[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 180 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12238-H12247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SECOND CONTINUING RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996--VETO MESSAGE FROM 
        THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104-134)

  The Speaker laid before the House the following veto message from the 
President of the United States:
To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.J. 115, the Second 
Continuing Resolution for fiscal year 1996.
  This legislation would raise Medicare premiums on senior citizens, 
and deeply cut education and environmental protection, as the cost for 
keeping the government running. Those are conditions that are not 
necessary to meet my goal of balancing the budget.
  If I signed my name to this bill now, millions of elderly couples all 
across this country would be forced to sign away $264 more in Medicare 
premiums next year, premium hikes that are not necessary to balance the 
budget. If America must close down access to quality education, a clean 
environment and affordable health care for our seniors, in order to 
keep the Government open, then that price is too high.
  We don't need these cuts to balance the budget. And we do not need 
big cuts in education and the environment to balance the budget. I have 
proposed a balanced budget without these cuts.
  I will continue to fight for my principles: a balanced budget that 
does not undermine Medicare, education or the environment, and that 
does not raise taxes on working families. I will not take steps that I 
believe will weaken our Nation, harm our people and limit our future as 
the cost of temporarily keeping the Government open.
  I continue to be hopeful that we can find common ground on balancing 
the budget. With this veto, it is now up to the Congress to take the 
reasonable and responsible course. They can still avoid a government 
shutdown.
  Congress still has the opportunity to pass clean continuing 
resolution and debt ceiling bills. These straightforward measures would 
allow the United States Government to keep functioning and meet its 
obligations, without attempting to force the acceptance of Republican 
budget priorities.
  Indeed, when Congress did not pass the 13 appropriations bills to 
fund the 

[[Page H 12239]]
Government for fiscal year 1996 by September 30, we agreed on a fair 
continuing resolution that kept the Government operating and 
established a level playing field while Congress completed its work.
  Now, more than six weeks later, Congress still has sent me only three 
bills that I have been able to sign. Indeed, I am pleased to be signing 
the Energy and Water bill today. This bill is the result of a 
cooperative effort between my Administration and the Congress. It shows 
that when we work together, we can produce good legislation.
  We can have a fair and open debate about the best way to balance the 
budget. America can balance the budget without extreme cuts in 
Medicare, Medicaid, education or the environment--and that is what we 
must do.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, November 13, 1995.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be 
spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and joint resolution 
will be printed as a House document.


                    motion offered by mr. livingston

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. LIVINGSTON moves to postpone consideration of the 
     President's veto message on the joint resolution H.J. Res. 
     115, until Friday, December 1, 1995.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] is recognized for 1 hour.


                             general leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the motion to postpone the veto message of the President on the 
joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 115, and that I may include 
tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
pending which, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, my motion to postpone handling the 
message of the President vetoing House Joint Resolution 115, the 
proposed second continuing resolution to December 1, is a simple, 
expeditious way to deal with this matter. The votes to override this 
veto are not there. Postponing handling this matter to December 1 now 
will remove it from the immediate schedule of the House so that it can 
get on with more pressing business.
  I urge all Members to support this motion, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, before I start, I want to wish a belated 
happy anniversary to my distinguished friend from Louisiana. I 
understand how he felt when last night, in the midst of everything that 
was happening, he was trying to celebrate his 30th wedding anniversary 
and a few other things got in the way. I know how that feels.
  Let me also say that I think I know my friend from Louisiana well 
enough to know that he is not very happy with the situation in which we 
find ourselves. Neither is any other thoughtful Member of this House. 
Because there is no reason for this impasse to exist on the 
appropriation bill.
  We have two very different discussions going on. One relates to the 
need to raise the debt ceiling, and that subject is real and ought to 
be dealt with separately.
  In fact, we have three issues. The second issue is what ought to 
happen in the multiyear budget reconciliation fight, which is occurring 
now in this Capitol.
  Then the third issue is whether or not the Government is simply going 
to be allowed to conduct its business while we finish the job that we 
have had given to us of passing all 13 appropriation bills so that we 
can at least keep the Government functioning in its basic operations.
  Mr. Speaker, my remarks are going to be primarily directed at our 
moderate friends on the Republican side of the aisle because I, 
frankly, think that they at this point are the only ones who have 
sufficient leverage to help end this impasse.
  The problem that we are faced with now is that, frankly, we are 
wrapped around the axle; and the Government, because of that, is 
rapidly falling into disrepute with most Americans. I think that the 
choice of what happens is largely in the hands of the moderate 
Republicans who, I think, have a crucial choice to make. I think they 
have to choose whether or not they are going to continue to show the 
same kind of statesmanship which they showed on the Stokes amendment on 
the HUD appropriation bill a few weeks, or a few days ago when they 
joined with us to jettison 17 extraneous items, or whether or not they 
are going to continue to make alliance with the 75 most extreme Members 
of their caucus and, in the process, hold an awful lot of innocent 
people hostage.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that this is not the first time that 
we have had a political impasse associated with appropriation bills. We 
have had a number of continuing resolutions required in the past. But 
the fact is that in almost all cases those arguments involved political 
divisions between the President and the Congress and, in most 
instances, they involved the failure of a legislative product to be 
accepted by one branch or another.

