John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. 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 urge my colleagues to support the previous question so we can move on with the vote on the rule and get the continuing resolution on the floor to keep the government open, running, and responsible until we finish our work, our very difficult work this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 my friend, 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 the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 627 is a closed rule providing for consideration of House Joint Resolution 111, a resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001. H. Res. 627 provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the current continuing resolution expires at the end of the day on Saturday, and a further continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government operating while Congress completes its consideration of the remaining appropriations bills. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 111 is a clean continuing resolution which simply extends the provisions included in House Joint Resolution 109 through October 20. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, we have been working hard to pass remaining appropriations bills as soon as possible. Honest disagreements remain on both sides of the aisle. However, the House has made progress at resolving these differences over the past 2 weeks, passing the interior, agriculture, energy, and transportation conference reports. We are now very close to completing the appropriations process. I share the disappointment of many of my colleagues that the negotiations have stretched on this long. However, we have a responsibility to stay the course and pass sensible and fiscally responsible appropriations bills. So, because we refuse to bend our principles, we will stay here in Washington for another week, away from our families, our districts, and our homes. This fair, clean, continuing resolution will give us the time we need to fulfill our obligations to the American people and finish the appropriations process in an even-handed and conscientious manner. The rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of this 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 627 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 5174, a bill to help families and communities that support military bases preserve their voting rights. I have been very concerned with the decision earlier this year by the Department of Defense to not allow voting booths on military facilities, even though many of these facilities are isolated and in remote areas of our country. The Department refers to a law preventing the presence of troops at election sites, something we can all agree is a good law. Mr. Speaker, that law was never intended to prevent local election officials from asking to set up voting booths in order to let military personnel and people in the community vote. The purpose of that old law was to stop intimidation and abuse of the military in elections. The men and women who support these bases, not only those in the service, have been used to voting at long established voting booths in some of these military owned buildings. Sometimes in these remote communities, the military owns all the buildings suitable to set up a voting booth. It is unfair that we would stop this from continuing since there are no known instances in which this posed a problem or voting infringement by anyone. Frankly, it is just overzealous lawyering at work in the Department. H.R. 5174 sets this straight. I am especially pleased that H.R. 5174 does not attempt to force some new mission onto the military. It quietly allows voting booths to continue to be set up on these military facilities. It also gives the proper discretion to the military to continue or discontinue this practice. H.R. 5174 allows the military to keep the status quo of providing this service to our servicemen and their supporters while taking away any fear of breaking the law. I support H.R. 5174 because it helps service personnel, their families, and the people who support these isolated bases to continue to exercise their right to vote. People in the military work hard enough and suffer hardships by living in isolation. We should not be making it harder for them to vote. We should make it easier.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 604 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 110, a resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001. H. Res. 604 provides for one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the current continuing resolution expires at the end of the day on Friday, and a further continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government operating while Congress completes consideration of the remaining appropriations bills. H.J. Res. 110 is a clean continuing resolution that simply extends the provisions included in the H.J. Res. 109 through October 14. Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of hard work and tough decision-making to fund the Federal Government. We have been working hard to overcome the hurdles in our path and complete the appropriations process as soon as possible. However, honest disagreement exists between the majority and the minority on many of the appropriations bills. This fair, clean, continuing resolution will give us the time we need to resolve these differences and complete the remaining fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills. This rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I urge my colleagues to support it so we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of this bill. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 604 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 591 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume only to inquire of the gentlewoman from Connecticut if she will tell me sometime in the near future how you can be both universal and voluntary in the same program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentlewoman that unfortunately the regular order for the last quarter of a century has been continuing resolutions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 591 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 109, a resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001. H.Res. 591 provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, as is the right of minority. