[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12362-H12366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1145
    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2020, 
 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1996

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 267 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 267

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2020) making appropriations for the Treasury 
     Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive 
     Office of the President, and certain independent agencies, 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. If the conference 
     report is adopted, then a motion that the House insist on its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 132 
     shall be considered as adopted.

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 267 is a rule waiving points of order 
for the conference report to accompany H.R. 2020, the Treasury, Postal 
Service, and general Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996. H.R. 2020 provides funds for the Treasury Department, the U.S. 
Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain 
independent agencies.
  The rule waives points of order against the conference agreement and 
its consideration. In addition, the rule disposes of the amendment in 
disagreement by including a provision which considers the House's 
insistence on its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, numbered 
132, as adopted with the conference report's adoption. In other words, 
to demonstrate the resolve of the House, the rule self-executes out the 
amendment in disagreement so that the conference report can be passed 
expeditiously by both Chambers and sent to the President without 
further delay.
  The amendment in disagreement concerned language prohibiting the use 
of funds for political advocacy by certain Federal grant recipients, 
and the conferees were unable to decide on advocacy language between 
Senator Simpson's version and Congressman Istook's proposed compromise. 
The President has indicated that a veto would be likely if this 
political advocacy language were to be included with the Treasury, 
Postal bill, and, in a spirit of compromise and in order to get this 
bill signed as soon as possible, without risking another trip back from 
the Senate in the interim, this lone amendment in disagreement is 
disposed of in the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 2020 provides $11.6 
billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 1996, which is $646 
million less than the fiscal year 1995 level. Thus, this bill saves 
money and keeps us on a glidepath to a balanced budget in 7 years. 
There has been some bipartisan cooperation in getting this bill to the 