                              {time}  1315

  That is not what is happening here. What is happening here is that we 
had the leadership of this House, most especially the Speaker, simply 
determine that an extraneous matter was going to be brought into the 
appropriation process, and that it was going to be wedged into that 
process, in hopes that his agenda could be leveraged through by 
threatening to hold up the ability of the Government to function, and 
that issue in Medicare. So we were told over the weekend that we had to 
buy into the idea that Medicare premiums would be essentially more than 
doubled and we had to start the process now by dragging it into this 
appropriation debate.
  Then, Mr. Speaker, last night, just when it was clear to most people, 
I believe, that the majority party was taking a drubbing in the court 
of public opinion on that matter, then all of a sudden that was cast 
aside and now the great cause to them has been whether or not somehow 
people are going to commit to a 7-year balanced budget.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, that that is a very interesting debate, but 
it does not belong on this bill, it does not belong on this instrument, 
because what we ought to be doing here is to simply keep the Government 
open until we have time to finish the appropriations work that so far 
the Congress has not done.
  The Congress institutionally has no business trying to blackmail the 
President into buying into someone else's vision on an entirely 
different cluster of issues simply in order to make up for the fact 
that the Congress has not yet finished its appropriation business, as 
this chart demonstrates.
  What this chart demonstrates is that only 3 appropriations bills, 
Military Construction, Agriculture, and Energy and Water, have been 
passed by the Congress and sent to the President for his signature, and 
have have had the benefit of the President's signature. Agriculture and 
Energy and Water is at the White House and soon will become law, but 
all of the rest of the bills are stuck, at this point, not in the White 
House, but in the Congress, in the legislative process.
  The Transportation bill has not yet been finished by the Congress. 
The Legislative bill on its second round has not been finished by the 
Congress. Treasury-Post Office has been hung up for almost 60 days by 
an extraneous matter, the Istook amendment. The Interior Department 
appropriation bill has been hung up again on extraneous matters, 
including how much of a political favor this Congress is going to 
continue to give to mining companies.
  Mr. Speaker, Foreign Operations is tied up because of the abortion 
issue; it is tied up again in the Congress. VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies, they have been held up for eons, it seems, because of those 
17 environmental riders that were attached by the majority party. The 
Defense bill at this point is 

[[Page H 12240]]
hung up on a combination of arguments over spending levels and the 
abortion issue.
  The District of Columbia bill has barely made it through the starting 
gate in this House. Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary has not 
even met yet in conference, and the Labor-HHS bill passed the House in 
such extreme form that the Republican chairman of the subcommittee 
himself is embarrassed by it, and it is clearly the case that the 
Republican majority in the Senate is so embarrassed by that extremism 
that they will not even take the bill up, and they cannot even agree to 
pass it on a voice vote with no one being on record because that bill 
is so bad.
  Now, there is only one way out of this, and the way out of this is 
not to have the President cave in to the Speaker's extraneous demands. 
The way out of it is to simply extend the ability of Government to do 
its business and serve our constituents, I would hope for 1 month at a 
time, but if that cannot be done, then it ought to be extended 1 day at 
a time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly happy to stand here all day today and 
tomorrow or for as long as it takes and continue to offer that motion 
in the hopes that at some time sanity will prevail and the leadership 
of this House will recognize that the entire Government of the United 
States should not be held hostage to the whims of one political leader 
with an extreme agenda.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that rather than debating 
all of these extraneous issues, even if we have deep partisan divisions 
on all of the other issues remaining, there should not be a partisan 
issue between us on the issue of whether or not the Government performs 
its basic duties on a day-to-day basis. That is why, again, I would 
urge our moderate friends on the Republican side of the aisle to join 
with us, not to adopt any agenda that we have, not to reject any agenda 
that your leadership might have, but simply to perform the ministerial 
function of keeping the Government open, keeping it running while we 
have these other debates for as long as they take.
  In the end, the President is not being held hostage; the American 
people are being held hostage. That should not be allowed to continue, 
and I would urge our friends on that side of the aisle to reconsider 
the action that they have been taking by allowing this impasse to 
continue. I thank the House for its attention.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, and I thank 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his nice remarks regarding 
my wedding anniversary and acknowledging that I see him more than I see 
my wife.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] and others on this side of the aisle, since 1979 we have had 55 
continuing resolutions, and in 1987 and 1988 we ran this whole place on 
continuing resolutions. So for the gentleman from Wisconsin to get up 
and hue and cry about how we are running this place on continuing 
resolutions when the Democratic Party ran this place for years and 
years on continuing resolutions is just not stating the facts 
correctly.
  So I want to clear the air and say, God bless his soul, I know what 
he is talking about, but the bottom line is, in 1987 and 1988 they ran 
this whole place, because they were so disorganized they could not even 
get one appropriations bill passed, and the bottom line is 55 
continuing resolutions were pushed by that party.
  So what we are doing this year is we are trying to bring it all 
together much more quickly than the historical perspective we have seen 
from the Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out something else to my 
colleagues, and this is some form of the bill of the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
which will ensure that the Clinton administration does not try to 
circumvent the Congress when the Government reaches the Federal debt 
limit, especially at a time when the Federal debt, as of noon today, 
was $4 trillion, 986 billion, and on and on and on cents. This turns 
out to be about $18,908.01 of each citizen's share of the debt.
  Mr. Speaker, without the provisions in this bill, the Clinton 
administration will dip into supposedly safe Federal trust funds such 
as the social security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund and the 
Federal retiree trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, this is wrong and unacceptable. Yesterday the President 
vetoed this bill because we refused to let the administration raid the 
Social Security, Medicare, and Federal retiree trust funds, yet this 
President also claims that he is the one trying to protect the seniors.
  What he does not say is that he will spend their hard-earned dollars 
to prolong this budgetary crisis. These trust funds should not see 
their assets reduced, even temporarily, as it sets a bad precedent of 
encouraging the Treasury Department to raid these funds. Without this 
bill that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] has provided, the money 
paid into these funds would be diverted to pay for other services.
  This is not why the American people paid into these trust funds. The 
American people have placed their trust in us to manage their 
Government and to protect their investments.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot let them down. The Archer bill will protect 
these funds, enforce the limits that this Congress has already set. I 
urge my colleagues to pass this bill and also to pass a balanced budget 
plan that will eliminate the need for such legislation in the future.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, just to point out to 
the gentleman that he has pointed out certain factors of history, and I 
would like to point out some rather more recent history.
  Last year, when I chaired the Committee on Appropriations, we had 13 
appropriations bill, and all 13 of them passed on time. There was no 
need to pass a continuing resolution because of the failure of a single 
appropriations bill, and the reason that happened is because we 
determined on this side of the aisle not to follow an ideological 
agenda, but we determined, and I decided as my first act as chairman, 
that I would simply step across the aisle and talk to the ranking 
Republican and work out a bipartisan division of funds between all 13 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, we did that, we had a bipartisan product and we had a 
bipartisan finish, and as a result, the entire House was able to finish 
its work product.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], I am sure, had he been 
left to his own devices would have done the same, but the fact is he 
has been given a different set of marching orders, and I understand 
that. However, I do think if the gentleman is going to talk about 
ancient history, I think he ought to talk about recent history as well, 
and I simply want to bring that to the gentleman's attention.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the gentleman would not 
yield to me, yes, I will yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for what he did last year, but is it not true that under your 
party since 1979, we have had 55 continuing resolutions?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is true that we have 
had a number of them, although I do not know what the specific number 
is.
  All I would say to the gentleman is that the issue is not the past, 
the issue is what should we do now and what are we going to do to make 
tomorrow better. We are not going to make tomorrow better by standing 
here and holding our breath. We need to keep the Government open.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I urge Members to 
vote against this motion. I strongly believe that we should vote today 
on whether or not we are going to override this veto so that we can 
clear the decks 

