John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there has been an issue in my 3 years here that the depth of feeling has been such as there is on this movement into Bosnia. I spoke to a group two Mondays ago and had a senior gentleman walk up to me, a businessman. He said, when the first person dies and comes back in a body bag, it will be because of what we did not do yesterday. I said, what was that? He said, you did not speak out in opposition. This is a very, very dicey prospect. I have heard Members compare this movement to what happened in Vietnam 20-plus years ago. I said this is not Vietnam. This is Afghanistan. It is much, much more dangerous. This war has been going on since 1389. C.B. Hackworth, the most decorated military officer still alive in this Nation, led a group, he said recently on television, into this very area for 1 year, for 1 year in 1949, and they came out 9 years later. I honestly listened to the President's speech on this subject with an open mind a couple of Monday nights ago because I had to speak about it on radio the next morning. I thought he gave a good speech, but he always gives a good speech. So the next morning I got up early and I read what he said. It was much different in black and white than it was on a TV picture tube. What he said essentially was that Americans should be for peace. Are we not? I thought that was inane. Then he said, we must do this out of respect for NATO. My colleagues, NATO is a very large military bureaucracy with nothing to do. It is looking for something to do. My judgment, it is time to recognize that NATO expired in August 1989. It is time for us to give it a decent burial with full military honors and find a new policy and a new arrangement because the old threats are no longer there. I read the Hamilton resolution. I understand the purpose of it. But if it is anything different in terms of support for the troops than we just voted for, why does it not say, we support the policy? Why does not the President's own party say, we support the policy? Does anybody support the policy? It does not say that, but there are fine words in here that would let the President tomorrow draw an inference that indeed we do. It says here that the House unequivocally supports the men and women of the United States Armed Forces carrying out their mission in support of Bosnia. I am absolutely convinced that the President can construe that to mean tomorrow that we support the policy. My colleagues, this is not our time. This is not our place. This is not our war. This is the wrong resolution.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, last evening the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as we have heard, dismissed 64 of the 65 allegations against our Speaker. There will be more to come. This has been a systematic effort to destroy an individual rather than fight his ideas. There will be more to come. The gentleman from Florida who spoke, Mr. Johnston, who has been putting the privileged resolution on the floor that has been tabled twice, was quoted in his own hometown paper in Florida as having said I am part of a small group that meets weekly to pour over everything the Speaker says to find where we can file ethics charges against him. This is an old story. We have heard it said here that in 1989 they said, and I quote, ``We will destroy Gingrich if it is the last thing we do''. There will be more to come. Mr. Speaker, we are proud that the Speaker can stick to his issues and the ideas. It is unfortunate that the other side is not willing to engage the ideas.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, in 1952 the Federal Government taxed the American family 4 percent of its income. In 1995, the Federal Government taxes the average American family 24 percent. In 1950, the Federal Government spent a little over 10 percent of the gross national product. Today the government spends about 25 percent of the gross national product. In 1950, the Federal deficit was about $3 billion. This year it is around $200 billion. Mr. Speaker, is there a trend here? Bigger Government, more and more debt, and less take home pay for the American family. Well, the time has come to turn these trends around. This Republican-led Congress is committed to balancing the budget. We recognize that Government is too big and taxes too much. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 represents an end to the tax and spend policies that have produced a huge Government and $5 trillion debt. It also says to America's families: you earned it, you keep it, it is yours in the first place.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the magic number is $730 billion. In this morning's congressional article, it said $730 billion is what the President wants to spend in excess of what the Congress has passed. We both want balanced budgets, but they want to use different numbers to get there. We are preparing to spend $2.6 trillion more in the next 7 years than we spent in the last 7 years, a total of $12.1 trillion. It seems to me that we can fight on priorities within that number, but we should put the line in the sand: $12.1 trillion and no more. If the assumptions that the President wants to use are correct and we do wind up with $730 billion more in revenues or less in spending, we can apply that to our children's debt. However, we should draw the line in the sand: $12.1 trillion and not a dollar more.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am here this afternoon to announce that my second grandson, John Allan Simpson, was born this morning at 8:30. Mother and son are doing fine; father not doing so well, but he will come down to earth soon, too. But it is the grandchildren that caused me to run for Congress. Before I came here, I had a much better job, made about twice as much money and had actual vacations. But it is important for us as leaders in this country to get control of the runaway spending that we are passing the bill on to our grandchildren. John Allan Simpson, if we do not change our ways, will have a $187,000 bill for just interest on the debt over his lifetime. That is immoral. For 30 years we voted ourselves wishes and dreams and passed the bills on to our grandchildren. That is immoral. I am proud to say that this weekend we have gotten some movement. I am pleased that the President has agreed that within the framework that we have proposed we will come to terms with not spending more than $7 trillion over the next 7 years. We will get control of the debt, balance the budget and grow out of this mess for our grandchildren.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is the reason I came to Congress, to help get our economic House in order. And on behalf of my grandson. Thomas, I am proud to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. LINDER. 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 New York [Mr. Walsh].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a couple of seconds to say that, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] does not believe giving the NEA, or any other organization, tax-free use of its property, expanding the health insurance plans, or any of the other costly social programs that they have tried to not add to fiscal woes, he probably does believe he has bridges in Brooklyn to sell.

