[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 178 (Friday, November 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12119-H12123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, what is the regulation in the House with 
regard to use of charts on the House floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair wishes to observe that charts may 
be used when the person who is speaking has placed them up, but they 
are not to be used in the Chamber unless the person who is speaking has 
them up.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry, if charts 
are knowingly inaccurate, are they allowed to be used on the House 
floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any Member may object to the use of a chart.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry, and then what 
would be the process of the House? What is the remedy available to the 
House if the House does have objections to a false or misleading chart 
on the floor?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXX of the House, if objection is 
made, then the question on the use of the chart will be put. The 
question can be placed before the Members.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify, if the chart that is 
involved is, in fact, a distortion of someone's remarks, so that it 
constitutes essentially a lie, is that chart then permitted to be used, 
unless the House ruled otherwise?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection can be made by any Member to 
any chart that is used.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, and that objection does not have to have a 
basis?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any Member may object to the use of any 
chart.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, very recently, I believe it was last week, an 
objection was made to the use of charts during the abortion debate, and 
ultimately those charts were permitted to be used on the floor as an 
issue of free speech. Is this the same issue?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A vote was taken, and a majority of the 
membership of the House made the decision that that chart in that 
instance could be used.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of free speech?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The vote was a procedure that was determined 
under rule XXX of the House.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, what is the situation when a 
chart is used and the quote is crushingly accurate, but a Member in the 
Chamber does not like it?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XXX, if it is crushingly 
accurate, any Member may still object.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.

[[Page H 12120]]

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, what is the ruling of the Chair with 
respect to quotes that are taken entirely out of context and which 
relate to an agency rather than a program?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not believe that that is a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, is there any rule of the House which precludes 
a Member from bringing to the floor in the form of a chart an exact 
quotation from the front page of a daily newspaper?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As we stated, under rule XXX any Member may 
object to the use of any chart.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, even if it is accurate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Any Member may object to the use of any 
chart and cause the question of its use to be determined by the House.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, if a Member objects to numbers or quotes or 
what have you, do they have the responsibility to offer the source of 
their evidence that they are untrue?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is a fascinating parliamentary inquiry. 
The Chair will state again that under rule XXX, any Member may object 
to the use of any chart.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I am so glad we have finally gotten to the crux of this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been in this Chamber and I have heard the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] three times ask unanimous consent 
to bring up a clean continuing resolution.
  Well, that was denied. Now we know why, because the Speaker opened 
his mouth before engaging his brain and what we are trying to do today 
is we are now trying to jam it to the President. They want to jam it to 
the President. They are taking all of this stuff out, except the 
increase on Medicare premiums so that people can pay $13 more per 
month, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Not me, but the 
Congressional Budget Office says it will be about $13 a month more, and 
they want to send this little message to the seniors that they are 
trying to get the President to sign off on this.
  Now, if this was not the issue, if what Speaker Gingrich had revealed 
as their own strategy, there secret strategy, was not the issue, why do 
they not let the gentleman from Wisconsin just bring up the clean CR?
  The main thing hanging in there is this little present for our 
seniors so they can pay the tax benefit, or the crown jewel as the 
Speaker calls it, for their rich friends.

                              {time}  1445

  All those people who make over $500,000 a year. So the Speaker says 
they cannot get rid of it right away, it is not politically smart, but 
we are going to give it away in transition.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to point out that the gentlewoman's chart was not 
objected to, but she knows full well that the Speaker was talking about 
the demise of HCFA, not the Social Security program. It may be an 
accurate quote, but that is the kind of distortion that this argument 
has gone off on. We are talking about a 14-day continuing resolution 
and we get all these extraneous arguments that have no relationship to 
the resolution. That is a totally fabricated argument.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] to show 
a real quote that is relevant.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, this is really what this debate is all about. 
Clinton said he knew that a lot of people in the room were ``still mad 
about the 1993 budget and they think I raised their taxes too much. It 
might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.''
  That was President Clinton that said that. Maybe that is a misquote, 
but I think he said that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The Chair will observe that no 
objection was made on the use of either chart.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost].
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I recall seeing on videotape this exact quote 
from the Senate majority leader, speaking on Medicare to the American 
Conservative Union:

       I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, 1 
     out of 12, because we knew it would not work in 1965.

