[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 178 (Friday, November 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12091-H12098]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. FAZIO of California asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to 
yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], if 
he could indicate to our colleagues what we are about to engage in 
today. Members are seeking leadership.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield, I am happy to inform my 
friend that we are about to embark on debate on the rule for the 
continuing resolution, and we hope that we can move quickly through 
that, have a vote, and then proceed with the continuing resolution. 
Then we will proceed with the rule on the debt-ceiling increase, move 
through that quickly, and then have a vote.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Does the gentleman assume these efforts will 
be to send directly to the President the product of the Senate, or are 
we going to conference on these matters?
  Mr. DREIER. I am not in a position to answer that, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Is there anyone on the gentleman's side who 
could tell us? We just simply, for purposes of Members' schedules, 
wanted to know whether we were going to try to send to the President 
the product of today's efforts, or whether we are simply going back to 
conference on these matters.
  Mr. DREIER. To whom would my friend like to yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I would be more than happy to yield.
  Mr. DREIER. To whom would he like to yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I would be more than happy to yield to 
anyone who could tell us.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] perhaps?
  Mr. DREIER. I do not know if he is on the floor. That was the 
schedule we have right now. I know there are Members anxious to get 
home for this very important local day. If we could proceed with 
consideration of this rule, we will get started.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. We will be more than happy to proceed.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman will yield further, I have just been 
informed here that we are going to be doing the rules back to back, and 
then we will take up the continuing resolution on the debt ceiling, 
following consideration of both.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Would it be possible for the leadership to 
inform us after the two rules are dealt with as to what the intention 
of the majority is?
  Mr. DREIER. We will look forward to the gentleman's inquiry at that 
time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. We look forward to the gentleman's response.
  
[[Page H 12092]]


 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO DISPOSE OF SENATE AMENDMENTS 
 TO HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 115, FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 261 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 261

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order without intervention of any point of order to take 
     from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115) 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     1996, and for other purposes, with any Senate amendment 
     thereto, and to consider in the House a motion offered by the 
     majority leader or his designee to dispose of all Senate 
     amendments. Any Senate amendments and motions shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader 
     and the minority leader or their designees. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to 
     final adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question except any such demand made by the 
     majority leader or his designee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Woodland Hills, California 
[Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate 
only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in the 
House, without intervening point of order, of a motion if offered by 
the majority leader or his designee to dispose of Senate amendments to 
House Joint Resolution 115, a continuing resolution making 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through December 1, 1995.
  This rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
majority leader and the minority leader or their designees, and further 
provides that the previous question is ordered to adoption of the 
motion without intervening motion or demand for a division of the 
question unless the demand is made by the majority leader or his 
designee.
  Mr. Speaker, a short-term continuing resolution is necessary to 
continue Government operations while we complete the appropriations 
bills that will put the Federal Government on the 7-year path to a 
balanced budget. As the Chairman of the Federal Reserve recently said, 
this effort to come to grips with our chronic and unsustainable Federal 
deficits is truly extraordinary. It will result in tangible benefits 
for every American family in the coming years.
  While the protectors of big government continue to hold hope deep in 
their hearts that we will fail, they will be disappointed. It is simply 
not acceptable for this Congress to fail as our predecessors have. We 
will not mortgage the future of our children with trillions of dollars 
of debt.
  We will also not apologize for taking time to balance the budget. 
Past Congresses relied on continuing resolutions on many occasions. 
There is no question of competence. Instead, ask what Congress is doing 
with the time a continuing resolution provides. When those on the other 
side of the aisle controlled this House, they needed time to find 
enough ways to spend this country $5 trillion into the hole.
  Be assured, if we didn't care about the future of this country, and 
we agreed with the President's proposition that we just spend enough to 
avoid tough decisions, we wouldn't need extra time.
  Mr. Speaker, the single most important aspect of this continuing 
resolution is that it is fiscally sound. Funding is lower than the 
current continuing resolution and below fiscal year 1995. It creates 
the proper environment to negotiate the outstanding appropriations 
bills. While disposing of the amendments with the Senate is important, 
the overriding issue to get this continuing resolution in place by next 
Monday so that the stage is set to complete our historic budget work.
  Mr. Speaker, we must keep our eyes set on our ultimate goals. We will 
balance the Federal budget, save the Medicare system for a generation 
of retirees, end welfare as we know it, and implement a tax cut for 
families that increases the take-home-pay of American workers.
  This rule will permit the House to resolve the remaining differences 
on this continuing resolution so that next week we can get back to 
accomplishing those critical goals. I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for 
yielding the customary half-hour of debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, our lack of opposition to the rule is in no way any lack 
of indication of our strong and strenuous opposition to the continuing 
resolution it would make it order.
  We support the rule because we believe that passing it is the 
responsible thing to do. We should move decisively now to set the stage 
for eventually passing a simple, clean bill, with no extraneous 
provisions or certainly no controversial ones, that continues 
Government spending.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not even be debating this rule this morning. 
This is a beginning of Veterans Day weekend. We should be in our 
districts observing this important occasion. I am sure most of us 
assumed we would be and have commitments, in fact, to do. But the 
Republican-controlled Congress has been unable to do its most basic 
job: passing appropriations bills. This is the only reason we are here 
considering this resolution under these unusual circumstances and not 
back home where we all planned to be.
  This continuing resolution replaces 11 regular appropriations bills, 
which by all standards should have been sent to the President for his 
signature by now. The fact is that most of those yet to be approved 
have been delayed because of nongermane, extraneous, irrelevant 
legislative provisions that the majority allowed to be included in 
appropriations bills, despite the fact they had to waive our rules to 
do so.
  Mr. Speaker, our rules prohibit legislation, policy matters, in 
appropriations bills for a good reason. We know it is difficult to 
avoid doing that entirely, but the provisions we are discussing today 
are major and very controversial. They are, in fact, causing 
intractable disagreements between Republican Members of the other body, 
and Republican Members of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to be doing today what we could have done 
earlier this week: voting on a continuing appropriations measure that 
is a clean, straightforward extension of funding for the Government 
until the remaining 11 regular appropriations bills are passed and 
signed into law, so that our Government can continue to function.
  Unfortunately, we will again be denied that opportunity and the 
Government will no doubt be unnecessarily shut down on Tuesday.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are willing and ready to expedite the 
business of this House. We oppose this continuing resolution that has 
been burdened by the Republican leadership with extraneous and 
controversial provisions, including restriction on the right of 
nonprofit groups that accept any Federal money to engage in political 
advocacy, even with their own funds. That language, no matter how much 
the other body tried to soften it, has no business being included in 
this resolution. It should be voted on separately in the normal course 
of legislative business like any other legislative proposal.
  The Republican leadership is obviously keeping this most 
controversial provision in a simple bill to mollify and placate a 
minority in the House, but what we need now is leadership and political 
courage. This action, the action that we are being asked to take today, 
is unworthy of the Republican leadership and calculated to prevent the 
bill from being signed into law by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that the President will not accept the Istook 
language and the other extraneous provisions that do not belong in the 
bill. 