[[Page H12363]]
floor today, and it is responsible legislation. More importantly, it 
covers 192,000 Federal employees, which is a full 10 percent of the 
total Federal work force. By adopting this rule and the conference 
report today, we will be one step closer to completing the 
appropriations process and we will be resolving the critical problem of 
a substantial portion of the Federal work force.
  I would like to commend subcommittee Chairman Lightfoot, Chairman 
Livingston, subcommittee ranking member Hoyer, and full committee 
ranking member Obey for their hard work on this bill. I urge adoption 
of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] for yielding 
the customary 30 minutes of debate time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of the 
Treasury-Postal appropriations conference report. It waives all points 
of order against the conference report and against its consideration, 
which is necessary to expedite the consideration of this appropriations 
conference report.
  We do not oppose these waivers, but we do take this opportunity to 
point but that we on this side of the aisle, when we were in the 
majority, were often roundly criticized for recommending such blanket 
waivers of our standing rules. We hope our Republican colleagues now 
understand that such waivers are often necessary for the expeditious 
and timely consideration of legislation.
  The rule also provides that, if the conference report is adopted, the 
controversial Istook amendment will be dropped. We support the removal 
of the Istook language that would severely restrict the ability of 
organizations that receive any Federal assistance from using their own 
non-Federal money for lobbying or political advocacy.
  This conference report has been delayed for weeks because of this 
very controversial rider, which did not belong on an appropriations 
bill.
  Further, the President has indicated that he will sign this 
appropriations bill if it does not contain the Istook language.
  In the Rules Committee last night, the Democrats offered an amendment 
that would have modified the rule to allow for a motion to dispose of 
Senate amendment No. 132 and replace it with a clean continuing 
resolution to keep the Federal Government running through December 13. 
Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated on a party-line vote.
  We will be asking Members to defeat the previous question on this 
resolution so that we may again attempt to offer this motion to keep 
the Federal Government running for another month while we work to pass 
the nine remaining appropriations bills.
  The Federal Government has already been shut down for 2 days, causing 
confusion and hardship for those who rely on the services of the 
Federal Government. Although so-called essential personnel remain on 
the job, tens of thousands of vital workers are not at their posts. We 
ought to stop playing this game that affects the lives of Federal 
employees, and of citizens who need the services of the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the principal concerns about this bill is the 
serious under-funding of the Internal Revenue Service, particularly in 
the area of enforcement. The level was low in the House-passed bill, 
and the Senate lowered it even further. Adequate funding for 
enforcement would have resulted in more funds being collected for the 
treasury. Now, it is likely that this cut will actually add to the 
deficit. Unfortunately, because of the extremely low Senate 602(b) 
allocation, there is no way to fix this shortfall at this time.
  Many of us are deeply disappointed that the conference agreement 
reverses current policy by banning, with certain exceptions, the use of 
funds in the bill to pay for abortions under Federal employee health 
benefit plans.
  The reinstatement of the policy that we overturned in 1993, threatens 
the right of Federal employees to choose to have an abortion--a right 
that has been guaranteed by the Supreme Court and discriminates against 
women in public service.
  I regret that we are taking one more step against ensuring all women 
the right to a safe and legal abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, we are already 6 weeks into the new fiscal year, and 
only three of the 13 regular appropriations bills have been enacted 
into law. Our Government has been forced to shut down and send most 
Federal employees home.
  Although this conference report for the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill is not all that we might want it to be, it appears 
to have the support it needs to be passed, and it will apparently be 
signed by the President when we send it to him.
  Almost 200,000 Federal employees are affected by this legislation, 
nearly 10 percent of the Federal work force. Almost 95,000 of those 
workers were sent home yesterday due to the Government shutdown. If we 
pass this appropriations bill, we can put those people back to work.
  We urge the House to complete action on this bill, so we can send it 
to the Senate and then to the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman.
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. As has been noted 
by the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from California, it is 
important that we move forward with this piece of legislation, which 
affects roughly 190,000 Federal employees, and which will allow them an 
opportunity to get back to work and an opportunity to move forward 
toward the successful conclusion of all of our appropriations packages.
  As has been outlined by previous speakers, one of the big hangups was 
what has become known as the Istook amendment. It has been explained 
that it is now being pursued or will be pursued on other pieces of 
legislation. That is not to say that the leadership on this side of the 
aisle as in any way weakened in their support for what the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is attempting to accomplish, but there comes 
a time to make some decisions. A decision was made that this is an 
issue that best would be pursued in another venue, perhaps on lobbying 
reform or on another appropriations bill.
  I would state to those who support the Istook amendment that there is 
strong support for it, but it will be pursued in another vehicle.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule, by passing it, does take that particular 
amendment out of this package. We will of course discuss the bill in 
further detail later, but I think there is a great deal of work that 
has gone into it.
  The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the ranking member, and I 
worked together on this for about 11 months. The committee staff has 
worked endless hours on 141 differences between the House, the Senate, 
and the White House which have been resolved. Overall it makes a few 
people happy, it makes a few people mad, so it is probably a pretty 
good piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I very strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, now's our chance, now's our chance to vote for a clean 
continuing resolution.
  Now's our chance to stop playing politics and put 650,000 Federal 
employees back to work.
  Congress has one primary obligation, and that is to pass the 13 
appropriations bills before October 1. Obviously October 1 has passed, 
but we can still get it done. I would ask my Republican 

[[Page H12364]]
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to stop playing games.