[[Page H 12241]]
to begin talking about what kind of a continuing appropriation we can 
put in place.
  The issue is today, and the issue is what happens to real people, 
because as we stand here locked in a disagreement over the budget, 
which is a disagreement we ultimately have to deal with, in the 
meantime, real Americans are being affected negatively by our inability 
to even pass a continuing resolution to keep the Government operating.
  Now, a lot of people have said well, the essential services will be 
taken care of, and I guess yes, the airplanes will still be able to 
fly, because we are going to have air controllers out there working 
today, and the aircraft carriers will be in the water because they are 
essential. I assume the meat inspectors will be on the job so that we 
do not get some bad hamburger or chicken.
  However, you need to understand that on a typical day like today, 
20,000 Americans apply for Social Security, retirement and survivors' 
benefits, or disability insurance, but because Social Security 
Administration employees are furloughed, 20,000 Americans every day, 
including today, will be denied their ability to get these benefits. 
There is simply not going to be an office open for them to go to.
  Also on a typical day like today, anywhere between 2,000 and 3,000 
veterans apply for veterans' compensation and veterans' pensions, but 
because the Department of Veterans Affairs' employees are furloughed 
today, several thousand veterans who have served their country will be 
greeted by closed doors when they go to get their benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, again, this is not necessary. This is happening, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said, because the Speaker wants to 
use the Government being closed or open as leverage to get the 
President to agree to something with regard to the budget. It is 
leverage the Speaker does not need.

                              {time}  1330

  The President is committed to balancing the budget. There is an 
argument over the details of how that is done and how fast it is done 
and what the elements of it are, but he is agreeing with the Speaker 
that we ought to try to balance the budget, and he is willing to do 
that. But we are hurting innocent American taxpayers who have paid 
their taxes and fought our wars and now simply want to be treated as 
they were promised to be treated.
  I have asked the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], to get up today, maybe on a couple of occasions, and offer a 
resolution that he has already put in that would simply extend the 
continuing appropriation for 24 hours. I cannot understand how anyone 
could not want to extend the continuing appropriation for 24 hours.
  Let us keep the veterans' offices open for 24 more hours, so that we 
can continue the dialog over the budget. If we have not completed it by 
tomorrow at this time, let us do another 24 hours. When we had the 
budget summit in 1990, we did a number of 48-hour continuing 
appropriations. There is no reason we cannot do that today.
  I plead with the majority in this Congress, and I plead with the 
Speaker. Let us use common sense and common decency. Let us do a 24-
hour continuing appropriation.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin will be on his feet today, maybe on a 
number of occasions, and will be back here every day on a number of 
occasions to offer, if we are allowed to do it, a 24-hour continuing 
appropriation. Let us not take this out on the American people. Let us 
do what is decent and right. Let us do 24-hour continuing 
appropriations so that the Government can continue and we can continue 
trying to do what we were sent here to do, which is to balance the 
budget on sensible terms.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the minority leader from Missouri asked a 
reasonable question: Why not 24 hours? Donna Washington used to sing 
about 24 little hours. The name of that song was ``What a Difference a 
Day Makes.'' Because frankly what the Democrats are trying to do in 
terms of playing politics is now, thank goodness, completely out in the 
open.
  We have talked about our problems and the difficulty of trying to 
explain to the American people why we had to place holding the line on 
the Medicare premium in the continuing resolution, and the Democrats 
have said, ``Well, gee, why do we have to do this? Why don't we just 
drop it?'' Now their plea is just 24 hours, just 1 day.
  In today's Wall Street Journal, for those who do not receive it, it 
lays out completely why the Democrats have been doing what they are 
doing. Initially it had been to pander to seniors: ``We don't want to 
have you to have to pay more for Medicare, that in fact we believe it 
should be lower.''
  In the Wall Street Journal today an administration official, quote, 
involved in the budget deliberations privately concedes that keeping 
Medicare premiums at the current level, quote, would not be the worst 
thing in the world in the context of an overall balanced budget 
package.