[[Page H 12093]]
The White House has made that quite clear.

  What we are doing today is unduly extending a process that can and 
should be expedited. We should not be including the provision affecting 
the Medicare part B premium increase in the bill. That is a matter 
being addressed in the budget reconciliation bill, and that is where 
this provision making permanent changes in law belongs.
  Mr. Speaker, it is totally irresponsible to be playing these 
political games that threaten a costly shutdown of the Government. If 
the majority is seriously interested in preventing this action, and in 
doing that in the most expeditious manner possible, it will reconsider 
its decision to bring this encumbered legislation to the floor again.
  We should, as I said, be voting on a clean, unencumbered, 
straightforward continuing resolution. If one were before us, it would 
pass easily. We Democrats have made it clear that we would vote for it; 
we are confident a great many Republicans would also do so.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the only action that will give our Committee on 
Appropriations members time to resolve with the Senate and with the 
President most, if not all, of the remaining differences that they have 
on the remaining appropriations bills.
  We could be doing that today if the majority really wanted to get 
down to attending to the Nation's business. The country is waiting for 
some political leadership and for us to end these types of political 
games.
  Mr. Speaker, we urge our colleagues to do the right thing: To reject 
the continuing resolution this rule makes in order, so that we can 
instead act seriously and responsibly. Then, and only then, will we be 
carrying out our duty to govern this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, so that we can move ahead as expeditiously 
as possible, at this time we have no requests for time, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is one of the most 
ridiculous, unnecessary, partisan games I've seen in all my years in 
Congress. The sole purpose of a continuing resolution is to keep the 
Government running while Congress works to pass the appropriations 
bills. A continuing resolution should not be used to further a 
political agenda. A continuing resolution should not be used to 
blackmail the President. A continuing resolution should not be trifled 
with.
  Mr. Speaker, a continuing resolution should be clean and bipartisan, 
plain and simple.
  But this continuing resolution is not, it is full of Republican 
extras that have no place on a bill as serious as this one.

