John Linder

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, one of the first persons to speak on this rule noted that the networks told the country last night that we would be working again. A two-hour meeting in the White House with our leadership led us to believe that was the case. The morning papers all said that the President has agreed to put on the table his specific budget proposal using CBO numbers and shortly thereafter the Vice President spoke and said, no, we are not going to do that. We have not just 73 Republican freshmen but 236 members of a caucus that is still growing that are very, very frustrated in trying to reach a balanced budget in 7 years using honest numbers. We are not only frustrated but we are united that we will balance the budget using honest numbers in 7 years and we will do it now. This administration has had so many different positions on this issue that it is hardly worth recounting, but it reminds me, dealing with this administration reminds me of duck hunting. You get off in the wind, because every time you see a target it moves and the wind changes it. Virtually every speaker on this rule tonight voted against the balanced budget amendment, the coalition's balanced budget and our balanced budget. We are faced not with Members who want to balance the budget under different terms but with Members who want to spend more money, liberal extremists who want to spend more money. And that is what the whole thing is about. We should have gotten off the discussion of whose numbers we use and just say we are not going to spend more than $12 trillion. Sit down at the table with us, argue priorities, but we are not going to continue to spend money that we have not raised. That is our children and grandchildren's money. There is not a program in this budget that cannot be defended by somebody, but we should not be spending it if we have not raised it. We have for 30 years voted ourselves wishes and dreams over needs and passed the bill on to future generations. And this Republican majority said that is going to stop. Much has happened; much movement has occurred. We now are all discussing a 7-year balanced budget and by the time this weekend or early next week passes, we will be talking about using the same numbers. I think by the end of the year, we will have passed and the President will have signed a 7-year balanced budget with honest numbers and we will have done our children and grandchildren a great service. It is time. Frankly, the numbers are not that far apart. We want to increase spending 3 percent; the President wants to increase it 4 percent. We want to presume an additional 5 percent revenue; the President wants to presume 5.5. The numbers are not that far apart. We can get together if we will just sit down and honestly and straightforwardly look each other in the eye and say, where are your priorities? The President's budget is not on the table using the same numbers, even though he has said he would do that. So this effort tonight under this rule is merely to say for those veterans who have served their nation, who have earned their benefits, we are going to pass a continuing resolution to assure that you will get your checks. We are not inclined to pass a continuing resolution for the rest of the government because it will take entirely the pressure off the President. The last time we did that, under certain assurances, 30 days went by where we were hammered and demagogued with our specific numbers; $30 million was spent by unions trashing our specifics in our districts where we have marginal districts for freshmen. We are not going to do that again. We are going to keep the feet to the fire. It is unfortunate that decent, hard-working, honest Federal employees are caught in this pinch. But the President, seemingly to bolster the notion in this country that he believes something, has chosen to pitch a battle with the Congress of the United States. It seems to have helped him in the polls and he seems to think that is the thing to get reelected on so he will continue to veto and we will continue to have this problem. But I tell my colleagues, from our point of view, we are united. We were sent here to change the economic direction of this nation, to balance the budget for our children and grandchildren. We intend to do that. 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is worth pointing out that the State of Arizona has kept the Grand Canyon open by working out an intergovernmental agreement. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox.].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 317 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that none of those Republican leaders sent people into a war zone. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghusen].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker left, and I reserve the right to close. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 317 allows for consideration of House Joint Resolution 134, which will make further continuing appropriation to ensure that our veterans continue to receive the payment of their benefits during the budget negotiations and the current partial Government shutdown. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit which may include instructions if offered by the minority leader or his designee. Earlier this week, the President vetoed the conference report for the VA-HUD appropriations for fiscal year 1996, and as a result, put the Government in the position of reneging on its promise to pay veterans benefits checks. We cannot allow our veterans to lose these benefits, and this Congress will take any action to protect our service men and women and their families. This is a simple resolution which deals with one specific issue in our Federal budget that we in Congress believe is important enough to merit this action. This resolution provides a temporary solution by ensuring the payment of veterans benefits in the event of a lack of appropriations through fiscal year 1996. Mr. Speaker, the 3.3 million veterans in the United States and their dependents not only look forward to and need these benefits--they deserve these benefits. If we do not act on this