  In fact, everyone, either publicly Republicans or privately 
Democrats, agree that the premium structure is part of the solution for 
seniors. As a matter of fact, the American Association of Retired 
Persons said, and this is John Rother, their legislative director, 
``What we have said is that we recognize that seniors need to be part 
of the solution,'' he says. ``Sacrifice is better borne by premium 
increases rather than through higher deductibles and copayments which 
affect the sickest beneficiaries the most.''
  House Republicans have opposed the other side's plan to increase 
deductibles and to increase co-pays. We only are dealing with the 
premium. Why in the world would Republicans then put a premium on a 
continuing resolution and make that the issue?
  Very simply. The President has said they are going to go ahead and 
reprogram the computers in the Social Security Administration tomorrow.
  Notwithstanding the fact this would affect the checks in January, 
notwithstanding the fact that the administration knows part of a 
reasonable agreement is the premium, they are going to reprogram those 
computers tomorrow so that when an agreement is made, the seniors will 
see their checks go down and then their checks go back up when 
everybody agrees the premium is the solution. But when will the seniors 
see their checks change? In February and March, in the high season of 
politics, in the campaign for the Presidency, the President will say, 
``Republicans made me do it.''
  So we took a defensive measure. We said, ``No, let's argue the CR now 
and the premium rate now.''
  If the President will offer a gentleman's agreement that we will hold 
off on reprogramming the computers, our problem is solved. Guess what? 
We cannot get a gentleman's agreement out of the President. He wants to 
scare seniors for political reasons. He wants to argue we are trying to 
destroy Medicare, and he is going to stand in the way of stopping us, 
notwithstanding the fact everyone over here honestly knows the premium 
rate is part of the solution.
  This is, shocked if you may be, all about politics, and the ability 
of the President to posture himself as a savior notwithstanding his 
understanding that the solution is the premium. If we had gotten a 
gentleman's agreement out of the President to do the right thing, hold 
off on reprogramming the computers even until the end of the week, so 
that our reconciliation bill can be debated, we would not have done 
what we did.
  Why are they now standing here saying they want a clean CR for 24 
hours? Because that is the right thing to do? Because it is the 
appropriate thing to do? No, it is politics. Because in 24 hours, they 
can then reprogram the computers. A clean CR for 24 hours gives them a 
political point-scoring debate in April and May.
  We knew what they were going to do. We said that is unacceptable. We 
said let's make sure that part of the solution is not part of the 
political problem.
  That is why Republicans put holding the line on the beneficiaries' 
part of the part B premium on the continuing 

[[Page H 12242]]
resolution, to stop the President from this kind of political game 
playing. They will tell you it is for good and worthy purposes. It is 
for down-in-the-dirt gutter politics, and you people are going to pay.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentleman's words to be taken 
down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The Clerk will report the 
words.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, under the procedures triggered by my request, 
is the gentleman supposed to be discussing this directly with the 
Parliamentarian?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The gentleman is correct on 
the question. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] should be 
seated.
  The Clerk will report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       We said let us make sure that part of the solution is not 
     part of the political problem. That is why the Republicans 
     put holding the line on the beneficiaries' part of the part B 
     premium on the continuing resolution, to stop the President 
     from this kind of political game playing. They will tell you 
     it is for good and worthy purposes. It is for down-in-the-
     dirt gutter politics, and you people are going to pay.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, it does not 
appear that this is a personal reference to any Member or to the 
President.
  The Chair would caution all Members to show proper respect to the 
Members of the Congress and to the President.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I will not challenge the ruling of the Chair in the interest of 
comity, but I do want to observe that when the gentleman says that 
something was done for reasons of down-and-dirty gutter politics and 
then he points his finger over here and says. ``You will pay,'' there 
is no doubt in my mind who he is talking about. He told me privately 
that he was not talking about us. He was talking about the President of 
the United States. I do not believe that the rules of the House ought 
to allow anyone's motives to be impugned, whether they are a Member of 
the House or the President of the United States.
  I hope the gentleman will not deny that statement.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate his at least being honest, indicating that I 
told you privately and this gentleman certainly appreciates the way in 
which you honor private conversations, and it will be remembered.
  Mr. OBEY. I did not consider that to be a private conversation. I 
considered it to be a conversation made on the floor of the peoples' 
House.
  Mr. THOMAS. Why did you characterize it as that?
  Mr. OBEY. Get your own time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Why did you characterize it as that?
  Mr. OBEY. Get your own time. Once today you ought to follow the 
rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston].
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  It is not my purpose, and I am not going to get suckered into a 
personal exchange with the gentleman. All I can say is when the 
gentleman tells me, without benefit of microphone, that he meant to 
impugn the motives of the President of the United States, I think that 
that is the kind of conduct that deserves the attention of the House, 
and I make no apology whatsoever in making that comment public.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, why are we engaged in this heated debate? 
Why have we shut down the Federal Government? The answer is on this 
chart. It needs to be updated in this respect: Three of the thirteen 
appropriations bills have been passed by the Gingrich-led Congress.
  As a result, 10 of these appropriations bills which keep the 
Government functioning have not even been submitted by the Republicans 
in the House and the Senate for the President's approval. They are 
literally 6 weeks late in their statutory obligation to pass 
appropriations bills, to keep the Government running.
  What they are saying today is that they want to postpone this process 
even longer.
  Remember, just a few short months ago when Mr. Gingrich and his group 
of revolutionaries came in and said there will be a new day in the 
House of Representatives? Well, now we know what it is; it is 
Government shutdown, it is mismanagement, it is a waste of Federal 
taxpayers' dollars. For all of the arguments made on the other side, 
this chart tells that story. In 10 out of 13 cases, the Gingrich-led 
Congress failed to lead.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I keep looking at that chart over there they keep pulling up, and I 
noticed it is in error. He forgot Energy and Water has been signed into 
law. It does not reflect that.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield, that is what the gentleman 
from Illinois just said.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. It shows you how much I listen.
  Mr. Speaker, look, the military construction bill has been signed 
into law. The agriculture bill has been signed into law. Now we know 
that the energy and water development bill has been signed into law, as 
the gentleman from Illinois evidently acknowledged. The transportation 
bill will be signed into law presumably within days. The legislative 
branch bill went down to the President, and for no reason at all he 
vetoed it just to show that he could. Maybe he needed some exercise for 
his pen hand. I am not sure. But he vetoed it.
  In that bill we would cut the cost of doing business in the U.S. 
Congress by 9 percent compared to last year. To this day, over 5 or 6 
weeks since he vetoed it, I have not heard the first good, valid, 
reasonable explanation of why it was vetoed.
  My friends who have gotten up and expounded about the slowness of the 
process fully understand that this has happened before. In fact, over 
the last 15 years, we have operated under 55 continuing resolutions. 
This was to be our second this year. That is not unusual. We have had 
15 separate budget confrontations, much like we are having today, in 
the last 15 years. So this is not unusual. In fact, it was not an 
uncommon way of doing business for the Democrats when they were the 
majority party to operate under continuing resolution. In 1988 all 13 
appropriations bills and in 1987, as well, were included in a 
continuing resolution for the full year.
  Now we keep hearing that we are late, we are late, we are not getting 
our work done. Look, when the President gratuitously vetoes a bill, 
obviously we have to have some hesitation about keeping on sending 
bills down, after going through all the process of hearings and 
subcommittees and full committees, passing them on the floor; the same 
thing in the Senate; finally getting to conference. If you finally send 
the bill down to the President, and he says, ``I do not like it today. 
I got up on the wrong side of the bed. I will veto this bill.'' That is 
not the traditional process, and it seems to me that my friends on the 
Democrat side know that we have had legitimate disputes about one or 
two issues in the foreign operations bill. We have had legitimate 
differences about a single issue in the Treasury-Postal bill. We have 
had two or three issues in the Interior bill where there have been 
legitimate disputes between the House position and the Senate position; 
one issue in the national security bill; a difference in funding levels 
between Commerce, Justice, and the State Departments bill; and in the 
VA-HUD bill, well, you have got some real differences of opinion 
between the House and the Senate and between Members of both parties in 
the VA-HUD bill, and that one has taken longer.
  For the District of Columbia bill, likewise, there has been a lot of 
discussion, a lot of dissension about this bill, and the Labor-Health 
bill, frankly, has not even passed the other body. That is not because 
of the majority. I understand that it is primarily because of the 
minority conducting a filibuster on the Labor-Health bill.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact is the American people know we have passed 
every one of these bills. There is not 