  It is the duty of the majority party to govern, and sometimes that 
means putting aside political games. And sometimes that means putting 
the interests of the American people before anything else.
  I urge my colleagues defeat this rule.
  Come back with a clean continuing resolution so that we can get back 
to the business of governing this country. That is what we were sent 
here to do.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would ask the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Beilenson], who is managing the rule on our side. 
Is it not true that the Republicans in the Senate and the House have 
stubbornly refused to drop the increase in the part B premium on 
Medicare, so that that will be established at 31 percent rather than 
being permitted to drop to 25 percent as in current law?
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am afraid 
what the gentleman has said is quite true.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman 
if what this means, of course, is that senior citizens, instead of next 
year paying $42 a month for their part B, will pay $53 a month for 
their part B, an increase of $11 per month, and this is on a glidepath 
that the Republicans are following that will take part B, premiums to 
$87 a month by the year 2002, instead of $60 a month as in current law, 
which means that senior citizens will be paying $27 more per month if 
we follow this strategy to its conclusion?
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman again is quite correct.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, these increases in Medicare part B are 
totally unnecessary. The increases are being used to go to the general 
fund, not to provide for the solvency of Medicare, and are being used 
to fund the tax cut being proposed by the other side.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would again say that I know my colleagues 
would like to get back to their districts so that they can deal with 
the pressing needs of Veterans Day ceremonies. For that reason, I 
reserve the balance of my time, and hope that we can expeditiously move 
ahead here.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from California, if he 
and his friends over there cared that much about getting us home on 
time on Veterans Day, there are ways of doing it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today in this 
session, in this House, in this city, is because of the failure of the 
Republican leadership to pass appropriation bills on time.
  Mr. Speaker, now they come to us with a continuing resolution to keep 
government in business, but they add a kicker. They will not allow the 
Federal Government to stay in business unless we agree to raise 
Medicare premiums on the elderly by 25 percent.
  Speaker Gingrich is determined to raise Medicare premiums to cut the 
Medicare program. That is his agenda. He has said to the President of 
the United States, ``We will not allow Government to stay in business, 
unless you will raise Medicare premiums.''
  Mr. Speaker, we are counting on the President of the United States to 
veto this bill; to stand up for American families and America seniors. 
We can go ahead today and defeat the rule. We can defeat this CR, but 
the final judgment will come in the White House when the President is 
forced to veto this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope at that point that Speaker Gingrich will ease up 
on the elderly of this country and move forward to a bipartisan 
approach.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in honor of America's veterans and those 
Members who hope to participate in ceremonies in their districts, I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand that Members are impatient to get 
out of here, but pardon me, there is the public's business to be done. 
I do not make any apology whatsoever for taking a couple of minutes to 
talk about that public business.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what is happening today is truly sad, and I 
think it is an example of why this Congress is held in such low esteem 
by the general public.
  In November, I think the American people put the Republican Party in 
charge of both the House and the Senate because they honestly thought 
that that would force both parties to get over their ideological and 
political hangups and maneuvering and it would force both parties to 
work together for the good of the people we are supposed to be 
representing.
  Mr. Speaker, instead, I think on a bill such as this they are getting 
more maneuvering, more political posturing, and more business as usual.
  Today is Veterans Day. I had intended to be in my district today at 
three separate veterans celebrations and one additional one tomorrow. 
Obviously, I am not going to get there under these circumstances. My 
planes have already left.

[[Page H 12094]]