  If my Republican colleagues had done their work we wouldn't need a 
continuing resolution. But Democrats are willing to support a clean 
continuing resolution, not one loaded down with Medicare premium 
increases and education cuts that we know President Clinton won't sign. 
I ask my colleagues to accept our offer of a bipartisan solution.
  After the debate on this rule we will offer a clean continuing 
resolution no Medicare premium increases, no education cuts, no 
fiddling with people's jobs. No putting politics before the business of 
running the country. A simple extension so Congress can get its job 
done.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to rise above the partisan squabbling and get 
the Government running again.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that I support this rule.
  There has been a lot of misunderstanding and I think 
misrepresentation about Medicare. Medicare is going to increase the 
benefits by $1,900 over the next few years. The percentage of growth is 
going to be 6.5 percent, which is above most private health plans. So 
senior citizens need to know that their benefits are going to increase, 
an they are going to have to pay, according to the plan we have, 31 
percent of the premium, but 69 percent is going to be paid for by the 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about another aspect of this that I 
think is important to my colleagues. This morning on Business Day, on 
CNN, they had a financial expert on there that predicted, if we stick 
to our guns and we get to a balanced budget in 7 years, that interest 
rates on home mortgages will drop down to between 5 and 5.5 percent, 
which will be the lowest interest rate on home mortgages since the 
1950's. Likewise, interest rates on short-term financial transactions 
like car loans will drop dramatically.
  What that means to the average taxpayer is more money in their 
pocket. They will be able to afford cars that they cannot now afford, 
because they will be able to afford the payments because of the lower 
interest rates. They will be able to buy homes which will be a boon to 
the housing industry and to economic expansion.
  So this balanced budget that we are going to see in 7 years, if we 
stick to our guns, and we intend to do that, is going to be beneficial 
to everybody in the country who buys anything, because interest rates 
are going to drop and they are going to drop precipitously, according 
to most economic experts.
  Now, in addition to that, we are talking about tax cuts for average 
families, a $500 per child tax cut for the families that have children. 
We are talking about a capital gains tax that is going to benefit 
probably 75 percent of the people in this country regarding capital 
gains.
  So this package that we have talked about, this balanced budget 
approach, will result in lower home interest rates, lower car interest 
rates, lower interest rates on small loans. It will translate into 
lower taxes for the average family and lower taxes for the business 
people. It is going to be good for the entire economy.
  Mr. Speaker, regarding the senior citizens, I am very disappointed 
that my colleagues keep beating on this issue and trying to frighten 
them. We all know that the Medicare trust fund is going to go bankrupt 
if we do not do something about it. We are doing something about it. We 
are going to solve the problem.
  There is going to be a 31-percent cost to the senior citizen, but 69 
percent is going to be paid for by the taxpayer, and they are still 
going to have their benefits go up to 6.5 percent a year, which means 
they are going to have a $1,900 increase in benefits over the next 5 to 
6 years.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good package, it is good for America, and I 
hope my colleagues will reconsider supporting it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the comments that were just made, this 
issue that is before us today is about the appropriations process and 
moving that forward.
  The gentleman speaks about the balanced budget. I am one of those who 
voted for the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I am one 
who voted for the Stenholm budget as an alternative which balances the 
budget in 7 years. I am one who voted for the coalition budget, which 
balances the budget in 7 years.
  Frankly, in reference to the gentleman from Indiana who mentioned 
senior citizens, from my perspective, having voted for all of those, 
taking a $245 billion tax cut and taking a big whack out of senior 
citizens, $270 billion in Medicare, is not needed. The trustees do not 
think it is needed and I do not think it is needed.
  Having said that, that is not what this is about. This is about what 
we have been saying would preclude the shutdown of Government. That is, 
the accomplishment, in the regular order, of the appropriations 
process. That is why I am going to support this rule. However, I want 
to say that I very much regret that the Committee on Rules failed to 
allow the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations [Mr. Obey] to offer a clean continuing resolution as an 
amendment to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, whether we use the figure of 650,000 or 800,000, there 
are an awful lot of people that were sent home yesterday and are not 
doing the job today that the American public expects them to do.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, has repeatedly tried to bring 
such a bill to the floor in recent days and has been blocked at every 
opportunity, frankly, by Speaker Gingrich and others. Today, Federal 
workers are at home furloughed for just one reason: We have not gotten 
our work done.
  Mr. Speaker, 53 percent of the employees of the Department of 
Treasury covered by this bill, about 83,000 men and women, are at home 
today because of the Government shutdown and frankly the inability of 
Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership to resolve the issue 
that is now resolved in this rule. Fifty percent of the employees of 
the Office of Personnel Management and 79 percent of the workers of the 
General Services Administration are at home today, not doing the job 
that the American public expects of them.
  So while I am glad the rule allows this bill to finally move forward, 
I believe the real business of the House today should be passing a 
continuing resolution and an extension of the debt limit ceiling 
without extraneous riders.
  We drop an extraneous rider in this rule. I believe that is wise 
policy. We can consider that issue on some other legislation. Passage 
of this bill, however, which I believe the President will sign, will 
put important Government agencies back to work. It will also put about 
90,000 furloughed civil servants, some obviously from my congressional 
district, but I suggest to you from congressional districts all over 
the United States, back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, it is therefore my intention, as I said earlier, to 
support the rule, I am pleased that the committee rejected, as I 
requested, the latest attempt to add the Istook-Ehrlich language to gag 
nonprofit organizations to this bill. That issue alone, not any of the 
other issues in this bill, that issue alone, an extraneous, unrelated-
to-the-appropriations-process issue, has held this bill hostage for 63 
days.