[[Page H 12243]]
one of these bills we have not passed. The House has taken its normal 
traditional action on all of these bills, and now they are working 
their way through conference, and within the next couple of weeks, the 
date the continuing resolution that just got vetoed by the President 
would have expired, frankly, we could have finished this business. We 
could have concluded.

  But, you know, I think it is really ironic that were talking about 
the failure of the appropriations process to work its will when the 
other party, the minority party, when it was the majority, acted so 
grossly in excess of anything that we have done so far. It is pathetic.
  But, the real issue seems to be the fact that the folks on the other 
side of the aisle do not want to face up to the fact that this new 
majority, for the first time in 60 years, is headed down the path 
toward fiscal responsibility and is determined to put the United States 
of America on a fiscally strong footing by balancing the budget and 
thereby providing huge benefits to every citizen in America.
  We are going to bring down interest rates. The cost of housing, of 
education, of retirement is all going to come down because we are going 
to finally balance the budget for the first time in I do not know how 
many years. We have only balanced the budget three times since World 
War II. We are going to put this country back on a track toward a 
balanced budget because we are going to get spending in line with 
revenues.
  I think that that is a good thing. Our friends on the other side 
should be standing up and cheering for what we are doing, but all we 
hear is criticism. We also see them hiding behind the President's 
statement in his veto message in which he says, ``We do not need the 
cuts in this continuing resolution to balance the budget. We do not 
need big cuts in education and environment to balance the budget.'' He 
said, ``I have proposed a balanced budget without these cuts and 
without others.''
  The fact is the President's proposal, the only really significant 
proposal that he gave us in February when he submitted the budget to 
Congress, had no balanced budget; $200 billion of deficits this year, 
the next year, the year after that, no balanced budget for as far as 
the eye could see. And yet he says he has got a plan to balance the 
budget.

  Whre is it? It was not in his campaign when he said he could balance 
the budget in 5 years. It was not in his February budget when he said 
he could not balance the budget. It was not 2 years ago when he raised 
taxes on the American people by the greatest amount in the history of 
the country. It is not in his mid-year review which CBO still scared 
$200 billion a year to beyond 2005--his 10-year balance.
  Now where is the balanced budget, Mr. President? He has indicated he 
has got a plan. The only thing I have seen is about 2 pages long that 
is not a plan at all. But he can carp at ours. He can criticize ours. 
He can veto our legislative branch bill. He can veto our continuing 
resolution. He can veto our debt ceiling. He can veto maybe all of the 
other bills that we send him.
  But, Mr. President, you cannot just say ``no.'' You have got to say 
``yes'' to something. Where is the plan, Mr. President? Where is the 
beef?
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of rhetoric over the last few days. I 
have heard so many speeches. I just cannot believe that the American 
people really understand what is going on, because they have been 
filled with fluff. But when it gets right down to it, who really has 
that plan to put America back on track to fiscal sanity? We do. And we 
are going to implement it with or without the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I have a slightly different spin on the 
last speaker, the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I take 
no affront to most of what you said, I say to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  But, you know, the problem we have is when the 55 CRs were being 
discussed on this side, I oppose my leadership on that just as I wished 
you were opposing your leadership on why we are here today.
  The issue today is not Social Security. It is not Medicare. It is not 
balancing the budget. The issue before us is as to whether we are going 
to have Government continue while we do our work. No matter how you 
spin it, the bottom line of this particular resolution and this 
particular argument, Congress has not completed but three of our 
legislative appropriation bills.
  If we had all 13, we would not be here. The Department of Agriculture 
is functioning today because we did our work. The legislative 
appropriations, I voted against it, I say to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. Why? Because we did not cut ourselves as 
much. I thought we ought to cut Congress as much as we did the 
executive branch. We did not do it. I voted ``no.'' I was glad the 
President vetoed it. I was disappointed he did not make the same point 
I did.
  I got criticized by folks on your side of the aisle for doing that.
  You know, we have not done our work. That is the bottom line. The 
President cannot get involved until we do ours.
  We have 68 Democrats who have already said we are for balancing the 
budget. If you want to deal with these peripheral issues, let us get on 
with doing our work. Let us put us all on the line.
  But that is not what we are talking about today. Why cannot we do our 
work? Why can we not send 13 appropriation bills to the President? Why 
have we brought the Government down because we have not done our work 
and tried to blame the President because we have not done our work?
  Now, ``we'' means me, because I am getting tarred by the same thing 
the majority is refusing to do. But I am tired of taking it, and I 
would like to have the blame for this particular bill go where it 
belongs. The majority has not don it's work.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCrery], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, just in response to my good friend from 
Texas, who has been a valiant warrior for a balanced budget for this 
country, and I commend him on his efforts, I think the gentleman has 
failed to properly characterize the work ethic of this Congress.
  With all due respect to the gentleman's comments, this Congress, 
certainly this House of Representatives, has passed more legislation 
than any in my memory, and probably than any Congress since the first 
term of FDR. So to say that we have failed to do our work I do not 
think appropriately characterizes this House's work.
  The gentleman is correct that we have failed to timely pass all of 
our appropriations bills; that is to say, we have failed to pass all 13 
appropriations bills before the October 1 beginning of the fiscal new 
year. And that is regrettable. However, the gentleman knows full well 
that for the first time in 40 years, this Congress enjoys a new 
majority, a new leadership, and we hoped a new direction for the 
country. And in an effort to change the direction of this country, we 
had to necessarily take up a good part of the first part of this year 
in passing legislation that we thought and we hoped would start the 
country in a new, better direction.

