas of solid waste management, indoor air quality at the Olympic Village, and transportation operations. CH2M HILL will also develop an official environmental summary document for the 1996 games that will provide benchmark environmental data for future Olympic and other large sporting events. To put CH2M HILL's involvement in context, when the International Olympic Committee [IOC] awarded the Olympic Games to Atlanta in 1990, environmental management was not a component of the Olympic bid process. One year later in 1991, the IOC in partnership with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) formally highlighted the importance of environmentalism as a new Olympic ideal. Atlanta is only the second host city to voluntarily address Olympic environmentalism in any pragmatic or operational manner. The 1996 Olympic games are being held in the United States, a nation with some of the highest environmental standards in the world. When you add Atlanta's contribution of sound environmental management in a sport setting to the above, there is little doubt that the environmental measure for future Olympic games has been significantly raised. CH2M HILL is an innovator in environmental technology and integrated project delivery. The firm serves a diverse portfolio of public- and private-sector clients throughout the world in the fields of water, environment, transportation, industrial facilities, infrastructure, and facility operations. The year 1996 marks the employee-owned firm's 50th year in business. I congratulate CH2M HILL for their involvement as the environmental adviser to the largest peacetime event in history and recognize the important role our Nation plays in championing environmental stewardship and helping to preserve the planet for future generations.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, congratulations America. Today you begin to work for yourself. Tuesday was tax freedom day. For the previous 4 months and 7 days, Americans have worked solely to pay local, State, and Federal taxes. At last, working Americans are earning money to pay the mortgage and clothe the kids. For too long, taxes have been piled on the American people because liberal politicians believe that they can make better choices with our money than we can. The Federal bureaucrats have never trusted our citizens to decide what is best for their families and communities. No one spends someone else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Washington has proven that. Americans should be allowed to keep more and do more with their hard- earned money. The Government must stop taxing them into longer hours and second jobs. Not only is the Government taking Americans' money, it is essentially taking the precious time they would normally spend playing with their children, going to PTA or church functions, or volunteering in their communities. Higher taxes have become a tax on free time and family too.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, today is tax freedom day. May 7 is the day we stop working to pay our tax bill and the day we begin to work for ourselves and our families. Incredibly, the average American must work from January 1 through today just to earn enough money to pay his or her share of State, local, and Federal taxes. Only tomorrow will Americans begin to work for themselves. Many believe that on April 15 we are through with taxes for awhile. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, on average, Americans spend 2 hours and 47 minutess each day working just to pay their taxes. Liberal politicians and the special interest groups mistakenly believe raising the minimum wage will help working Americans. Increasing the minimum wage will cost jobs and increase workers' tax burdens. If we really want families to earn more, keep more, and do more, the Government must stop taking so much from each paycheck. Consider this. The working Americans that Bill Clinton says he is concerned about must earn more than $3 to buy a gallon of milk that costs less than $2. Let's cut taxes and make the Government spend less so that Americans may spend more of their hard-earned money.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any references made by the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass] as to pending matters. These are not matters before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct; these are stories in the paper and not before the committee.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is silly season already. Usually it does not come until August. If this were really an important issue for people earning $9,000 a year or less, why did not the Democrats, who owned the House, the Senate, and the White House, mention it 2 years ago? Do you know how many times the President talked about the minimum wage in his first 2 years in office? Zero. Not one time. He has talked about it over 50 times this year, because it is a political issue, and it is a crass and mean political issue, using as pawns in this political battle the very people they are pretending to help. Raising the minimum wage is income redistribution among the poor. For every four people you purport to give a $1 increase to, you take one person off the payroll. That is not compassion. It is the striking difference between the two parties, that one party thinks government should set wages, and the other party believes the economy sets wages. This argument should be over. There should be zero minimum wage. That is what the New York Times editorial said, a zero minimum wage. Let people who want to start on the first rung of the income ladder earn what they are worth. Ninety percent of people on minimum wage are not there after 1 year. Many people on the minimum wage earn also tips that are not reported. This is a phony argument for phony political reasons, and, if it was serious, it would have been done 2 years ago. In addition to that, the minimum wage is simply not germane to this bill and would not be added even if the previous question were defeated, because it is not germane to this bill. It is simply an effort to take up your time and America's time to make political points that they refused to deal with when they were in power.