John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee which produced the bill. (Mr. FIELDS of Texas 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, it is time to vote on a rule for a very important bill. I would like to address a couple of points. First let me thank Chairman Bliley and Chairman, Fields. We have worked on this for a long time. I would like to especially thank the ranking member [Mr. Dingell] who has given us some sage advice and a great deal of help. I am a little bit surprised at the compliant that we are not debating for a long enough time. We started with a 6 hour rule and we wind up with nine and a half hours, and that apparently is not enough. I am surprised at my friend from Indiana who says he cannot vote for this rule because he made his amendment in order, he wanted a closed rule on his amendment. All he has to do to have an up or down vote on his amendment is to have a substitute. It seems to me, if you have enough votes, you can defeat the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I am most startled by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] who made it very clear to us that he could not support this rule unless he got all three amendments in order. And we believed the gentleman, and we thought they were substantive enough to debate, and we made all three in order, and now he is complaining because we are debating this at night. Mr. Speaker, I was on this floor today on Labor-HHS and there were fewer people in this Chamber during this day on Labor-HHS appropriations than there are here tonight. You know as well as I that typically there are fewer people in this Chamber during the day than at night. These are specious arguments. The rule is a balanced rule. I urge you to support it.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and 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 the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all the time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 197 is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 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 Resources now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. House Resolution 197 authorizes the Chair to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congresional Record. The rule does not require preprinting, but simply encourages Members to take advantage of the option in order to facilitate consideration of amendments on the floor of the House. This rule allows the chair to postpone votes in the Committee of the Whole and reduce votes to 5 minutes, if those votes follow a 15-minute vote. Finally, this resolution provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Section 2 of House Resolution 197 provides for the consideration of S. 395 in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill and its consideration are waived and it shall be in order to consider the motion to amend S. 395 as described in the rule. Additionally, this section provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the motion to amend is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its amendments to S. 395 and request a conference with the Senate. The purpose of the underlying legislation, H.R. 70, is to lift the ban on the export of crude oil produced on Alaska's North Slope. This legislation was reported out of the Committee on Resources by voice vote and it has broad bipartisan support. This bill is clearly in the national interests, and by lifting the ban on exports, we can create tens of thousands of new jobs, drive domestic energy production, raise revenues, and reduce our dependence on imports. It is important to note that according to the Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 70 will reduce Federal outlays by about $50 million over the next 5 years. This open rule was reported out of the Rules Committee by voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with consideration of the merits of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information:

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 197 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and the Committee on the Judiciary. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, is it in order for the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] to move for a motion to allow the debate to occur and the vote to occur also?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, given the Democrats' track record for balancing the Federal budget, it should come as no surprise that they used less than precise bookkeeping during the 40 years of managing or mismanaging the House of Representatives. According to Roll Call and a Price Waterhouse audit of the House books, Democrats did not pay the bills they ran up, used numbers convenient to their purpose, and made a mockery of the trust of the American people. Sound familiar? That is the exact same Democrat management style that gave this country $5 trillion of debt. Having heard the demand of the American people, House Republicans are changing the way Congress operates. It is simply common sense to expect the people's House and the Government to pay their bills. That is what small businesses and American families do across the country. The Government of the greatest Nation on Earth should do no less. We will balance the budget in 7 years. Republicans are administering this House of Representatives with seriousness and reverence appropriate for the leading democracy and not the lackadaisical approach taken during the last 40 years.

Mr. LINDER

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

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the problem with cutting back on spending is [[Page H 6603]] nobody wants to cut. We all talk about it, but nobody wants to cut, to cut. The gentleman from New Jersey said, ``Just think. We're cutting heating oil help for the elderly to give away money to Jordan.'' The heating oil help for the elderly was a 1979 program for a temporary relief when the oil prices were way up. The oil prices are today below where they were then, but we cannot even cut that program out now. Now it is an entitlement. The loan foregiveness to Jordan was negotiated by the Secretary of State. It is part of the peace process with Israel. It was signed by this President. Indeed the President did not think we forgave at all, and he was very upset, and called Israel, and complained about the Republicans in Congress not doing what he wanted to keep the process going, and I know that the gentleman from New Jersey is in support of the peace process with Israel and the Middle East because I heard him talk about it to two Jewish groups myself. We simply have to get away from protecting individual programs and begin to cut spending for our children's future.