  That is an exact quote from the Senate majority leader, Mr. Dole.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman think that might have 
been what he meant to say, or was he taken out of context?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would yield myself a lot more time to read 
the chart that describes the Democrat, President Clinton plan to save 
Medicare. But there is none so it does not take any time to describe 
it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a continuing resolution, as my colleague 
from Texas said, should be a stopgap spending measure. It should not be 
an opportunity for extremists within the Republican Party to raise the 
Medicare premiums. That is what has been done here.
  This bill raises the Medicare premium. Late last Tuesday night, 
Republicans voted to raise the Medicare premium from 24 percent to 31.5 
percent. That means instead of the $42 that the seniors were going to 
have to pay, they are now going to pay $53 a month. And that is going 
to start on New Year's Day. Happy New Year, American seniors.
  The Republican budget means seniors will pay more for Medicare. That 
is why 60 percent of the American public would like the President to 
veto this budget. And it is all part of a grand strategy, which is here 
with the very words of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]:

       We do not get rid of Medicare in round one because we do 
     not think that that is politically smart, and we don't think 
     that this is the right way to transition. We believe it is 
     going to wither on the vine.

  That is what we are doing, we are having Medicare wither on the vine.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair wishes to observe again that many 
Members have indicated that they hope to leave this afternoon to get to 
Veterans Day events and the Chair would like to encourage Members to 
move along. We will try to stick with the time allotments.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair advise Members of the time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Obey] has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana 
[Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. My colleagues, this place can be fun, and it has been 
fun the last half-hour or so. But I tend to think that people looking 
in, the folks we work for, think we are being a little frivolous just 
on the threshold of this Government shutting down and perhaps resulting 
in fiscal insolvency. I suggest we get a little less silly, put the 
charts away and commit to do what the President, within the hour, has 
asked us to do and that is stay here this weekend, compromise this out 
with him this weekend.
  I know the Senate has gone, but we can bring Phil Gramm and Bob Dole 
back from campaigning. Newt Gingrich can come back from signing books. 
We can go down to the White House and compromise with the President. We 
can get this done. Let us stop the silliness and agree to stay here 
this weekend as the President of the United States has requested we do.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to even direct it to the 
minority 

