[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H16944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  NEGOTIATING TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about the budget 
disagreement that is going on today and my views are a little bit 
different than the gentleman from Illinois who just spoke.
  First of all, I want to point out that this is a very complex matter 
because, to begin with, we are considering two different bills. One 
bill would keep the Government authorized to spend money; that is, in a 
continuing resolution. I might add that a use of a continuing 
resolution has been done many times in the past by the Democratic Party 
when they were the majority in Congress. There is nothing new about it, 
nothing in the Constitution that says a continuing resolution cannot be 
used in place of an appropriations bill.
  Further, we are considering a separate bill that would continue the 
Government's ability to borrow money since both the ability to spend 
more and the ability to borrow more are necessary to keep the 
Government operating. It is the ability to spend more, however, that 
has its effect at midnight tonight if we do not take some action.
  Now, the Congress has passed, or is about to pass, a bill on each, to 
continue spending and to continue the Government's ability to borrow. 
The President has vetoed one bill and has threatened to veto the other 
bill, and what I want to examine is why? What are the differences here?
  The President has asked for what he calls clean bills. Clean bills 
means no other conditions except an unlimited, for the time given, 
ability to spend money and an unlimited ability to continue to borrow 
money. I think that would be a bad policy. I do not blame the President 
for asking for it, but I think it would be a bad policy for the 
Government, because an unrestricted ability of the Government to borrow 
money and an unrestricted ability of the Government to spend money is 
exactly how we got into this mess in the first place and why our 
national debt is almost $5 trillion for our children and grandchildren 
to pay off.
  Further, the idea of conditions on these kinds of bills are not new. 
The Graham-Rudman-Hollings bill was attached to an increase in the debt 
ceiling back in 1985.
  Now, what really needs to happen is for the two sides, the 
administration and the leadership of Congress, to negotiate their 
differences, as long as they are both negotiating toward a balanced 
budget. That is the ultimate goal here, and both sides have declared in 
general that they agree with that goal.

  Now, in my opinion, with respect to the administration and with 
respect to my own Republican leadership, I think that both sides need 
to focus on that goal of balancing the budget and to stop trying to 
score short-term advantages in the polls against each other, and I 
think to some extent both sides have been doing that.
  Let me take the congressional side first. In the bills that are going 
to the President, the Republican leadership has included provisions 
which have absolutely nothing to do with a balanced budget. We remove 
some similar provisions in the process. But there are provisions that 
would deal with regulatory reform, that would deal with the death 
penalty that are included in these bills.
  Without questioning whether these are good ideas or bad ideas, I 
think that they are separate ideas. I think issues dealing with 
regulatory reform and issues dealing with the death penalty should be 
considered separately, and that the goal should be to balance the 
budget and any conditions attached should deal with balancing the 
budget and nothing else.
  At the same time, I think the administration has not offered to 
negotiate in good faith as of this time. The Republican leadership, to 
its credit, has not insisted on any provision to be adopted other than 
the goal of balancing the budget.
  So I have heard from Democratic Party advocates saying that the 
Government and the President are being held hostage. Not true. The 
Republican leadership has not insisted, in advance, that any of its 
individual provisions must be accepted in any negotiation, whether it 
is these provisions that do not deal with the budget or provisions that 
do.
  The Republican leadership has said, we will negotiate anything, as 
long as the goal is balancing the budget. It is the administration that 
has set a precondition to negotiate. Specifically, the administration 
has said that it will not negotiate toward a balanced budget unless, in 
advance, the Republicans drop their Medicare provision.
  Before examining that provision, I want to emphasize that I think it 
is not good faith to say, before we negotiate, here is what you have to 
give up, and I do not care whether the provision deals with Medicare or 
anything else. I think just as the Republicans think some of their 
nonbudget items will give them a better standing in the polls because 
they are popular items, the administration believes, if you fight for 
Medicare, you are going to be more popular short-term in the polls 
also.
  Well, let me examine further what exactly is the Medicare provision 
that the administration is standing on. Medicare is divided into two 
parts. Part A pays for hospital bills; it is funded by a payroll tax. 
Part B pays for physicians and other services.
  Part B premiums for Medicare are scheduled to go up for the Treasury 
from 68.5 to 75 percent. That will happen January 1. That is the whole 
issue that the administration says we are willing to risk closing down 
the Government to preserve. The Republicans propose keeping the 
percentage the same.

                          ____________________