  The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, got the conference organized, got this bill agreed upon 
in conference, did his work. I do not agree with everything in this 
bill, as I have told the Committee on Rules and as I will say later in 
the debate on this floor. The gentleman from Iowa does not agree with 
everything in this bill. But the legislative process, as has been said, 
is a process of compromise. It is a process of being reasonable. That 
is what the American public expects us to do.
  Therefore, I am going to support this rule because it does move 
forward a bill 

[[Page H12365]]
that although not perfect, is, in my opinion, probably as good as our 
side is going to get in terms of this legislative process, and the 
realities on this floor and in the Senate.
  The Istook issue, which I mentioned earlier, has stalled 
consideration of this bill too long. I commend the other side for 
finally dropping it from this piece of legislation. There are many 
problems, as I have said, with this measure which I will detail during 
the general debate.
  Constraints of the 602(b) allocation, however, put a lot of pressure 
on the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and the committee to work 
within those constraints. I understand that. Within those constraints, 
this is, in my opinion, an acceptable piece of legislation.
  I certainly share the concern that we should be passing a clean 
continuing resolution, as I said earlier, so we can get the whole 
Government back to work. It would be very simple to do that, Mr. 
Speaker. We could have a unanimous-consent request and pass, as we did 
under President Reagan and President Bush and now under President 
Clinton, a clean continuing resolution. Recognizing that we have not 
done our work here in Congress, have not passed those 10 appropriations 
bills so that the President could sign them and keep Government 
operating at such levels as we agree upon, then, Mr. Speaker, I think 
we would be doing our work responsibly.
  A clean CR is a responsible act to take. I hope that at some time 
during this process the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
successful in bringing up and seeing passed a clean continuing 
resolution, and I will support that, and I will support efforts on this 
bill and others to accomplish that objective. But in the final 
analysis, I believe this bill does, in fact, warrant our support as 
moving the appropriations process forward in a responsible way.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, engaged in attempting to get our work 
done, and this is rather interesting, to hear people that now have 
differing versions of getting the work done.
  The best way to reopen offices in the Government is to send bills to 
the White House, have the White House sign them into law on a permanent 
basis, so that we do not even have to deal with continuing resolutions 
or other kinds of mechanisms.
  Yet now what we are hearing from the other side is that they are 
satisfied to have us do continuing resolutions as long as it is on 
their terms. They love this term of a clean continuing resolution.
  In our view, what we are attempting to do here with the legislation 
that we are moving through the process in terms of regular 
appropriations, and what we have done on continuing resolutions and on 
the balanced budget bills, is we are attempting to put a down payment 
on the balanced budget for the American people. That is what this 
debate is all about, whether or not we are going to balance the budget 
in 7 years.
  If, in fact, what we do is do a so-called clean CR, or a clean debt 
limit, clean CR's and clean debt limits are a dirty deal. They are a 
dirty deal for future generations, they are a dirty deal for older 
Americans, and they are a dirty deal for the American middle class.
  So each time that we hear the opposition say that they are for a 
clean CR, it is a clean political product that gives them the 
opportunity to go on spending at past years' rates, that gets us 
nowhere near to a balanced budget. In fact, if we listen to what is 
really happening here, the fact is that all of those continuing 
appropriations in past years are $200 billion deficits into infinity.
  We are no longer going to allow that to happen. We have decided that 