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

Mr. LINDER. Reclaiming my time, I would just respond to that by saying the only point to your reference that I was responding to was the notion that giving them $1.4 million a year worth of the tax-free benefit is not additional financial burden. It does indeed. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time. Mr. Speaker, it may not be very exciting to talk about the rule, but I think the rule is fair. We would be here all day with efforts to instruct Washington, DC on how to conduct their lives and their government if we did not have a reasonably closed rule, and we have that. Yet, we have the important decisions to be put before us. I think the Gunderson amendment is an important one, because it is an honest effort to try to change a school system that is an abject failure by any measure. It spends more money per pupil than any other school system in the Nation and does not graduate 50 percent of its people. To try and do that not with their money, not telling them how to spend their money, but money we give to them, seems to me to be reasonable. Someone said if the people of the District of Columbia want that, they ought to have it. That is true in theory, but in practice, they are spending 40 percent of their budget coming from other folks. I would not be here pleading and begging for more of your money plus freedom if it were my county. I would not think I would have deserved more of your money. I would be embarrassed to make some of these claims. However, this District of Columbia government spends over 10 times what my county government spends with more people and more services, and yet runs up an annual deficit that exceeds my county's entire budget by two times. I would be embarrassed to say we deserve more. The fact of the matter is we could just read this morning on the front page of the Washington Post Metro section, where the city of the District of Columbia gave a $547,000 loan to an entrepreneur who had not paid back the previous loan, had $100,000 in liens against his businesses, had not paid back his school loan until this year, and the Mayor, in announcing the $547,000 loan, did not even know how much it was for. He thought it was $400,000. No, this is not a city that does know better. It is a city that has been spending other people's money for an awful lot of time, and wants, of course, absolute freedom in doing that. There is not another city in America that can look to someone else for 40 percent of its budget, and look to themselves for the freedom to spend it. I think this bill will pass today, because I think we have to pass some kind of appropriations for this city to keep it going. It will be close. I think it will pass without much help from the minority, but I think we must pass the rule to get the bill to the floor. There are too many bills unpaid, there are too many fire engines in garages, being held there because we have not been able to pay for the repair. There are too many hospitals waiting for reimbursements. We simply must help them pay their bills to keep the city moving. I suspect we will be doing this.

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

Mr. LINDER. I suspect that the gentleman who is the chairman of the subcommittee could address that.

Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is not another city in America that has 40 percent of its money coming from a Federal grant or direct aid. 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 252 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for 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 revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 252 is a modified open rule which provides for consideration of the H.R. 2546, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996, and waives all points of order against this bill. House Resolution 252 allows for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. Following the hour of general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment offered by Representative Walsh, which is printed in the Rules Committee's report, will not be subject to amendment and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent of the amendment. If the Walsh amendment is adopted, the bill as amended shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment, and shall be considered as read through page 58, line 4. The rule also waives clauses 2 and 6 of rule XXI. As a consequence of the District's precarious financial situation, the subcommittee has included a number of legislative provisions that will ensure that a few specified activities are achieved by the local government. The rule holds that debate and consideration of any amendments to the bill, and amendments thereto, shall be limited to 30 minutes. House Resolution 252 specifically makes in order amendments numbered 1, 2, and 4 which were printed in the Congressional Record of October 30, 1995, waives points of order against these amendments, and provides that these amendments shall not be subject to amendment. Amendment No. 1, offered by Representative Bonilla, is designed to revoke the National Education Association's property tax exemption. It is now acknowledged that the NEA is a taxpayer subsidized labor union that has strayed from its original purpose to promote education. The NEA no longer deserves this tax exemption, and the Bonilla amendment will remove this Federal mandate and bring in over $1 million to the District of Columbia. Amendment No. 2, offered by Representative Gunderson, offers an opportunity to revive the District's school system by authorizing funding for school reforms and the creation of renewable 5-year public school charters. Mr. Gunderson has consulted with local officials on his reform package to help repair the ruined District school system, and the Rules Committee believes that this amendment deserved consideration by the whole House. Amendment No. 4, offered by Representative Hostettler, would repeal the District's Domestic Partners Act, which provides that unmarried, adult, non-dependent cohabitants may register to receive health benefits and other legal rights. This act is simply poor public policy. Congress has consistently prohibited the use of Federal funds for implementing this act, and this amendment will end the annual process of prohibiting the enforcement of this law. Members will have the opportunity to offer additional amendments under the 30 minute time arrangement for each amendment. The specified time limits will give all Members the opportunity to debate fully each amendment, while ensuring that this important bill moves along the appropriations process in a timely manner. The rule permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to those Members who pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record, which will assist all the Members of the House in the consideration of the merits of each proposed amendment. Finally, the resolution provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia, by all accounts, has gotten itself into a financial predicament that necessitates the serious action taken in H.R. 2546. The bill provides a total appropriation of $4.97 billion for fiscal year 1996, and takes the additional step of placing a cap of $4.87 billion on the total amount of appropriations available to the District Government for operating expenses. Certainly, a city the size of Washington, DC, can survive on almost $5 billion, especially after the local District leadership institutes the necessary reforms to create a more efficient operation for our Nation's capital and its citizens. Mr. Speaker, I might parenthetically point out that the county in which I live has 20,000 more citizens than the District of Columbia and it provides all the same services and does so for $410 million per year, rather than $4.97 billion. In addition to the provisions that the DC subcommittee has included in the bill, I am pleased that the District Financial Management Assistance Authority has been specifically encouraged to expedite the implementation of sound financial practices as soon as possible. The Financial Authority, the local government and the inhabitants of the capital all recognize the feeling of apprehension that exists about the ability of the District to govern itself, and I hope that everyone can agree that this bill will effectively spur the District toward financial solvency. Under the leadership of Chairman Walsh, the appropriators have had to balance an assortment of concerns, including home rule, and make difficult choices with the limited funding available this year. The product of their [[Page H 11620]] work reflects both these new budget realities and the District's fiscal emergency. As a result, H.R. 2546 guarantees that the available funding is spent efficiently and where it is needed most. Mr. Speaker, this rule was favorably reported by the Rules Committee yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with debate and consideration of the underlying legislation which will assist the District along the road to financial well-being. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Congressional Record:

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I just must respond to the comments made by the gentleman before me because they are simply not true. What the Speaker has said in a speech last week was he would like for the Health Care Financing Administration to wither on the vine. So would I. So would everyone. As we take Medicare into more private markets with managed care opportunities and private insurance opportunities, we hope that the Health [[Page H 11662]] Care Financing Administration, which has strangled health care with regulatory burdens, does indeed die on the vine. Let me also point out that in 1965 when Medicare was passed, nearly half of the Republicans then in this House voted in favor of it. That should be pointed out again. Nearly half of the Republicans supported it. Over half support it now. Nearly all of us want to fix it, preserve it, protect it. But allowing erroneous statements to be made simply is not helping the process. HCFA, the Health Care Financing Administration, should wither on the vine. Medicare will be better for it. Mr. Speaker, the text of the speech by Speaker Gingrich follows: [From the Washington Times, Oct. 27, 1995] Gingrich Says Halt Monopoly Text of House Speaker Newt Gingrich's remarks before a conference of Blue Cross and Blue Shield on Tuesday. Now let me talk a little bit about Medicare. Let me start at the vision level so you understand how radically different we are and why it's so hard for the press corps to cover us. Medicare is the 1964 Blue Cross plan codified into law by Lyndon B. Johnson, and it is about what you'd--I mean, if you all went out in the marketplace tomorrow morning and said, ``Hi, I've got a 1964 Blue Cross plan,'' I'll let you decide how competitive you'd be. But I don't think very. So what we're trying to do, first of all, is say, OK, here is a government monopoly plan. We're designing a free-market plan. Now, they're very different models. You know, we tell Boris Yeltsin, ``Get rid of centralized command bureaucracies. Go to the marketplace.'' OK, what do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in Round 1 because we don't think that that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it-- voluntarily. Notice the difference, again, from the Clinton plan. No one under our plan is coerced into doing anything.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].