                              {time}  1015

  We are supposed to be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the end of 
World War II. The veterans who fought in World War II did not have the 
luxury of playing political games. They did not have the luxury of 
cynical maneuvering. They simply had to plow ahead and do their job. I 
wish that we were following their example today. But unfortunately, we 
are not. In fact, we can go home and give all of the speeches we want 
to veterans telling them how much we care about them, but in fact the 
reality of this maneuver today is simply going to be that what we are 
going to be saying to every single veteran of World War II is: ``Guess 
what, I have got a Veterans Day present for you, we are going to raise 
your Medicare part B premium on the order of between 11 and 13 bucks,'' 
depending upon whose numbers you listen to today.
  So I guess it is kind of fitting that most Members of Congress will 
not be able to be home with their veterans today, because I think we 
ought to have a better message to give them than that.
  Now, what this budget, what the budget does that is being pushed 
through the Congress is to cut education. It is going to cut health for 
kids. The idea behind it is that we are telling people to rely more on 
charities. But then what this vehicle proposes to do with the Istook 
amendment today is to say: Oh, by the way, we are giving these 
charities much more to do because Government is bugging out on its 
concerns for children and its concerns for the poor, but by the way, we 
are going to shut things off so that these charities cannot lobby 
Congress and tell us what they think about those changes.
  We know that the President will not sign this legislation. We know 
that the only result of what we are doing today is that the Government 
is going to shut down come Monday.
  I would like to make one point and compare the way we proceeded last 
year with the way we are proceeding this year. Last year, when I 
chaired the Committee on Appropriations, every single appropriation 
bill was finished by the end of the fiscal year. That happened for one 
very simple reason, because when I took over as chairman, the very 
first thing I did was to go to the senior Republican on the committee 
and say: ``Look, let us bridge our partisan differences and work out a 
bipartisan allocation of dollars among the 13 appropriation bills.''
  That is what we did. We worked it out in a bipartisan way, in a 
conciliatory way, and we passed all 13 of those bills for the first 
time since Harry Truman was President.
  This time around my distinguished friend, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
in this session, has not been given the opportunity to do that. 
Instead, it is pretty apparent to me he has got his marching orders and 
the marching orders are very clear: ``Load up these appropriation bills 
with as many partisan gimmicks as you can, create as much confrontation 
as you can, divide people as much as you can.'' And after those 
instructions have gone out, is it any wonder that Congress has not been 
able to finish its work?
  This chart demonstrates that it has not been a Presidential failure 
of leadership which has resulted in this budget impasse. It has been a 
congressional failure of leadership. We have so far these three bills 
down to the White House. They have crossed the finish line. We have 
nine bills remaining that have a long way to do before they even get to 
the White House. The Labor-HHS bill passed by the House was in such an 
extreme form that the Republican-controlled Senate will not even take 
it up. Four other appropriation bills are tied up on the issue of 
abortion, a nonbudget item. Others are tied up because of extremist 
language that was attached on the environmental and several others are 
tied up because of money differences.
  The fact is that 89 percent of the appropriations business that this 
Congress has to do is still not done. And that is not because of the 
failure of the President to provide leadership but because of the 
failure of this Congress to bridge partisan differences and 
philosophical differences and do what is necessary to compromise in the 
interest of the people we represent.
  That is why this rule is a fool's mission. This rule is going to 
produce a product which is going nowhere. We will all be back here 
Monday, after we have gone home and preached our psalms, we will come 
back Monday to pick up and clean up the damage done by the passage of 
this legislation today, because this will never become law. All it will 
do is increase the risk--and decrease the time necessary to avoid the 
risk--of blowing up this process with innocent people getting hit by 
the shrapnel.
  That is all that is happening today. I speak with a great deal of 
regret because it seems to me that the job of Congress, instead of 
attaching the Istook amendment, which we know will simply bottle this 
legislation up, instead of insisting that we raise the Medicare part B 
premium, we ought to have a simple 1-month clean extension so we have 
some time to do our real work rather than the nonsense and posturing 
that is going on today represented by this joke of a bill and this joke 
of a rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would say, in light of the fact that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have no experience whatsoever 
in dealing with appropriations bills that will move us in the direction 
of a balanced budget, it seems to me that it is quite apparent that 
they are blocking our attempts to move toward a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Winter Park, FL 
[Mr. Mica], who has worked long and hard in his very short 4-year 
period of time to get us to this point of a balanced budget, unlike our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have served for years and 
years and years and controlled this place and have not done anything 
whatsoever to help us balance the Federal budget.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to contain myself when I hear the 
accusations from the other side. Again, we hear the Mediscare threats 
that are made by the other side. It really galls me because they do not 
want to deal with the facts. If all else fails, I always say on the 
floor, read the bill. The bill in fact says that any savings in our 
proposal go into the Medicare trust fund. It is a simple fact. But they 
want to insist on scaring the seniors of this country.
  And then they talk about veterans. What a shame, what a scam that 
here just before the eve of Veterans Day that in fact this side that 
has developed programs and plans that give better benefits, better 
benefits to illegal aliens and people who will not work in this country 
than they do to our veterans and our senior citizens.
  This is a shame on the eve of that occasion.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, out of deference to those who want to get 
home to their districts to attend veterans' ceremonies, I reserve the 
balance of my time and hope that we can move ahead as expeditiously as 
possible, simply pass this rule, and Members can vote against the 
continuing resolution if they so choose when we begin debate on that.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  First of all, the gentleman from Florida protests too much; $300 
million in cuts in veterans benefits.
  Last year we cut 40 programs. We have downsized, cut 400 of them, 
reduced their spending. This Congress has been about the business of 
reducing in the last Congress a trillion dollars in debt.
  The fact of the matter is this is not serious business that we are 
about today. This is fiscally and personally irresponsible. There is 
not one on the other side of the aisle that does not know that this 
bill is dead, dead, dead. The President has said he is going to veto 
it.
  I have served in this body since 1981. Almost every year that side of 
the aisle has strongly from all of the microphones in all of the 
committees urged this body, if it was going to pass a CR, a funding 
bill to keep Government going while the political disputes on this Hill 
continue, has strongly urged a clean CR. Democrats, do not lard it up. 
Do not force Reagan and Bush to sign 

