John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, none of us is happy being here today on this resolution. I believe it is fair to say that both sides would rather be home talking to our constituents about the future. And as long as I can remember, there have been continuing resolutions passed for several days at a time so that only the negotiators were kept here finishing the job. As I recall, one year during the Reagan administration, agreement was never reached, and the entire next fiscal year was conducted under a continuing resolution that President Reagan signed. Yet we are here today forced to pass a series of continuing resolutions because we have a President who has been reluctant to leave the stage with grace and dignity. In order to have his way, he is willing to threaten to shut down the government unless we agree to this nonsense. He is willing to shut down the government unless we agree with him on his priorities in the budget. And he is willing to put everyone else at risk, both parties included, unless he gets his way. Does the world not see what is going on here? My guess is that they do not because they view the world through the eyes of an uncritical press. In 1995, the President vetoed a continuing resolution because it contained a ``legislative rider,'' his words, in an appropriations bill. Today, he is holding an entire Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, hostage because we are unwilling to approve his ``legislative rider'' in an appropriation bill. Is he likely to succeed? Perhaps. Because we have an uncritical press that will not tell that story. The American people might be interested in one rider he insists upon. We have heard it talked about today. The President is insisting on a rider that will grant total amnesty to as many as a million immigrants who came to the Nation illegally. Now, to be sure, we are a Nation of immigrants. We welcome those who come to our shores and use the legal process to become Americans. But the President wants to put those who ignore our laws ahead of those who are law abiding. But we will never hear this from the press. We have been here daily since the President issued his edict that he would not sign any continuing resolution that was longer than 24 hours. I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I have never seen two more dedicated workers for the cause of getting the people's work accomplished. They have been here day and night to complete the task. I confess they differ in their views as to the right solution for the final sticking points; but unlike the President, they are here working. They were prepared to meet even on that evening last week when the President and his Chief of Staff were attending the World Series, and the next day, when the President found it more important to get in a round of golf. And over the past weekend, when the President was campaigning for his side, oh, yes, we have been ready to meet and solve this. But the President has not been here, and an uncritical press will not point that out. In fact, the President plans a trip to California this week to campaign. We will pass one of these 1-day continuing resolutions, and a military jet will be dispatched to take it to the President for his signature. But that cost of thousands of dollars will not be billed to his party or the people he was campaigning for. The taxpayer will foot the bill. But an uncritical press will not burden the public with that fact. We are here and will be here until the President returns to town to sit down and negotiate. We do not expect every decision to go our way, but neither should the President. But absent the critical press, we will never know. So we are left to stand here on this 30th day of October. We will pass this series of 24-hour continuing resolutions. We will wonder when the President plans to return from the campaign. We will get the job done for the American people. And we will look back to the old days when Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush understood that their day had passed and they left the stage with grace and dignity and we will long for that time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 662 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 6 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and just comment that I will put the gentleman from California down as undecided. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. WELLER 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 am just rising out of confusion as to whether the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) states that raising IRA limits to $5,000 is a tax cut for the rich. Does increasing contribution limits for 401(k) plans for regular workers, is that a tax cut for the rich? How about increasing the portability of retirement plans so people can move from one job to another? Is that just for the rich? If we simplify the pension system to encourage small businesses to offer their employees pension plans, is that another tax cut for the rich? We have got some small business tax relief in here to allow them to expense certain kinds of costs. Is this tax cuts for the rich? Or has the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) just pulled out on old speech and rerun it one more time? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am confused. I was sent down here to discuss the rule on a tax bill, and we have just debated the Bush-Gore presidential race. I am glad he got the time to do it because it shows that those folks in charge for 8 years did not get any of the things done that he wanted done. Point of Order

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, if a speaker on the floor makes a statement that is incorrect and someone corrects the statement, such as there is no money in here for school construction and in fact there is $15 billion, is that a statement of derision against the speaker or a correction of facts?

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Southern California (Mr. Bilbray). (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule and let us get on with the debate on these important bills. It is getting late in the year. The appropriators have worked long and hard into the evening. We have an opportunity to close up one more of them this afternoon, and I urge us to do so.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman who just spoke that that is not an omission. This is not a technical omission. That provision that he desires to be in the bill was not in the House bill and was not in any Senate version and has not had a hearing. It is the desire of this President and the rest of them to add a rider to an appropriations bill that would satisfy them. But it is not an omission. 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 am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. (Mr. WOLF 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 might consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 653 is a typical rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4942, the conference report for the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. 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. The House rules provide 1 hour of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority members of the House. I want to briefly discuss the conference report that this rule makes in order. The conference report appropriates $445 million for the District of Columbia, and it appropriates $37.5 billion for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Federal Judiciary, and 18 related agencies. For the District of Columbia, the bill provides $17 million for the college assistance, $5 million to help move children from foster care to adoptive families, $1 million for pediatric health clinics, and provides for the largest ever drug testing and treatment program. These appropriations go directly to improving the lives of the District's residents. The bill provides a $384 million increase for the DEA, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorneys to ensure that our Federal law enforcers have the tools that they need in the 21st century. The bill provides an additional $548 million for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to ensure the safety of our borders and the efficiency of our immigration process. For local and State law enforcement, the bill appropriates $4.7 billion, a total that includes dollars for law enforcement block grants and funding for Violence Against Women Act programs. Equally important for the safety of our people, the bill provides the State Department with $6.9 billion. This total, more than the President requested, will ensure worldwide security improvements at our embassies to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel. The bill also provides full funding for our current year United Nations assessments. I might add, it is the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman for the subcommittee, whose own interest in worldwide safety of our embassies has held sway in all of these debates and provided the funding for these embassies. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that I have heard that the President intends to veto this bill, he intends to stop this money for local law enforcement, money for Federal law enforcement, money for the residents of the District of Columbia, money for the safety of our embassies, and money for the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know why he has threatened to veto this bill? Because it does not contain language to provide mass amnesty for those who have flouted U.S. law and come to this country illegally. Such language was not included in the House-passed bill. Such language was not included in any Senate version. Yet, the President today seems to be insisting that it is his way or the highway. He seems to be saying today that he wants to provide amnesty to law breakers rather than provide funding to law enforcers. Rather than provide the funding to those who protect our borders, he wants to provide amnesty to those who have illegally crossed them. See, Mr. Speaker, the President is insisting on a rider on the appropriations bill, precisely the same kind of legislative rider that caused him to veto, 5 years ago, a continuing resolution and shut the government down. But if it is his rider, it is a good rider. If it is our rider, it is a bad rider. Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have misunderstood the President's intentions. For all we have heard from the White House about finishing appropriations bills in a timely fashion, I simply cannot believe that he would delay funding increases for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department, the State Department, the Commerce Department and more. I oppose the amnesty that the President seeks. But even if I supported it, I would know that it does not now nor has it ever belonged in an appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, this rule was favorably reported by the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule so that 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate consideration.