temporary funding measure tonight, our veterans and their dependents who are expecting benefit checks will see a delay in the receipt of these critical funds. I have co-sponsored this resolution and I strongly support this action to provide our veterans with the benefits that they have earned and rightly deserve. Despite the importance of the budget negotiations to the future of our Nation, there is no arguing that the men and women who have served this Nation do not deserve the financial uncertainty that may occur. Both parties are responsible for putting this Nation into the fiscal mess that we now face, but this resolution shows that we will not punish those who have put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms that we enjoy today. This resolution was unanimously approved by the Rules Committee and it is a fair resolution that will assure that our veterans receive the benefits they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do, under unanimous consent, is to agree to have alternating speakers, is all.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I just came upstairs from a Republican conference meeting, and it was very discouraging. There seems to be a whole lot less progress on this budget than we thought would be there. This President has said on so many times that he was in favor of a balanced budget. During the campaign it was 5 years. Later it was 10 years, and then 8 years, and then between 7 and 9, and then 9 years, and then 7 years. And last night our leadership believed, and the press reported, that the President was prepared to put his numbers, his specific numbers for spending on the table for discussion using Congressional Budget Office numbers. Subsequent to that, this morning the Vice President goes live on C- SPAN at the press room of the White House and, when asked that specific question, when will you have a budget, the Vice President responded, well, we will put all the budgets on the table, our OMB-scored budget, the Congress's CBO numbers, and other budgets that may be offered. And under insistent questioning by the media, he was asked, are you going to do what was said last night, put a budget on the table with CBO scoring numbers? And the Vice President said no. This is very, very discouraging. If we cannot even get in the same rules, play in the game with the same rules, we cannot get to the end of this. Each of us would like to be home with family for Christmas and New Year's and the work that we have to do in our districts during January. But I believe we are prepared to stay through Christmas until this is done, that what we insist happening is that we are going to not go home until we have a balanced budget now. The interesting thing about this is that we are not all that far apart. For all the talk we have heard about Medicare and gutting Medicare, we wanted to spend in year 7 on Medicare $289 billion. The President wants to spend $294 billion. That is not a large difference. It can be bridged easily. We want to grow the spending in this budget by 3 percent. The President wants to grow it by 4 percent. We want to use numbers that presume an increase in revenues of 5 percent. The President wants numbers that would presume an increase in revenues of 5.5 percent. None of these differences are too broad to sit down at the table and just cut a deal and go home with their families for the holidays. No, this is not about numbers. This is not about numbers. This is about a basic philosophy, because we believe and have believed all year that Medicaid and welfare can be handled more efficiently and more effectively by the States. So do the Governors, including many of the Democrat Governors. We want to take that money that we have been spending and turn it back to the States for them to handle in the community person to person, face to face. We think that welfare and Medicaid ought to be more in the form of caring than caretaking. The President disagrees. This is all about who decides, who chooses on behalf of others, who sets the power. In 1958, John Kenneth Galbraith published a book entitled The Affluent Society. I always thought it was ironic that 7 years after he published a book entitled The Affluent Society, he enlisted in the War on Poverty. But in his book in 1958, the entire book was essentially this. It is not that Americans have too little or they have too much. But they make bad choices with their dollars. And it is the obligation of an educated government to tax those dollars from them and make better choices on their behalf. I submit that is what the issue is about. The first 2 years of the administration the budget, welfare, health care, virtually everything proposed, was for more taxes, more Federal bureaucracy, more deciding on behalf of the American citizens. Indeed Mrs. Clinton said in the house of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] one evening, ``We have an obligation to make better choices on our citizens' behalf.'' That is what it is about, the left versus the right. The left thinks that we should decide for the future and shape a future that our children and grandchildren will be secure in; it will be fair and warm. The right says if you gave us every lever of governance tomorrow, we would not have the slightest idea of what to do. I could not satisfy 10 percent of the Members of this House because we all come to the table with different hopes, and dreams, and aspirations. I do know this: I could build a future that my daughter would love and my son would hate. So our side says return those choices to the people, let them keep more of the dollars in their pockets, and 260 million Americans acting in their own behalf hundreds of times every day will shape the future, and it will be one with which most of them will be happy, Mr. Speaker. This is not about money. It is about the direction in the country. It is very serious, and I am prepared to stay here until we are done.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, regular order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that people are not proceeding in regular order. This is about the rule and not about the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, regular order.