[[Page H 12095]]
something. Make it clean. In fact the Committee on Appropriations, for 
the large part, supported that effort and did that.
  The fact of the matter is, until they took control, until their 
extremist agenda could not see the light of day in this House, they 
cannot pass bills. So what they want to do is put it in a continuing 
resolution and say, if you do not do it my way, then shut down the 
Government and put at risk the credit of the United States of America.
  As I said, that is fiscally irresponsible. It is personally 
irresponsible. It is far, far less than the American public expects of 
this body and of each of us. Vote no on this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that, if this balanced 
budget CR is dead, dead, dead at the White House, it is for the reason 
that the White House opposes, opposes, opposes a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so that Members can get 
home to their veterans.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish the gentleman would reserve the 
balance of his time and stop yielding a few seconds every now and then 
to himself.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly I am pleased that there is a new 
interest in honoring our veterans. If we really want to honor our 
veterans, do not force this country into default and lead to the 
cancellation and delay of services that our veterans need. If we really 
want to honor our veterans, do not raise their Medicare premiums. Do 
not cut the Medicare that over 8 million veterans in this country are 
eligible for. That is a way to honor our veterans.
  How is it that we got ourselves as Americans into this mess where we 
stand on the brink of default for the first time in the history of the 
United States? Well, it happened for a number of reasons.
  The first one was that our Republican colleagues wasted month after 
month trying to impose a contract on America that they told us was the 
greatest thing that had come along since sliced bread. Then in this 
morning's paper, we learn the truth, indeed the fiction behind that 
great contract on America.
  Republican pollster Frank Luntz, a Gingrich protege, never really 
measured the contract's popularity in the first place. Luntz announced 
that he tested only ad campaign slogans supporting the contract. The 
House Republicans' legislative agenda is not losing popularity. It is 
probably just shutting popularity it never had in the first place.
  The same story goes to quote the great pollster that backed up all 
this contract on America on which time was wasted instead of getting on 
with the real business of the American people as saying that the 
purpose of this polling had been to find the most persuasive wording of 
the contract's proposition for preelection ads in TV Guide.
  You see, when you run Government by bumper sticker instead of 
Government by involving the people, by good sense, by attending to the 
real needs of the American people, you end up on the brink that we face 
today of default.
  The second way they did it is through the appropriations process. 
Speaker after speaker has noted that they simply did not do their work. 
We were not supposed to be here in the middle of November dealing with 
appropriations bills. They were all due months ago. When we reached the 
deadline, 2 of 13 appropriations bills had been passed by the 
Republican majority and signed by the President of the United States. 
Why did they not get the work done? They had a little time after they 
wasted months with the contract on America. Well, we know why they were 
unable to complete their work, because the chairman of the House 
Committee on Appropriations himself declared in committee, and I quote, 
it is payback time.
  Yes, America, it is payback time, not to the ordinary people of 
America but those various extremist groups that dominate the Republican 
Party selection process. They deserve their due.
  Well, we ended up, therefore, honoring our veterans instead of by 
appropriating the moneys for our national security, that bill has not 
been forwarded to the President's desk. It has been tied up. Finally, 
by contracting to the lobby the job of governing America, the 
Gingrichites have pursued error with excellence.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that I would be using 15 
seconds or so each time to respond to the rhetoric that we have been 
listening to from the other side of the aisle. But I have come to the 
conclusion that we are going to have to bring out our big guns.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the 
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would feel much better if the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] would use the Republican side so people in 
the audience do not get mistaken on who is saying what.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], one of the things I am most proud 
about in life is that many years ago Ronald Reagan and I saw the light. 
I was a John F. Kennedy, I was a Harry Truman, Democrat, and my party 
deserted my beliefs, and I became a Republican, and I am proud of it.
  Now let me just say this: My colleagues, I do not know about the 
previous speaker and whether or not he is a veteran, but I am going to 
say something, my colleagues. I am a Marine Corps veteran, and I am 
proud of that, too, and I am going to tell my colleagues something.
  I see the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] sitting back 
there, and there are two Members in this House that, I guess, have a 
reputation that we are so proud of because he and I, and I used to be 
the ranking Republican on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, but he 
and I stood up for these veterans, we developed a reputation, he 
probably even more than I, as being the two Members of Congress that 
really stood up; so I think when I stand up here today I am going to 
speak for the veterans of this Nation, I am going to speak for the 
older veterans of this Nation that some have referred to, older ones 
like me that are 65 years old and on Medicare, and I am going to tell 
my colleagues we are determined that we are going to save Medicare. It 
is not going to go bankrupt, and we are going to pursue it right to the 
end, and we will succeed. We will save it for the people of this 
country and for my children and my grandchildren.
  Now, as my colleagues know, I have been keeping track, and I am going 
to try to keep my emotions down, which I have a problem sometimes 
doing, but I have kept track of all the speakers on this side of the 
aisle, which is why I came over here to speak over here, and every one 
of them, just about, appear on this list. This is the National 
Taxpayers' Union list of big spenders.
  Now what is ironic about that? As my colleagues know, we had the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] up here with his chart, and I do 
not have a chart, but let me just make one.
  Here is a great big pie; OK? I wish everybody could see this. Talk in 
the mike? OK. It will not reach. I cannot get it over here.
  Let me just show my colleagues what is on the pie. This pie is $1\1/
2\ trillion. I am getting help from my New York colleagues here. This 
pie represents the Federal budget, $1\1/2\ trillion. And do my 
colleagues know of that budget there is a little set-aside there which 
requires $250 billion just to pay the interest on the accrued national 
debt that now has reached $5 trillion. Yes, we are paying $250 billion 
to the holders of that $5 trillion debt.
  Who are the holders of that debt? Most of it is held by foreign 
countries, by the Netherlands, by Great Britain, and then we have 
holders in this country. I own some of these Treasury notes myself. But 
let me tell my colleagues what happens.
  President Clinton gave us a budget last year, and I have got that 
chart over there someplace, but I will not bother to drag it out here 
now, but he wanted to increase that national debt, accumulated national 
debt, from $5 trillion up to $6 trillion.
  Now then what happens to the amount of interest that we have to pay 
on that debt if we had let that go through? Instead of just $250 
billion, it would have grown to $350 billion, and 