  Consequently, we were put behind somewhat on the appropriations 
process. But the gentleman knows well that that can be remedied very 
easily by adopting a continuing resolution, which is what we did. The 
President has now vetoed that for his own reasons, and we must now try 
to pass another continuing resolution eventually, so that this 
Government can continue to operate.
  I just wanted to take issue with the gentleman's comments about the 
work ethic of this House.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCRERY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I did not cast any dispersions 
intentionally on the work ethic of the Congress. I readily concur with 
the gentleman's statement.

[[Page H 12244]]

  My only point was it seems to me that the business as usual that you 
have rightfully complained about, and I have joined you with, is now 
being perpetuated at a level of which we have not seen in a long time 
on one particular issue, and that is the continuing.
  If we could just send a clean continuing resolution, get on with 
doing our work and allow a little more bipartisanship in it, I believe 
we would all do better.
  My only point today was we are blaming the President for doing 
something that we have not done, regardless of the merits. We have 
taken 318 days to get to this point. We spent the last four debating 
this. Why have we not been sending the appropriation bills down to the 
President so he can sign them? That is my only point.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker. reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows 
that the President has already vetoed one of the appropriations bills 
that we sent to him, and has threatened to veto other appropriations 
bills. But we will get that work done. We have done our work in this 
House. We are waiting on the other body to complete its work. We will 
get the work done.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I know my chairman likes this chart, so I put 
it back up. I am the ranking member on one of these subcommittees, the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government. What 
we are about is laying off employees, furloughing employees today. On 
this Treasury-Postal bill, we cover 192,000 Federal employees. Of that, 
approximately 95,000 of them were at 11 o'clock today told to go home.
  I do not question the work ethic; I question the work smartness. This 
bill, as my chairman so well knows, should have passed 60 days ago. But 
because, very frankly, 100 of our most zealotry Members, what an awful 
word that is, want to pass an amendment that cannot pass the Senate, 
forget about the President, cannot pass the Senate, the Istook-Ehrlich 
amendment, which was rejected by the U.S. Senate on the continuing 
resolution, because they cannot pass that, this bill sits here for that 
reason alone.
  As of September 13, it was ready to be passed through this House and 
be signed by the President of the United States. So, because of that 
extreme commitment to one unrelated appropriation issue, this bill 
stands mired in a political morass, and 95,000 people were sent home.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my reasonable colleagues on the Republican side of 
the aisle and on the Democrat side of the aisle, let us join together 
and do what we know makes sense, and that is provide for the operations 
of these departments, which everybody wants to do. Let us do the 
reasonable thing and provide for the operation of government, and then, 
as the public expects us to do, argue, contend, on the issues of 
difference between us and follow the regular process.
  This is not the right thing to do. This is not the smart thing to do. 
This is not in the best interests of America or the American public.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question I have been 
asking around here for the past 2 days: Is there anything that is put 
in this CR and the debt extension that could not be done through the 
regular channels in this House?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the answer to that is 
nothing, and the Treasury-Postal bill could pass right now if the 
chairman would ask unanimous consent that it come to the floor. We 
could pass it right now, Mr. Speaker, and send it to the President. I 
believe without the Istook-Ehrlich, the President would sign it, and 
95,000 people can come back to work for the American people.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, in case there was some confusion with some of the words 
just spoken, the Istook amendment was not in the continuing resolution. 
I was one of the Republicans who opposed the Istook amendment. I am 
glad it is not there. It was not in the continuing resolution.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I misspoke. It 
was on the debt extension.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, the whole point that many Members in the 
minority have made, that we cannot pass a continuing resolution because 
there are these riders on it, just does not hold water. If you go back 
and look to the time when the Democrats were in the majority, time and 
time again there were riders on the continuing resolutions.
  In fiscal 1988, the continuing resolutions that year had the 
Agricultural Aid and Trade Mission Act, the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Amendments Act, the Indo-Chinese Refugee Resettlement Act, the Food 
Security Act Amendments. Over and over again there have been riders. So 
for someone to get up and say, ``Well, there has to be a clean bill,'' 
that person is just not dealing with reality.
  I think that the chairman's position is well founded. We need to 
negotiate something to keep the Government open, but there should be 
strings, there should be legitimate riders attached. For any Member to 
get up and say there can be no riders, I think that person is being 
unrealistic.
  I would hope the President would come back to the negotiating table. 
I would point out to individuals, and people who read the paper this 
morning will know this, the Speaker offered the President a deal where 
Medicare would be withdrawn, where there would not be language dealing 
with the Medicare Program, in exchange for the President to committing 
to balancing the budget in 7 years. The President did not accept that 
as a legitimate offer.
  I think people should know that indeed the Members of this House who 
are serious about keeping the Government open and balancing the budget 
at the same time, have been willing to negotiate in good faith. All we 
are asking for is the President do the same thing.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for making an excellent 
point. In the 55 continuing resolutions that took place over the last 
15 years when the Democrats were in control of this body, and during 
the 15 budget confrontations that took place, there were lots and lots 
of riders attached to these various legislative vehicles. As a matter 
of fact, one of the most significant that kept this House hog-bound, 
hog-tied, for weeks, months, and years actually, because there were 
investigations on top of investigations, was the Boland amendment, 
which was the amendment passed by the majority back in those days to 
give comfort to the people who turned out to be the Communist 
insurgents and the Communists that dominated Nicaragua. This rider 
virtually assisted those people, led to endless debate, investigations 
of the President of the United States and all sorts of groundless 
accusations. That Boland amendment was included on a continuing 
resolution at least once. It was a rider. It was a rider, the very same 
nature of which has been complained about by my friends on the other 
side of the aisle.
  So do not tell us it has never been done before. It was always done 
before. In fact, it was done with incredible excess under their 
leadership. The Boland amendment is an incredibly vivid example of how 
they used to do this stuff. We have had a few riders, but we withdrew 
the Istook amendment because it was so controversial. Now we have just 
a plain old continuing resolution, with a lot of nominal stuff that the 
President has reached into the bottom of the barrel and scraped up a 
reason why he should veto it.
  The fact of the matter is, the President just does not want to 
balance the budget, and that is the plain truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, earlier the minority leader 
suggested that we have a short-term 