we are going to begin, with everything we do from now on in, to make a 
down payment on a balanced budget, and we are going to pass 
appropriation bills that give us a balanced budget for real. We are 
going to move in the direction of a balanced budget.
  No more excuses, no more gimmicks, no more phony figures, no more 
claims that, oh, we will do it some time in the future. We are going to 
begin to do it right now. Anything other than that is a dirty deal, 
because it means that future generations are going to have to pay more 
and more of the bill for what we do now. It means that the elderly are 
going to more and more have their pension funds raided by the Secretary 
of the Treasury, and it means that middle-class Americans are not going 
to get the take-home pay and the tax cuts that they deserve at the 
present time.
  We need the down payment now. When we have a vote to defeat the 
previous question here, it is not a vote about a clean CR. It is a vote 
about a dirty deal for future generations.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker is just plain wrong. This 
debate on this bill is not about the deficit. This debate is about 
whether or not the President of the United States, some 800,000 
workers, and the entire country will be held hostage to the demand by 
Speaker Gingrich and others on his team that the President buy into a 
budget concept and timetable that will require huge reductions in 
future Medicare payments by this Government and a doubling of Medicare 
premiums. That is what is going on here.
  That debate about what happens to Medicare and that debate about the 
shape and nature of the path to a balanced budget is supposed to occur 
on the reconciliation bill which is now in conference between the House 
and the Senate. That is a multiyear fight. That is a multiyear bill. 
But that bill has not yet even gone to the President, so the President 
is not even in a position to determine whether he would sign it or veto 
it, because we still do not know what the final contents of that will 
be.
  Meanwhile, what we have before us is the fact that we still have ten 
1-year appropriation bills which have not made their way to the White 
House. The President cannot rationally be criticized for not signing 
something that has not yet been sent to him.
  What we have at issue now, today, is whether the Treasury-Post Office 
appropriation bill, 1 of the 10 remaining unsigned bills because it has 
not yet gotten to the President, whether that bill ought to be moved 
forward. We think it should.
  We have a significant disagreement with the majority party on their 
underfunding of the IRS, because ironically while the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania says he is concerned about getting the deficit down, the 
underfunding of the IRS is actually going to add to the deficit next 
year, because we will not be collecting revenues that are due the 
Government.
  But despite that difference, we are willing to support the basic 
thrust of this bill. Most of us on this side of the aisle will vote for 
this bill when we get to the question of final passage.
  But what we are suggesting is this: We are suggesting that this bill 
only allows 100,000 workers to go back to work if it is signed by the 
President, and what we are suggesting is that all 800,000 workers who 
are out of work ought to be able to go back. The fastest way to 
accomplish that is to turn down the previous question, turn down the 
rule, and allow me to offer this amendment to the resolution before us.
  This resolution will simply say that when this bill passes and when 
it is signed by the President, that the other operations of Government 
are continued until December 13, 1995. That is all we are trying to do.
  We have, at this moment as I speak, some 125 cosponsors to this 
proposition, and by the end of the day we are going to have a whole lot 
more than that.
  We had every single Democrat vote yesterday plus three Republicans 
who voted yesterday to try to extend the continuation of the Government 
action so that we do not continue this silly spectacle of the 
Government being shut down while we are trying to pass our annual 
appropriation bills.
  Do not be confused. Do not be fooled. This issue is not about whether 
there is 