[[Page H 12096]]
another $100 billion would have been taken out of those available funds 
to pay for help for the truly needy, the people that really need the 
help.
  Do my colleagues know what happens when we pursue this kind of 
irresponsible spending? Then interest rates go up, and inflation goes 
up.
  Do my colleagues recall 1979 when Jimmy Carter was President? 
Interest rates rose to 23\1/2\ percent prime, which means businessmen 
like me at the time had to pay 26\1/2\ percent. Inflation went up from 
4 percent all the way up to 13 percent. If that ever happened now with 
this kind of irresponsible spending, we would not have this kind of 
irresponsible spending, we would not have just a debt interest of $250 
billion or $350 billion. It would go up to almost $500 billion, and 
each time it raises from $10, to $20, to $50 billion, that means 
another $10, or $20, or $50 billion that is there less, the funds that 
are there, for the truly needy.
  So let me tell my colleagues something, Mr. Speaker. What is 
compassionate? What is compassionate for my children, and my 
grandchildren, and all of my colleagues', and all of those out there, 
is to bite the bullet and be fiscally responsible. That is exactly what 
we have been doing with these budgets. We are determined that we are 
going to bring this budget under balance.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply inquire of my friend 
who has served in this place for 17 years how many balanced budgets our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have fought for the way we 
are fighting for a balanced budget today, and I would be----
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would say zero, and I would say this. When we took 
over, the gentleman and I took over the Committee on Rules this year, 
what was the first thing we did? We told the Republican Party, ``You 
have no choice but to offer a balanced budget on this floor.'' We said 
to the Democratic Party, ``You have no choice but to offer a balanced 
budget on the floor of this Congress.'' We wrote to the President of 
the United States, and never got an answer, and we said, ``Mr. 
President, you have no choice but to offer a balanced budget on the 
floor of this Congress.''
  What did that do? That meant that anybody's alternative had to be 
balanced because that was the most serious problem facing this Nation, 
and that is what we got. We are going to pursue the balanced budget.
  Now I have just been passed a little note----
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to my good friend from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate it 
now that we are talking about balanced budgets. I want to be sure that 
the gentleman is aware that during the 12 years of Reagan and Bush they 
sent budgets over here that in 11 of those 12 years had to be cut by 
this Congress, which seems to be a little different history than the 
gentleman is offering to the public here.
  The other point I wanted to make or question I wanted to ask the 
gentleman was this:
  The gentleman says that we have a great need to balance the budget 
which means we cannot spend too much, we have got to have that money to 
pay our debt. In that case why does the gentleman have a $245 billion 
tax cut in his budget mostly for rich people?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the gentleman why we do. 
Because a capital gains tax cut means so much to the farmers that I 
represent in upstate New York. Let me tell the gentleman----
  Mr. BRYANT of Texas. The gentleman here in 1981----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Do not interrupt, my friend. Mr. Speaker, I did not 
interrupt my colleague. Let me tell my colleague what a $500 tax cut 
does to the people who are making $21,000 or $22,000 or $30,000 or even 
$40,000. They are trying to salvage enough money for a downpayment on a 
home and then be able to meet the mortgage payment on that home. Let me 
tell my colleague they are better off having the money in their pocket 
instead of the gentleman's pocket in the Congress to go and spend on 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague, ``We ain't going to do it 
anymore. We're going to balance the budget.''
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Rangel], if he was a Republican in the past as the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] was a Democrat in the past.
  I say to the gentleman, ``We're happy to have you, Charlie.''
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I came to this side of the aisle because it 
is going to be difficult to distinguish me from my dear friend and 
colleague. We are both 65. We are both combat veterans. We both come 
from the great State of New York. We both love our country. In 
addition, Mr. Speaker, we both seek a balanced budget. The only 
difference I think we have is how we achieve that. Our veterans 
association kind of thinks that my buddy from upstate New York is wrong 
in how he wants to achieve it.
  Mr. Speaker, those that fought and were in the dugouts trying to 
preserve this great Nation somehow do not understand today this $245 
billion tax cut that we are talking about on Veterans Day. I cannot 
find any of the organizations, the American Veterans of Foreign Wars, 
the Disabled Veterans--I really cannot find them reaching out for this 
capital gains tax cut that our veterans are talking about.
  Now I am 65, I have more of a concern in Medicare than ever before. 
Right here in this resolution we are talking about increasing the 
premium, for my colleague and for me and for those veterans that are 65 
and over. It says here, it says here, even though most Republicans 
would not know this because these things do not go through committee 
anymore, but my colleague should know it because it comes from the 
Speaker's office; it says here that according to CBO, part B premiums 
will increase under this CR from $42.50 a month under current law to 
$55.10.
  The resolution changes current law. It sets the premiums at 31.5 
percent of part B expenditures instead of the 25 percent in current 
law, and my colleagues say they are not changing anything. This is even 
higher than what did fly through without hearings by the Republicans in 
the Committee on Ways and Means which had jurisdiction before the 
Committee on Rules, and the Speaker's office thought it can be done in 
a different way.
  To get back to the Medicare increases, there was a shrieking voice 
here about 10 minutes ago claiming, the gentleman from Florida, 
claiming that we were trying to frighten our senior citizens, meaning 
me and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] included, if we did 
not know what our colleagues were up to. We rely on those that provide 
the services. Being Catholic, I went to Catholic Charities, who provide 
for we old folks when we need help. They vigorously oppose what our 
colleagues are doing to Medicare. Then I went to my Jewish friends, and 
I went to the Jewish Council Against Poverty, who provide for old 
folks. They vigorously oppose this. The Protestant Council that provide 
for our poor and for our aged. if my colleagues find every hospital 
that provides nursing home for those that have been rejected by 
society, they oppose it.
  So my friend from Florida, please go home to where the old folks are, 
go to the nursing homes, go to the hospitals, go to the clinics, and 
ask the old folks who is against them.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, maybe I should stand right in the middle, 
but in any case today we are talking about, and the gentleman from 
California, my good friend from New York, who I know it grieves him to 
be away from his veterans on Veterans Day, we are talking about a 
balanced budget. But guess what? We are not here because of a balanced 
budget. That is not what is holding it up. That is not why we are here. 
We are here for one reason. There is a sophomore Congressman from 
Oklahoma who has an idea that seems 