[[Page H 12121]]
leader as well, Members want to go home this weekend. They want to work 
with their veterans, with the veterans parades, with the veterans 
organizations out of respect for them.
  But let me tell Members, there are those of us like myself that are 
going to stay here this weekend. So is Newt Gingrich, so is Bob Dole, 
so are our leaders and I hope your leaders as well. We are going to be 
here, and we are going to be working so the rest of my colleagues can 
go home to try to work out these differences. So let us stop this 
silliness.
  If Members want to stay here, stay with us and we will work to 
resolve these problems.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the gentleman, in 
fact, if the President were serious about negotiating these very 
complex and difficult issues, wouldn't he have spent some of the time 
that he spent on the airplane for 26 hours going and coming from Prime 
Minister Rabin's funeral to talk to the Speaker and to talk to the 
Senate majority leader, other than to say hello? But, as I understand 
it, there was no discussion at all. And it was directly the 
responsibility of the President to initiate those conversations.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if I were the President of the United 
States, I would have been in the back of that plane talking to each and 
every one of you trying to sell you on my position. That is a 
responsible President.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. It did not happen.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that this debate has become so 
trivialized that this bill is going to rise or fall based on how much 
the Speaker's ego was damaged because the President on the way to a 
state funeral for a fallen friend did not spend enough time schmoozing 
with the Speaker when he had two former Presidents in the plane and had 
a few things to do on the way.
  If the Speaker is not bigger than that, if the majority's nose is out 
of joint on that, then we really do have a problem in this country.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I point out to the gentleman, look, we did not raise the issue about 
staying here. We have been working long hours, both parties have been 
working long hours trying to get these bill done. Let us not start 
posturing and saying we should stay all weekend when all we have to do 
is vote, get this bill out of here, send it over to the Senate. They 
will agree to this and send it to the President on time. The end of the 
time for the present continuing resolution is midnight, November 13. 
Then the President can sign this resolution. That is all he has to do 
and Government will continue.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we share your desire to show respect for 
our veterans. It is just that we do not find much respect in cutting 
Medicare for 8.8 million veterans in this country who are Medicare 
eligible, nor do we find it appropriate that when you do not include 
the cuts on waste and fraud in this resolution, you do not include the 
cuts in health care expenditures. The only cuts you provide is for the 
veterans and the other people in America who rely on Medicare by 
raising their premiums come January. That is not much respect.
  What this resolution does is to set up a procedure where by at 5 on 
Monday the Republicans in the House and the Republicans in the Senate 
still have not reached agreement. On the last day in which this 
continuing resolution is in effect, we will not know if they can agree 
among themselves on the future of this Government. And guess who is 
going to pick up the tab for it? It is going to come at a cost of 
millions of dollars a day just to shut down the Government. Unless 
Rupert is giving Newt Gingrich another book contract, the taxpayer is 
going to have to pick up that tab.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the misinformation, 
I brought a gentleman that knows what he is talking about on Medicare.
  Mr. SPEAKER, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas], the ranking chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, who is going to tell us the truth about 
Medicare.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to do this over and 
over again. I apologize for not being here. We were in conference 
trying to move forward, as Members seemingly have asked us to do. But 
obviously when they misrepresent facts and obstruction the way you 
have.
  Everybody in the United States knows, except those of you who are 
willing to admit you also know, Medicare is in trouble. Not on a 
partisan basis, on a bipartisan basis. It is an entitlement program 
that has to be checked, controlled and curbed. And it has to be done in 
a way that takes into consideration the interests of the beneficiaries 
who are receiving the benefits today and the people who are going to 
receive the benefits tomorrow. No one should argue that point.
  It is perfectly legitimate to how you solve the program. There are a 
lot of different ways to solve it. I will tell you one way that is 
pure, unmitigated political hypocrisy. And that is to pander to seniors 
and say the way we are going to save Medicare is to reduce your 
premium. That is absolute pandering. You folks have done that for so 
many years, it is hard to break old habits, and we understand that.
  But let me tell you what we have to do is every one in this society 
share in the problem. No one group can evade sharing in the problem.
  You folks have asked people who are working over and over again to 
bear virtually the total cost of the program. Six times in the last 10 
years you either increased the payroll tax or you increased the 
percentage that people have to pay into the payroll tax to cover up the 
problem in Medicare.
  Finally, in 1993, you blew off the lid. No person in America makes 
enough money to evade the payroll tax that you increased to 1.45 
percent on those individuals.

                              {time}  1500

  My colleagues' answer would be more of the same. If my colleagues do 
more of the same, it takes two to three times the increase on that 
payroll tax just to get us to the year 2002, the year in which the 
trustees said part A is going bankrupt, and my colleagues cannot 
tolerate a 10-percent-plus-a-year increase in part B, they cannot 
tolerate it. If they do, even their honorable Senators on the other 
side, Kerrey, said it is unsustainable, and they are going to give the 
seniors a reduction in the premium. Absolute pandering.
  What we have to say is, ``Seniors, will you bear your fair share?'' 
And what is the seniors' fair share? Keep the premium where it is 
today. That is all we ask.
  I am over there right now telling the Senators where they wanted to 
increase the deductible on seniors from $100 to $150 that that is 
unacceptable, where they said, ``Let's index it,'' that that is 
unacceptable, where they wanted copays, that that is unacceptable. What 
we have said is all we ask of seniors is to keep the premium where it 
is, and my colleagues come down to this floor and pander: Hey, we want 
to reduce the premium for seniors.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues do not have any solutions; we do. Guess 
what it is? It is to take a look at what is going out in America every 
day today in health care. They are not paying 10-percent-a-year 
increases. What they are doing is saying create a choice structure that 
allows people through choice to get some of the benefits that the 
children and the grandchildren of today's beneficiaries get. They 
cannot do that right now because we have a closed government system 
that operates one way basically, and that is a fee-for-service system. 
What we are saying is, ``Let's open up the fee-for-service system.'' 
What has happened in the private sector when it opened up the fee-for-
service system to choice? That fee-for-service system is withering 
away, it is disappearing. It is no longer the predominant health care 
delivery system in California. It is 75 percent managed care.
  What the Speaker said was that what is going on outside in the real 
world, 