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the current fiscal year expires at the end of the day on Saturday, and a continuing resolution is necessary to keep the government operating while Congress completes consideration of the remaining appropriations bills. This continuing resolution would fund ongoing activities until October 6 using fiscal year 2000 funding rates. In addition, the joint resolution includes provisions for certain anomalies which impact a small number of accounts. Mr. Speaker, under both Democrat and Republican majorities, Congress has regularly utilized continuing resolutions as a method of keeping the government running while appropriations and negotiations continue. Only three times in the last 21 years has Congress passed all of the appropriations bills by the fiscal deadline. Contrary to what some might contend, the House has been diligent in doing the people's business. In fact, the House has already passed all 13 appropriations bills. As we continue our bipartisan effort to complete the appropriations process as soon as possible, we remain focused on the priorities most important to working Americans, paying off the national debt, providing prescription drugs to seniors, and educating our children. We have made real progress on all of these fronts, passing the Debt Relief Lock-box Reconciliation Act that dedicates 90 percent of next year's surplus to paying off the national debt, the Medicare Prescription 2000 Act, the Education Flexibility Act, and the Academic Achievement for All Act. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal discipline of the Republican Congress has resulted in the payoff of $350 billion worth of debt and the locking away of 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare surplus. Despite the efforts of the President and some of the Minority, we are committed to building on this success by passing fair and fiscally responsible appropriations bills. I am confident that H.J. Res. 109 will give us the time we need to get the job done. This rule was unanimously approved by the Committee on Rules yesterday. I urge my colleague to support it so we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself just another moment to say that obviously the gentlewoman did not hear my question. My question was not to give her another opportunity to expand on her demagoguery but to say how can you be universal and voluntary in the same program. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point out a couple of things. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the overall point of the gentleman on the debt, and he makes that point eloquently. I will also point out that we are talking about publicly held debt, just as the minority leader was speaking about publicly held debt when he talked about retiring it by the year 2012. Let me further point out that we got good lessons on stealing from trust funds in 1967 when Lyndon Johnson decided to put all the trust funds in a unified budget so he could spend them to fight a war that he did not want to tax for. We are the first Congress to finally change that and protect those funds. Lastly let me point out that he said we are spending too much since we have $5.7 trillion in debt. I agree with that. He ought to speak to the minority leader, who wants to spend even more. Let us live within these budget constraints we have so we can spend less and get closer to the goal that he pursues. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that all of the speakers on this issue on both sides have supported this CR and said they would support this rule, so 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 may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, last July, the Professional Lawn Care Association of America held its annual legislative conference in Washington to address the issues important to its industry. While they were here, members of the PLCAA took the time to donate their services to two of the most historic sites in this area-- Arlington National Cemetery and Congressional Cemetery. In both of these cemeteries, members of the PLCAA enhanced the turf, cut grass, and trimmed trees. PLCAA members have donated their services to Arlington in past years, but this is the first time they have been to Congressional Cemetery. Congressional Cemetery is of particular interest to me because some illustrious Georgians are buried there: James Jackson, Revolutionary War General, Governor of Georgia, and U.S. Senator; John Forsyth, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State; and William Shorey Coodey, Senator in the Cherokee Nation. In 1997 Congressional Cemetery was named by the National Trust for Historic Preservation one of the Eleven Most Endangered Historic Sites in America. It relies on contributions and volunteers to keep up its 32 acre grounds. I commend the PLCAA for its civic responsibility and generosity in donating its valuable services to these two important sites.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I think, first of all, it is important to set the differences in how we got here. There has been one difference in the two parties since the day I got here, which was in 1993, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) joined us at that time, and that is the Democrats want more spending and the Republicans want less spending. Indeed, that was the debate supposedly that shut the government down in 1995 and 1996. The President said we are not spending enough money on Medicare, Medicaid, the environment and education. Indeed, we were not that far apart. We projected increasing spending by 3 percent, and he wanted 4 percent. We projected an increase in revenues of 5 percent; the President projected 5\1/2\. We projected increasing Medicare spending over 7 years by 62 percent; the President said 64 percent. We broke down in the second part of this debate, the part that is not spoken so loudly about, values. We wanted the American people to make the choices. We believed their giving Medicare recipients more choices, they would shop their care and bring down costs that entrusts the American people to decide. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton said in public during the debate on health care we cannot trust the American people to make these decisions. In 1994 with a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years, we did something about spending. We eliminated in that first budget about 300 spending programs, and we had a huge fight with the President. But let us look at what changed in the economy and why we are at the point today where we can talk about paying down surpluses. If left to their own devices, this is the 1994 Clinton-Gore Democrat congressional budget, projected out to 2000, and they would have had $4.5 trillion in public debt, about a trillion dollars in new public debt compared to where we are today. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues can see what happened in 1994, with the 1995 budget, it came down. This is what we are looking at; this is what we are looking at today. Surpluses, as the gentleman said, as far as the eye can see and increasing, indeed going back to the last Democrat- written budget, their projection for 2005 is that they would add about $450 billion in that 1 year to debt; we are projecting adding about $400 billion to surpluses. So we have made a huge turnaround, a huge turnaround. In 1998 more spending. In the President's State of the Union address, 85 new spending programs, including 39 new entitlements, more than $150 billion new spending over 5 years; $129 billion in tax increases. Then 2 years later, the State of the Union, a $250 billion increase in taxes and fees on working families, 84 new Federal spending programs. Our good fortune is, none of that passed, and now we are at the era of dealing with surpluses. There have been some proposals, and we have passed some bills in this House, that said if the American people are paying more money into government than it takes to run it, they ought to get some of that back. No, said Vice President Gore, that is a risky scheme. It is, however, not risky for him to spend it, so we have a new plan. We have a plan, if we are not going to get relief for those who pay the bills, for those who write the checks, we are going to promote economic security and fiscal responsibility, we call it the 90 percent solution. Let us take 90 percent of next year's Federal budget surplus and use it to pay off debt while protecting 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We presented the 90 percent plan to the Clinton-Gore administration. The President indicated that his spending requests were piling up, and he said, and I quote, ``whether we can do it this year or not depends on what the various spending commitments are.'' Our 90 percent solution represents a fair middle ground. It is offered in the hope that while we may not agree in all aspects of the budget, we can at least agree to do something about the debt. We leave still 10 percent of the surplus to boost our already substantial $600 billion commitment to our national priorities, such as education, defense and health research. Specifically, we will use half the money to strengthen education with the flexibility funding and support to give our children the best schools and to ensure that for success, schools must have accountability and will use the other half to grant some modest tax relief for working Americans. This turnaround since the gentleman's election has for the first time in 30 years actually paid down debt. After this year, we will have paid down nearly a half a trillion dollars in publicly held debt; that is progress. That is a beginning. Let us do not turn it around now. I think that the 90 percent solution is something that the American people will appreciate. For years, my generation and my parents' generation have voted for ourselves wonderful programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, we just chose to pass the bill on to future generations, that is immoral. The 90 percent solution will begin to take the burden off my grandchildren.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I agree that the point the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) made about preserving and protecting the Social Security and Medicare are important. But I want to go back to the point that we have got the chance to pay down the debt, and we have got a significant budget surplus this year with which to do so. There are rumors around this town that the President is not going to sign our appropriations bills, not going to finish the year unless we spend anywhere from $20 billion to $45 billion more in ongoing spending in programs of his choice. If my colleagues will recall, in 1996 it cost us $7 billion in yielding to the President to get him to sign our budget so we could get out of town; in 1998, he held us up for $20.8 billion in more spending just to get the budget process finished; and, of course, those were $7 billion and $20.8 billion that we could have used to further reduce the debt on our grandchildren and their children. I always thought it was kind of strange that the President held a press conference after he signed that ugly budget in 1998 and said, ``The best news is I didn't let them spend one penny out of the Social Security surplus.'' When in fact, of course, we spent $20.8 billion of it. Not one reporter asked him a question about that, but everyone in this town knew that we were going into the Social Security surplus just to satisfy his spending appetites and so we could get out of town. I wish what we would have done some time ago is put a line item in our budgets from day one so that any money not committed to spending programs would be in a line item. That way, when the President comes through at the end of the year he has to say I want to spend this much more money; and we are going to say it is going to come out of retiring the debt because we ought to have a line item in our budgets that is for our children and grandchildren and their children, to get this mortgage of their future off their back, so they can choose their priorities for their lives and the government that they support and not continue to be paying off ours. So the 90-10 deal is a deal the American people ought to embrace. They ought to understand when the President says that we have to spend another $20 billion that it is coming directly out of retiring the debt, directly out of our grandchildren's futures. And once we establish this goal, it seems to me, over this Congress and future Congresses, we can set the pattern just like we have set the pattern of not spending the Social Security reserves, and I do believe this will be a better country for it.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?