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, when my colleague discussed the movement of wealth to the upper income earners in the 1980's, in order to get that adjustment we have to include 1979 and 1980 in that equation, because if we take 1979 and 1980 out and use only 1981 through 1989, we do not get that same equation.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that worker income has gone down. Most of that has to do with the increased tax burdens, the take- home pay is eaten up by tax burdens. Would the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] agree that when we talk about the top 20 percent or the top half, we are talking about different people. We may talk about averages over a period of time, but the same people in the richest one-half or the one-tenth in 1990 were not the same people in 1980. For example, the richest person in the United States today was poor and broke in 1980.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the previous speaker, the minority whip of the House, who in the second-to-the-last second in his peroration mentioned the rule. We are here to talk about the rule. It is a fair rule and a good rule. It is a rule that we should have had last night, when we had a wide open rule, and we watched petulant people, being like my children did when they were adolescents. I am embarrassed for our House, and I am embarrassed for what our country saw on television. I would like to talk about the bill, just like the previous speaker did. We are here to balance the budget. For the first time since 1969, we think it is important to balance the budget. We are not balancing this budget to create tax cuts for the rich. People on Social Security with a $40,000 income are not the wealthy but they are going to be benefited. The 25-year-old couple with four children hoping to buy a home and save money for college, they are going to be benefited. The senior citizen who wants to sell an asset, wants to sell a home, wants to sell a business they built all of their lives, they are going to be benefited. Then we are told that cuts are too deep. How deep? How long? When? When will you propose that we take this burden off the backs of our children and grandchildren? The whole direction of what the previous speaker called the Gingrich revolution was to simply say that our children and our grandchildren are real people, too. I am delighted to meet Margie the Riveter. I think it is a wonderful story. But if you go to Margie the Riveter and say, we want your grandchildren to pay for your health care and the bills you have run up, she would not like that either. The typical person on Medicare pays 24 percent of its costs over a lifetime. They do not want our grandchildren to pay for their care. For 30 years, for 30 years this Nation has voted itself wishes and dreams over needs and passed the bill onto our grandchildren. And that is, Mr. Speaker, immoral; $5 trillion later, that is immoral. I have got one grandson and I have another grandchild on the way. When that grandchild comes in November, if we do not do this, if we continue on the path of the last 30 years, that new grandchild will enter the world and during the course of his or her lifetime will pay $187,000 just in interest on the debt. That is immoral. That is what we are about. When you see all the pictures up here and all the sob stories, remember this, America: Your children and grandchildren are real people, too.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for House Resolution 169, the rule which provides for consideration of H.R. 1854, appropriations for the legislative branch. In the past, Congress has proven that it absolutely cannot restrain itself from spending taxpayers' money. This bill is a significant move to curb Congress' spending on itself. H.R. 1854 cuts the congressional budget by $154 million in fiscal year 1996, eliminates 2,350 congressional staff positions, and [[Page H 6100]] privatizes those operations that would be better provided in the open market. The bill crafted by the Appropriations Committee continues our commitment to shrink Government, beginning with ourselves. This rule assures that the Members of the House can vote on a number of amendments that would further cut the funds that Congress spends on itself, including funds spent on congressional allowances, congressional mail, and congressional staff. While only 12 percent of amendments offered by the minority party were permitted in the last Congress on this bill, the Rules Committee will allow almost one-third of minority amendments to be considered on the House floor today. Some amendments, such as a loosely written gift ban amendment, should not be in this bill. However, under the ill-advised amendment offered in the Rules Committee, if a group from the Fourth District of Georgia decided to hold a reception, I could be prohibited from joining the event because it was funded by interested constituents. A House bipartisan task force is working on effective gift ban language, and the Rules Committee acted responsibly in not permitting this amendment. Mr. Speaker, we will balance the budget so that our grandchildren will not have to pay for our extravagances. We are cutting our own budget first, and are working to assure that future generations will not have to pay for the excesses of Government. I urge support for this fair rule and the bill that will create a streamlined, responsible legislative branch.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it was not very long ago, 1981, when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States and inherited a military where one-third of our planes could not fly for lack of spare parts, one-third of our ships were in dry dock. Our soldiers were practicing with pretend bullets, as the chairman of the Committee on rules stated. Troops were on food stamps. Over the next 8 years of buildup and fleshing out, we won the cold war. But the fact of the matter is, our military has been declining in real terms since 1985. Though adjusted for inflation, we are not much further ahead in spending than we were [[Page H5771]] in 1941, and it is time to build back up again. It is time to get our troops off food stamps, to get them into good housing. This bill is an effort to do that. The rule under which it will be debated is a fair rule. We will have opportunities to debate most of the substantive issues that come before us. There will be plenty of time to have the discussions heard. Sure, some amendments did not make it. That happens in virtually every bill that comes to the floor. Even under some open rules, if there is a time frame, they do not make it. This is a fair rule, it deserves to be supported by the entire body, and I strongly support the rule and urge my colleagues to do also.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, if the appropriate rule with respect to accusations of untruths arise, does it require [[Page H5697]] you specify a certain Member of Congress? In other words, must it be specific as to a certain Member?

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it not true matters can be spoken on the floor of the House within the rules and it is explicitly against the rules to refer to matters before the Ethics Committee before the House?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, that is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it not under the longstanding rules of the House inappropriate to address on the floor of the House matters that are under discussion and not disposed of in the Ethics Committee?

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