[[Page H 12122]]
the fee-for-service system withering away, should happen to Medicare if 
people choose to have it happen, and what we hope is that we create a 
program successfully enough to attract people to a positive program in 
terms of the growth so that the old-fashioned system that was 
increasing at 10 percent a year will not be the dominant system.
  My colleagues better hope we are successful. I know they do not want 
to help us, but my colleagues better hope we are successful because, if 
we are not, this entitlement program is going to eat us all alive. We 
do not want to tell seniors they cannot have the old system.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not want to tell the seniors that they have to do 
something. We want to work together to create a positive structure 
where young people and seniors sharing in the responsibility stave off 
bankruptcy and reduce the cost of the Federal budget so we can balance 
our budget.
  What we want out of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, is to simply join us 
and tell seniors, ``Share, help us solve the problem, stay when you are 
on your premium, and we can solve the problem.'' What is their answer? 
Pander to seniors and reduce the premium. My colleagues are not only in 
the minority, they are outrageous.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where my friend from California, 
Mr. Thomas, went. I hope he gets his facts right.
  Mr. Speaker, the reality is many of us supported an alternative which 
sustains Medicare, balances the budget, does not provide the type of 
premium increase for all elderly as in the Republican proposal on an 
appropriation bill. The reality is my colleagues do not have to go to 
31\1/2\ percent of costs. I agree the premium should not go down. But 
my colleagues are having this huge jump, and at the same time we have 
millions of poor elderly widows who receive their premiums and their 
deductibles paid by Medicaid. My colleagues are also cutting that 
program. so, they are doing premium increases that are not required to 
stabilize Medicare to balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues are punishing poor, elderly widows 
because of their Medicaid cuts. That is right; they are mean cuts, and 
the reason they have to go so deep with the increase in their part B 
premiums, reductions of benefits to elderly, poor widows in most cases; 
and do not come with this language about protecting them, my colleagues 
are not, the facts do not bear our colleagues out in Medicaid; It is 
simply because they want to pay for their tax cut. We know where the 
bulk of those benefits go: 50 percent or more to people with incomes 
over $100,000.
  So let us get it straight. We do not need to do their extreme things. 
We can do it reasonably. But even forgetting about that, even if this 
were a reasonable approach, why should it be on the continuing 
resolution? Why? This is not a Medicare bill. Our friend from Louisiana 
has a continuing appropriations bill, and all of a sudden it is a 
Medicare bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. SPEAKER, the issue is not how much time the President has spent 
massaging the Speaker's ego on the airplane. The issue is whether or 
not we will try to force the President to provide for a huge increase 
in Medicare premiums as the price for keeping the Government going. 
That is not our obligation. Our obligation is to try to keep the 
Government going. We can do that with a clean resolution. That is what 
we ought to do.
  Mr. SPEAKER, I yield the remaining 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt].
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in my view this is 
the most colossal waste of time and energy that I have seen. Our job as 
a Congress is to send the President legislation, and the President then 
either has to sign or to veto the legislation. I used to say the 
President's pen is worth two-thirds of us, and it is. Nothing is in the 
Constitution about negotiating on planes going to Israel; there is 
nothing in the Constitution about carrying on summit meetings and 
negotiations. The Constitution is clear. We send the legislation, and 
he signs or he vetoes the legislation.
  We are now 6 weeks beyond the end of the fiscal year. The President 
has yet to receive the 13 appropriations bills that he was supposed to 
receive before that time came and went. He has yet to receive a budget 
bill. We call it by a funny name, a reconciliation bill. But it is a 
budget. He does not have it yet, and so here we are talking about a 
simple 2-week extension to keep the Government running and to keep 
interest rates from going up unnecessarily because we default on the 
debt.
  Now in the midst of this legislation what our colleagues are 
insisting on doing is putting into this simple 2-week extension what 
they want to do in the budget by raising Medicare premiums, and we can 
argue until the cows come home on whether or not these premiums on 
Medicare should be increased. Most of us do not think they need to be 
increased like this, but whatever people's views, we should not be here 
at 3:10 Friday, November 10, 6 weeks after our work should have been 
done, talking about our ideological differences on Medicare or on who 
can lobby the Government.
  When these bills get down to the President on Monday, or whenever 
they are going to get there, he is going to veto the bills, he has 
already said that, and then we are going to have to come back here and 
do what the congress must do, which is to develop another 2-week 
increase, or an extension, or a week, or whatever it is that we can 
pass, so that the Government will keep going, and let me just say for 
those who were not here, sometimes in the past, when we had a day or 
two when the Government did not operate, it is not a good experience 
for any of us, and it sure is not a good experience for the American 
people. They expect that we came here to do the job, to pass the 
legislation, and then the President can decide what he is going to do.
  Now I hope that we will get our wits together here in the next few 
days, and get a clean CR and a clean debt ceiling down to the President 
before bad things happen so he can sign them, so we can then get down 
to the hard work of trying to reach an agreement that will reach a 
budget that is good for the American people. I am an optimist. I think 
we can do that, and I think we have the ability to figure that out in 
good will and in good faith. But we get nowhere by standing out here 
fighting about whether the ideological riders that we have in the 
budget should be in these simple 2-week extensions. It simply does us 
no good.
  Now one final thing:
  If we cannot reach a budget, and I hope we can, we may be back here 
talking about a year extension of a continuing resolution. I hope that 
does not happen, but, if we cannot agree, and maybe we cannot with the 
President on what this should be, then I think we ought to take these 
issues to the American people. We are talking about a 7-year budget. We 
are talking about a 7-year budget. We are talking about far-reaching 
changes in the Medicare Program. We are talking about far-reaching 
changes in the Medicaid Program. We are talking about a $245 billion 
tax cut in the midst of trying to balance the budget in 7 years. Now if 
we cannot find that middle ground, and I am willing to try and find it, 
then I say let the President veto the bill, and let us do a 12-month 
extension without ideological riders, and let us proudly take these 
issues to the American people. They deserve the right to be cut into 
this decision, and I think I know the decision they are going to make.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier]. The time of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has expired, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself all the remaining time.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we have completed business on five 
bills; we have not on eight. There are a few touchups to do those, and 
we can get them to the President's desk after we pass this continuing 
resolution. When we do that, we will complete the process, complete the 
process to put this 