[[Page H 12245]]
resolution, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has offered a 
short-term resolution to this. And the reason is this: Right now CNN is 
reporting the President is about to go live that the Republicans and 
the White House have agreed to try and agree, to set aside their 
differences and agree to try and agree.
  As the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] points out, why would we 
shout down the Government in the face of that? What is wrong with a 24-
hour or 48-hour continuing resolution, so the Committee on 
Appropriations can continue to do its work, so it can send the 
transportation bill from the Senate?
  But this is ridiculous, to start sending people home, calling them 
back, and sending them home, when in fact the principals now to this 
agreement have decided they will try and reach an agreement, which is a 
far different situation than we had an hour ago and we had yesterday.
  So the point is this: That we do not have to inflict either the cost 
or the pain on the recipients, the Social Security recipients, the 
veterans recipients, that the minority leader referenced earlier. We 
ought to do this and get on with the business of this House and the 
Congress and finish our work.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. It is no way to run a 
company, and certainly no way to run a nation. We were sent here to do 
the people's business, but the fact is that the leadership of this 
House has failed to meet well-known and statutory deadlines. So, now, 
rather than act responsibly, we are engaging in a political shouting 
match on the American people's time and the American people's money. 
That is irresponsible.
  The Republican majority controls both houses, and yet it has only 
passed 4 of 13 appropriations bills, 3 of which have been signed into 
law. They did not even send him this bill until a few hours before the 
last deadline. They are asking the President to negotiate on bills that 
their majority has not even passed and sent to the White House. Their 
leadership has failed the test of process, not to mention policy.
  Today we fight to the death over a short-term measure. What happens 
next? Now we are going to engage in a symbolic exercise of shutting 
down the Government and throwing a temper tantrum. My children do that. 
They were not elected to serve the people's interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues on the other side to reject this 
nonsense, to get some business sense, to get some common sense. Let us 
bring a clean bill we can pass, and let us get back to doing the 
people's business we were sent here to do.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
his leadership in this. I think we are at a very, very clear and 
critical crossroad. We have over 800,000 Americans being sent home at 
this moment because we have not finished the bills, all these many, 
many days after the due date.
  We now understand that there is an agreement between the President 
and the Republicans to try to meet and work out these agreements, their 
differences. We also understand that there is a letter from the Speaker 
saying to these 800,000-plus people who are being sent home that they 
are going to be paid anyway.
  Now, why do we not adopt the gentleman from Wisconsin's resolution 
for a 24-hour clean continuing; and then if something falls apart with 
the President we do not have to do it tomorrow, but let us keep it 
going. Why are we sending home people when we are going to pay them 
anyway? I want them to be paid, but that is crazy. Adopt the 
gentleman's resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, we have only one remaining speaker, and 
I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it's a good idea to go outside 
the beltway to get a better understanding of what is happening here in 
Washington. In yesterday's USA Today, a letter to the editor from Joann 
Rossall of Snohomish, WA, hit the nail on the head when it comes to the 
Government shutdown.
  It reads:

       It seems to me if Gingrich and his troops had done the job 
     that I and every other citizen in this country pay them to 
     do, they would have presented a finished budget over six 
     weeks ago.
       Republicans knew the budget was due by Oct. 1--they've had 
     elephants and clowns at the Capital, they've had wild animals 
     parading up the halls, but they haven't done the job they 
     were hired to do.

  Joann Rossall hit the nail right on the head. If it weren't for the 
Gingrich public relations extravaganza of the first 100 days, we 
wouldn't be in this mess.
  Stop whining and do your job.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine 
[Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I voted for a balanced budget over 7 
years, and I support that because I support fiscal responsibility. This 
is not fiscal responsibility. This is a continuing resolution that 
Congress needs to pass because it has not finished its work. For 
Congress then to add items to it that are unrelated to the financial 
matters at hand is really compounding the problem.
  We need to have a clean continuing resolution, we need to have a 
clean debt limit, because we have not really done our job. It is not 
the President's responsibility, because the Congress has not even come 
together with its own budget. I want to work together with my friends 
on the other side of the aisle to do what is right for America, not 
what is right for the Republican party or the Democratic party but what 
we have to do for all the people.
  We need to pass a clean continuing resolution. We do not need to 
compound it with language that is extraneous to the budget matter, and 
I think that most Americans feel that way, so that we can work in a 
bipartisan way for America's interests.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to say this is a game we are 
playing because the Republicans wanting to stick this measure and that 
measure and this doodad and that doodad on this bill is atrocious. It 
should not be a game. It has a real effect on people.
  In my area of New York, 30,000 Federal workers are furloughed; 57,000 
veterans may not get their checks; the Statue of Liberty closed, even 
though hundreds of thousands have come to see it. This is real, and it 
is completely against the grain of what is right, to try to beat in the 
street the schoolyard bully, as the other side is doing, and say do it 
my way or no way.
  We should pass a clean, plain vanilla CR, a clean, plain vanilla debt 
ceiling and then get on and negotiate with the people's business.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate, and I have to agree 
with much of what I have heard. It is very important that the Congress 
pass a continuing resolution and that we get on with the major business 
at hand, which is, of course, wrapping up all of our work here so that 
Congress can adjourn and we can get on with the fiscal year that has 
already commenced on October 1.
  A couple of points need to be made, though, because they are missing 
from the debate. We all recall we worked very, very hard here to pass 
all of our appropriations bills before we adjourned for August. This 
body has been doing a responsible job, and I want to congratulate the 
chairman for that effort.
  Second, insofar as people saying that doodads are being stuck on the 
bill or extraneous matters, I do not know whether anyone considers it 
to be an extraneous matter that both the Senate and the House have 
passed a plan for a 7-year balanced budget and that the administration, 
the Clinton administration, and the President himself have refused to 
accept this overall principle. If we had agreement at that 