[[Page H 12097]]
outlandish even to his Republican colleagues in the Senate, and he is 
keeping us here today on an amendment that has nothing to do with the 
balanced budget. The extremists on that side of the aisle have this 
goofy scheme, and their leadership cannot even whip them in line.
  Make no mistake about it. We are just observers, we on this side of 
the aisle. It is Republican versus Republican. It is those on the far 
right versus those on the very far right.

                              {time}  1145

  You guys and you gals cannot agree. You cannot get your act together. 
That is why the gentleman from New York, Jerry Solomon, cannot be home 
with his veterans today.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a message to the Speaker and the majority leader 
and the chairman of the Committee on Rules and the other members of the 
Committee on Rules: Tell the gentleman from Oklahoma that his idea is 
kooky, tell him he knows that he cannot get it passed on the floor of 
the House alone, and he cannot get it passed on the floor of the Senate 
alone; he should stop all these tricks, show some leadership, get his 
act together, and then maybe we can debate the real issue, the balanced 
budget.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Winter Park, FL [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I only need 1 minute, really, to address the 
House, Mr. Speaker, to refute the comments from the other side.
  It was not our side that said this Medicare system is going bankrupt. 
It was their Presidential Commission, made up of their Cabinet members. 
Our plan only limits the increase in spending. There are increases. But 
what they want to do is continue the bankrupt policy.
  Read today's paper. See what Secretary Rubin has said. He said that 
to make this thing work, to go on spending us into debt, to continue 
this tax-and-spend policy, we will even rob the retirement funds, the 
trust funds, what little is left in them, to keep this scam going.
  That is what this is about. That is what has to end. People are tired 
of the tax-and-spend and wasteful policy, and they want these programs 
in order, and our seniors demand that they be in order. The 10 percent 
and 13 percent increases in Medicare that have continued are crazy. 
What is wrong with doing away with fraud, waste, and abuse and adopting 
some of the other reforms we have proposed?
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, we did read the front page of 
the papers today. What we found out was that the Contract With America 
was based upon a phony and fraudulent poll. We did read the front pages 
of the paper today. What we found out is the American people do not 
believe you, they do not trust you, and they do not like what you are 
doing to them. That is what was on the front pages of the paper today.
  The American people have caught on to what you are doing. They know 
you are not preserving and protecting Medicare. They know you are 
hurting the elderly in this country. They know you are hurting the 
children in this country. They know you are willing to put another 
million children into poverty. Why? So you can give a tax break to your 
wealthy contributors, the wealthiest people in this Nation, because 
that is what your plan does.
  You spent 100 days in an ideological feeding frenzy around here, 
accomplishing nothing except slapping one another on the back and 
slapping the taxpayers and the poor people in this country in the face. 
So for 100 days you have nothing to show for it.
  October came and went. We do not have the appropriations bill done. 
We do not have a budget done because, as the previous speaker said, 
this is a fight among Republicans. This was a fight among some 
Republicans who think we ought to govern while we are here, and other 
Republicans that think we ought to burn the place down, and those who 
want to hand them the matches. That will not work. That will not work 
with the American people. Every poll, every measurement of the American 
people are telling you, ``Don't do it.'' Do not do this to their 
parents, grandparents; do not do this to their parents, do not do this 
to their children. Give them an opportunity for an education, give them 
an opportunity for health care security, give them an opportunity to 
live the twilight of their life with dignity.
  What is the gift you gave to veterans in my district, the veterans in 
the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the district 
of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]? That was a promise. It 
was in the budget but it was taken out here. We did read the papers, 
and America is reading the papers. America is on to you. They are on to 
you. You cannot run, you cannot hide. Pass a clean budget. Pass a clean 
continuing resolution. Pass a clean debt limit.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Garden Grove, CA [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of references to senior 
citizens and to grandparents. I am a senior citizen, and I enjoy it 
immensely. I have a 10th grandchild on the way.
  We have a blueprint before us on what we are supposed to be all about 
here. It is called the Preamble to the Constitution. I think at this 
moment, among all this frivolity and false charges about how we are 
trying to hurt me, and how we are trying to hurt me and my fellow 
grandparents, that we take a look at that beautiful blueprint to what 
this Constitution is all about, that we are supposed to honor in this 
place. We the people of the United States, in order to, and it should 
have a colon there, as we go into the list of things that we are 
supposed to do. We are supposed to be involved in an ongoing process 
here to form a more perfect union. Sometimes it gets a little rough, 
but that is what we are trying to do.
  Then it says we want to establish justice. Look at court TV sometime. 
Look at the Menendez brothers' trial or the latest fiasco in Los 
Angeles. The justice system is getting a little worn here, and that is 
why we need a lot of reform, like the habeas corpus that was in the 
bill we passed yesterday over a lot of hollering and objection from the 
liberals in this Chamber.
  Then we are supposed to ensure domestic tranquility. Have you been in 
some of our neighborhoods in some of our big urban areas? Not much 
domestic tranquility out there.
  Then, to provide for the common defense. If the pyschopathic 
government in Iran lobs one rogue missile in our direction, or at 
Jerusalem or Haifa, we do not have any ability to stop it, after all 
the trillion dollars we put into defense just over the last decade. 
That is a disgrace, and it is not on this side of the aisle.
  Then it says, ``Promote the general welfare.'' Go look up welfare in 
a 1700's dictionary, and it means the business climate, to help enhance 
the creation of jobs, not welfare as it is in this century.
  Then, after promoting a general, healthy business climate, the 
creation of jobs, here comes the payoff: ``To secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves,'' nothing wrong with enlightened self-interest, 
``and to our posterity.'' That is my 10th grandchild, due to arrive in 
January; for some of you recordholders, like the gentleman from 
California, Henry Gonzalez, the gentleman from California, Ron Packard, 
or the gentleman from Kentucky, 30.
  Here is Clinton's budget projection for 10 years. It is a nightmare. 
Let us work together here, folks. We can get the job done, for 
posterity.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Budget.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today for a very simple reason. There has 
been gross mismanagement of this session. For no other reason.
  This is a continuing resolution, to continue appropriations. Why? 
Because the majority has not been able to pass their appropriation 
bills, 1\1/2\ months after the fiscal year ended. Why are 