[[Page H 12123]]
country on a glidepath toward a balanced budget by the year 2002, to 
reduce spending, to reduce taxes, to reduce the constant increase of 
Government from the other side, to reduce the bureaucracy, and to 
provide for freedom for the American people, higher productivity, and 
more jobs. But we cannot do it if we vote this down, which is what they 
want. They say this is a serious bill and that is why they are opposed 
to it.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues how serious their--our--
Commander in Chief thinks it is. An AP wire--Associated Press--2:27 
today; it says, and I quote:
  ``Less than an hour before the debt limit vote Clinton made a quick 
trip to the White House briefing room and then went golfing.'' He did 
not reiterate his threat to veto the bills.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Republican's are reaching an 
all-time low with their dirty tactics that threaten the livelihood of 
so many Americans by playing a game of political chicken.
  It is irresponsible and wrong for the Republicans to attach 
legislative riders to the continuing resolution. If we had a clean CR, 
we would all be home celebrating Veterans Day by now.
  But instead, the Republicans have attached so many draconian riders 
to this legislation. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
this, What does raising Medicare premiums for seniors and placing 
lobbying restrictions on nonprofits have to do with keeping the 
Government up and running? Absolutely nothing.
  I, for one, find it unconscionable that the Republicans are attaching 
so many extreme nongermane provisions to the continuing resolution and 
the debt limit extension. These irresponsible bills will leave 
President Clinton no choice but to veto them. As a result of these 
Republican shenanigans, veterans will not receive their disability 
checks, seniors will not receive their Medicare, and thousands of 
Federal employees in my district will be sent home next Tuesday in the 
wake of a Government shutdown.
  It is dead wrong for the Republicans in Congress to play politics 
with peoples' lives.

                              {time}  1515

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Pursuant to House Resolution 
261, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 172, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 786]

                               YEAS--224

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Berman
     Boucher
     Buyer
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Frank (MA)
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lewis (CA)
     Martinez
     McHugh
     Meehan
     Neumann
     Owens
     Parker
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rose
     Shuster
     Spratt
     Stockman
     Studds
     Thomas
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Vento
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1533

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. LaFalce against.
       Mr. Young of Florida for, with Mr. Waxman against.
       Mr. Quillen for, with Ms. Kaptur against.
       Mr. Lewis of California for, with Mr. Johnston of Florida 
     against.

  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________