[[Page H 12246]]
level, then I think all the rest of this could be quickly negotiated. 
But the great difficulty here is that, for the first time, certainly in 
my lifetime, we have a President who is vetoing a congressional 
spending plan because it does not spend enough money.
  When Leon Panetta was at the Congress I was working at the White 
House, and at that time President Reagan had to veto a continuing 
resolution with all the things stuck on to it because Congress wanted 
to spend too much money. Now, this President is vetoing a continuing 
resolution because the Congress, in his view, is not spending enough 
money.
  This Congress is different. It is the first Republican majority 
Congress in 40 years; and if our mandate is nothing else, it is to make 
sure that we change this pattern of endless deficits. The President's 
plan, finally having agreed to a balanced budget in principle, would 
have a deficit of $200 billion in the year 2005. We want to bring these 
deficits to an end, and that is the task at hand. Let us agree to the 
principle of a balanced budget and do it now.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Louisiana have only 
one remaining speaker?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the reasonable 
consensus of getting on with the American people's business, I ask my 
colleagues not to delay a vote on any continuing resolution so that the 
Congress can move forward on behalf of the American people. I will vote 
no on any delaying vote on the continuing resolution. The Congress 
needs to vote for a clean continuing resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, Members can make their debating points on any 
bill they want except this one. The fact is that there will be 20,000 
people a day who will apply for Social Security assistance. That means 
about 40 in each congressional district. There will be about 3,000 
veterans who will apply for help on any given day, about 6 in each 
district. Those may seem like small numbers, but they are not small to 
the people involved.
  We ought to get on with our business, stop the debating points. That 
is why I will, whenever I can today, offer a motion for a clean CR, 
whether it is 1 month or 1 day, whatever the powers that be in this 
House will allow, so that we do not wind up hurting innocent people 
while we continue to debate other issues that should be settled on 
other legislation in other places.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support my request of the Speaker that 
he allow for a clean CR for whatever length of time that the Speaker 
would be happy to entertain.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that with respect to the 
question of the Medicare premiums that have been talked about a lot 
here on this floor today, my friend from California, Mr.  Thomas, made 
a remark that gained some attention. While we may not all characterize 
either the President's actions or the Democratic minority's actions the 
way the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] did, I think it is worth 
pointing out that Robert Reischauer, the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office, when the Democrats were in the majority, is quoted in 
today's Wall Street Journal as saying, ``I think, in a sense, the 
President is defending the low ground on this question of the Medicare 
premium.''
  Certainly I would agree with Mr. Reischauer, or Dr. Reischauer, that 
the President is defending the low ground on the question of the 
Medicare premiums. No one in his right mind would conclude that with 
escalating health care costs we should reduce the premium that seniors 
pay for that program.
  I just wanted to point that out, and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, 
and I think that the gentleman's comments highlight the hysteria that 
has been put out for press consumption over the last few days about the 
potential train wreck that we have heard so much about over the last 
few months.
  We are going through this legislative process, and it is not 
pleasant. It is perhaps the ugliest portion of the legislative process. 
But the important thing to understand is that it is part of the 
legislative process.
  I have pointed out several times to the other party that when they 
were in control of the House of Representatives and the other body they 
had 55 continuing resolutions, they had 15 separate budget 
confrontations. There were some work-stop instances because we could 
not reach an accommodation with the President, who then, at that time, 
was a Republican when we had Democratic-controlled Congresses. This has 
gone on before, and it will go on from now on.
  I worry about the hysteria. I think that it is unfortunate when 
leaders of either side resort to language, frankly, that simply 
inflames the attitudes and the approaches of the press in order to win 
the hearts and minds of the American people.
  We have heard references, Mr. Speaker, that one side said the other 
side wanted old people to die to solve the Social Security problem. We 
have heard our Members called radical extremists. The Vice President 
himself used the term ``terrorism.'' The President's Chief of Staff 
says we put a gun to the President's head, and he uttered those words 
only 3 days after the funeral of Prime Minister Rabin.
  Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. These words hurt. Somebody here on 
the floor today talked about animals running loose in the halls or 
people throwing tantrums or attaching doodads to the bills like 
schoolyard bullies.
  Look, this is the legislative process. Two bills have been passed in 
the last week, a continuing resolution and an effort to raise the debt 
ceiling. Now, if Members do not like everything included in these 
bills, get the votes to reverse it, but do not label it terrorist 
tactics by extremists.
  The fact is, this is the legislative process. Both bills passed with 
a majority of the House and the Senate. Just as rightfully, they went 
to the White House, and the President exerted his privilege under the 
Constitution of the United States, and he vetoed them.
  Now, we are kind of at an impasse, and it will take us a few days to 
work it out but, folks, the process will work. And if we do not resort 
to this fence-building and all this name calling, we will come 
together, we will work through this process, and the nonessential 
Government workers, ultimately, will get back to work, and government 
will get back to normal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). 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 229, 
nays 199, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 790]

                               YEAS--229

     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
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn

[[Page H 12247]]

     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     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
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     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
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Fields (LA)
     Tucker
     Waldholtz
     Yates

                              {time}  1448

  Mr. MOORHEAD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________