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating, the gentleman from Missouri was not here 2 years ago asking to help the working poor with an increase in the minimum wage, because he had the House controlled by Democrats, the Senate controlled by Democrats, and the White House. They were not concerned about them then. Let me tell you what the Wall Street Journal Review and Outlook call them in 1996. Remember when Bill Clinton claimed he was a new Democrat precisely because he did not favor a higher minimum wage? Time Magazine, by Michael Kramer, from an earlier speech by Bill Clinton: ``It''--raising the minimum wage--``is the wrong way to raise incomes of low-wage earners.'' I think the President was right then. I think he is right now. The increase in the minimum wage by the President's own chief economist will cost low-income earners 100,000 jobs. That is not the way to raise the income of workers. Cutting taxes is.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have been watching this debate on my television and it has degenerated for high comedy to farce. The gentleman from Texas has decided that Americans deserve a raise and, by golly, we are going to give it to them, and that is precisely the difference between the two sides. Democrats think that politicians can determine what a person's work is worth and they will give them the raises, and we believe the marketplace works. The gentleman from Michigan says that the minimum wage today is right where it was in 1989. Is that not interesting, when the other gentleman from Michigan, the minority whip, said that it is a 40-year low? One of them is not telling us the truth. The fact of the matter is that this is not policy, this is politics, and it is crass politics. It is mean politics. It is using people who are right now about 3 percent of 117 million workers as pawns in a political battle to make political points. Two years ago they could have raised the minimum wage. They did not even mention it. Robert Samuelson, in an article, points out the fact that the minimum wage is less about social policy than politics. If you doubt that, ponder some facts gathered by New York Times reporter David Rosenbaum. With computers and other documents, he searched references made by President Clinton. In the 2 years when he controlled the House and the Senate and the White House in 1993 and 1994, guess how many times President Clinton talked about the minimum wage? You got it, zero. Zero. This year, with Republicans in control, between the first of the year and March 11 he talked about it 47 times. The Time article by Michael Kramer--I said this earlier this morning--President Clinton said, ``It is the wrong way to raise incomes of low-wage earners.'' In a Wall Street Journal article, April 12, 1996: ``Remember when Bill Clinton claimed he was a new Democrat precisely because he did not favor a higher minimum wage? That was 1992, the last time he was trying to give moderates a reason to entrust their vote with him.'' The fact of the matter is, most of America has gotten used to this President having both sides of the issue and not knowing where he stands. They will see through this, too.

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 409 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2715, the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1996. This rule provides 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business. House Resolution 409 makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Small Business now printed in the bill. Any Member will have the opportunity to offer an amendment to the bill under the 5-minute rule. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority. Under this rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has had that amendment preprinted in the Congressional Record. I am pleased this bill will be considered under an open rule, which was unanimously approved by the Rules Committee yesterday. While the chairman of the Small Business Committee testified to the Rules Committee that she did not expect many amendments, this rule will provide the entire House with sufficient time to offer amendments and express any persisting apprehension about the bill. Mr. Speaker, the American people have endured a brutal winter and welcome the arrival of spring. Unfortunately, our citizens still must deal with a blizzard of Federal paperwork requirements. As we approach the 21st century, the Paperwork Elimination Act recognizes the coming of non-paper-dependent information technologies, and will help reduce the avalanche of paper that has covered American taxpayers and small businesses. I strongly supported the Paperwork Reduction Act that this Congress passed during the consideration of the Contract With America. That bill reduced the information collection burdens on the public and assured a more efficient and productive administration of information resources. Today's legislation builds upon the progress in paperwork reduction brought about by the enactment of that reform legislation. The legislation before us today will further reduce the burden of Federal paperwork on small businesses and individuals by providing for the optional use of electronic technologies to meet the demands of Federal paperwork regulations. The American people spend billions of hours every year filling out Federal forms and submitting records to the Government, and it makes sense to allow those who have the capacity to comply with regulations by computer to take advantage of the information superhighway. The Rules Committee heard testimony that the amount of time and effort spent by our citizens in complying with Federal regulatory paperwork represents a dollar value equal to 9 percent of the gross domestic product. The time and effort filling out paperwork would be better spent on the creation of new jobs. I have always believed that those nations that have achieved the most impressive growth in the past have not been those with rigid Government controls, and we all know that Federal regulations and paperwork requirements are strangling job creation and productivity. Excessive Government regulatory mandates are not beneficial to economic development, and this bill enables small businesses and all taxpayers to save valuable time and money. The Paperwork Elimination Act of 1996 has received considerable support, and I want to recognize Chairman Jan Meyers and Representative Peter Torkildsen, chairman of the Small Business Committee's Government Programs Subcommittee. Their bill effectively reduces the paperwork burden, and also benefits the environment by reducing both the need for and the disposal of paper products. They have crafted sound legislation which I believe will receive overwhelming bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2715 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Small Business by voice vote, and this rule received the unanimous support of the Rules Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I look forward to a thoughtful debate on the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1996. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following extraneous material for inclusion in the Congressional Record:

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 409 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker. I would like to tell the gentleman from Michigan that his amendment was not ignored by the majority. It was considered and found wanting. 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 394 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to point out for those coming to the floor to vote on this issue that nobody criticized the rule. It is a normal rule for a conference report. The debate throughout the whole last hour has been on the bill. We will have an opportunity to debate that in the next hour and vote on that. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor and vote for the previous question, vote for the rule, and move on to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take enough time to point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts that he did not bring his amendment to the Committee on Rules and we do not amend conference reports. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. LINDER asked and was given permission to include extraneous materials.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 394 provides for the consideration of the conference report for H.R. 956, the Commonsense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996, and waives all points of order against its consideration. The House rules allow for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, the struggle to craft bipartisan product liability reforms has been over two decades in the making, and we have before us legislation that will save segments of our economy and create new jobs across America. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to unleash partisan charges that the President is playing politics with this important reform measure. The assessment that the President is playing politics has already been sufficiently made by members of the President's own party. I want to begin by recounting just a few of these appraisals of the President's motives. Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat, has stated that the ``President is dead wrong about this bill'' and Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, stated that the President has ``his eye on the electoral college.'' Senator Rockefeller continued by stating: Special interests and raw political considerations in the White House have overridden sound policy judgment. I am extremely disappointed the President has taken such a shortsighted political view of a serious bipartisan effort that would restore common sense to the American legal system. Mr. Speaker, in response to Senator Rockefeller's charge that special interests and raw political considerations in the White House has overridden sound policy judgment--I must say that this is nothing new. As has been the case with countless pieces of historic legislation that have passed both the House and Senate, the President has disavowed good public policy and embraced his special interest friends. In this case, we have reached bipartisan agreement on legal reform, and it appears that the only obstacles to these moderate reforms are the trial lawyers and an antireform, status quo President. The President is--and has been--the one roadblock to the reforms that the public wants. In his shortsighted, political view of the Nation, the President plans to add a veto of legal reform to his two vetoes of welfare reform and the historic balanced budget bill. The Commonsense Legal Reform Act will end many frivolous lawsuits which have imposed significant costs on small businesses and killed American jobs. These indiscriminate lawsuits have caused the withdrawal of products from the market, including medical devices and medication available in most of the world, sadly resulting in preventable deaths. The President has professed that the bill would reduce product safety, which it will not. His real anxiety about this reform bill is that it would reduce the fees of the trial lawyers who now receive from 50 to 70 percent of every dollar spent on product liability litigation. The trial lawyers have bragged about Bill Clinton's commitment to terminate any legislative effort to end frivolous lawsuits. The Arkansas trial lawyer president boasted about the fact that Arkansas has had no tort reform and stated that--and I quote--``this success would not have occurred without Bill Clinton. I can never remember an occasion when he failed to do the right thing where we trial lawyers were concerned.'' Mr. Speaker, the future of the country is more important than some payoff to the trial lawyers. Our competitiveness overseas is being undermined. Rather than deal with the product liability litigation problem, American firms have left markets to foreign competitors and decided not to develop new products, technologies, and medical breakthroughs. These losses are impossible to calculate, and it is clear to everyone except the President that thousands of American small businesses are just one lawsuit away from bankruptcy. The provisions included in this bill were greatly pared down from the much-needed and broader changes we passed in the Contract With America. The bill does not include everything that I would have wanted, but this Congress understands that sometimes you have to compromise, and this is a start down the right road. This is about restoring fairness to the American legal system and this bill should not be a political issue. These are modest, but critically important, reforms that will benefit the American people. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the reform legislation, and I urge the President to reconsider his unfortunate veto threat of commonsense legal reforms. I want to close by quoting the Washington Post editorial page: The President's announcement over the weekend that he will veto product liability legislation has surprised and disappointed even senior Democrats in the Senate--and well it should. The decision is a terrible one. But the lawyers want the sky to be the limit. The President's decision to capitulate to their pressure is transparent, shortsighted, and wrong. The compromise should be accepted by both Houses and signed by the President. Mr. Speaker, the Senate did their job by passing the bill by a 59-to- 40 margin, and I expect the House to follow suit by passing this bill with equally overwhelming support. I urge the President to forgo politics and do his job. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.