[[Page H 12098]]
they trying to muddy it up with Medicare? Medicare? Medicare is not an 
appropriation bill.
  The reality is, before the session ends, we need to deal with 
Medicare, but we do not need to adopt their extreme agenda of $270 
billion of cuts in Medicare, either to stabilize Medicare or to balance 
the budget. We do not have to increase the premiums on millions of poor 
elderly in the fashion that they are trying to do today, for either 
purpose of stabilizing Medicare or balancing the budget.
  But we should not be arguing that today, on a continuing 
appropriation bill. Why do they try and put it on? Just to make sure 
the President will veto it. They can pretend they have done something. 
They know it is not going to happen. It is phony. But why are they even 
dealing with Medicare? Because they have not been able to deal with the 
budget, 1\1/2\ months after the fiscal year ended.
  You should have been doing that, what you are doing now, in July, but 
you were off chasing butterflies or something, not doing your work, not 
getting it organized, so now you come with this dumb bill, crazy 
provisions in it, trying to stick it to the seniors in this country. We 
should vote no.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
although I do not plan to use much of it.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are obviously unhappy with the 537 
Federal elected officials, the 435 of us in this House, 100 Members in 
the U.S. Senate, and the two people elected in the executive branch. 
They are unhappy as they watch this bickering that is going on over 
this battle that we have.
  Today is a Federal holiday. Tomorrow is actually Veterans Day, but we 
are marking it today. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and 
many of our colleagues hope very much to be able to participate in 
events. That is one of the reasons we have tried to limit this debate, 
which is simply on the rule, so we can allow Members to have a chance 
to vote for or against this continuing resolution.
  But as we proceed with this, it seems to me that it is very important 
to recognize what it is that got us to this point. Between 1977 and 
1987, there were 63 continuing resolutions. We hear this criticism of 
this process but we are, right now, struggling to move toward a 
balanced budget. While people are unhappy with the bickering that is 
going on today, I am convinced that they are much more unhappy with the 
prospect of perpetuating that business as usual. That business as usual 
has been a pattern which has led to doing nothing more than passing 
onto the shoulders of future generations the responsibility of 
continuing profligate spending.
  So what is is that we are saying? We are saying that as we move ahead 
with this continuing resolution, we should put into place the kinds of 
things that the American people want, that will reduce the size and 
scope of government, recognize that we must save the Medicare system, 
rather than allowing it to go bankrupt, as the President's Commission 
on Medicare said in their April 3 study that came out.
  So it seems to me we have a responsibility to do the right thing. 
Everyone is unhappy with the fact that we are bickering. I am unhappy 
with the fact that we are here today. The fact of the matter is that we 
are doing the people's business. We want to do that right now by 
passing out this rule, so we can proceed with the debate on the 
continuing resolution. Then let us get the two people who were elected 
by all the American people at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to 
sit down and come to an agreement, so that we can ensure that by the 
year 2002 we are able to pass on to the children of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray], who will at that point be graduating from 
high school, a balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursaunt to clause 5, rule I, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed until after debate on House 
Resolution 262.

                          ____________________