[[Page H12366]]
going to be a 7-year deficit path to zero or not. This is a fight about 
whether or not the Government is going to do its basic business, 
whether the services that people have a right to expect from the 
Government are going to be provided, whether Social Security recipients 
are going to get their questions answered, whether veterans are going 
to be able to get their questions answered.
  I understand that one State announced yesterday they may have to 
cancel a portion of their hunting season because their national forests 
will not be open because of the shutdown of the agencies involved. That 
may not be very important to some people on this floor but it is 
awfully important to an awful lot of hunters in this country. The list 
of services goes on and on.
  I would suggest what is at issue is not the content of this bill. 
What is at issue is whether or not we are going to meet our 
responsibilities to keep the Government open without engaging in 
blackmail using many thousand American citizens as hostages.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], my distinguished colleague 
on the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and congratulating him on his fine management of this very 
important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are unhappy with the fact that we 
are faced with a shutdown of the Federal Government. I am one of those 
who is very, very concerned.
  But having said that, I am convinced that the people whom I am 
privileged to represent and others from around the country are even 
more concerned about the prospect of proceeding down the road of 
business as ususal. That is the main reason that we have gotten to the 
point where we are today.
  There is a sense from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that defeating the previous question will somehow allow them to offer 
this resolution that would provide a clean CR. Well, it is not germane 
and could not be considered even if the previous question is defeated.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I think the gentleman would have to admit that we would be 
in a position to offer it if no Member on his side of the aisle raised 
a parliamentary objection.
  Mr. DREIER. It is nongermane to the bill and it could not be brought 
up. Now, what my friend advocated was defeat of the previous question 
and defeat of the rule. Obviously if they proceeded with a completely 
different rule.
  But under this rule, the standing rules of the House, it would be 
nongermane and I think that is what needs to be realized as we proceed 
with this.
  So let me just say that I am convinced that we----
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman mind answering my question?
  Mr. DREIER. The answer is, It is nongermane to this measure. I thank 
my friend for the question.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that as we look at where we are headed today, 
I hope very much that we can put into place a package that will balance 
the budget.
  I was rather struck with the statement that came from the President 
yesterday. I did not see it but a couple of the essential members of my 
staff saw it and they were rather struck. They indicated to me that 
apparently a land speed record was broken, because in 3 minutes, the 
President on 11 occasions talked about his quest for a balanced budget.
  He said:

       We share a central goal, balancing the federal budget.
       We must balance the budget.
       I proposed to Congress a balanced budget.
       We must balance the budget.
       I proposed my balanced budget plan.
       It balances the budget.
       We can balance the budget.
       We can balance the budget.
       I am fighting for a balanced budget.
       I'll balance the budget.
       I will continue to fight for the right kind of balanced 
     budget.

  Looking at those statements that were made by the President, one 
could not help but think once again of what David Broder referred to in 
his very famous column back in 1993 as the ``trust deficit.'' The trust 
deficit is something that many people have talked about since then. In 
that piece that Broder wrote, he said in the 1992 campaign that 
President Clinton played fast and loose with the facts.
  The President knows that people are unhappy about the fact that the 
Federal Government has shut down and that we are at this point, but he 
also knows that the American people want us to balance the budget.
  This is really little more than what the New York Times described as 
a political play, and I believe that it is not contributing to our 
ultimate goals of trying to bring about a modicum of fiscal 
responsibility.
  We also know that Robert Samuelson, another very respected columnist, 
has written several damning pieces about the President, and I do not 
like to be one who in any way is critical of the President of the 
United States, but in this piece he is very direct and blunt, more 
blunt than I would be, frankly, when he just said, ``Clinton lies.'' 
That is the way he put it.
  So these things came to mind as we observe the rhetoric that has been 
going on for such a long period of time, and then these 11 claims to be 
pursuing a balanced budget. It is very unfortunate. I hope very much 
that we will be able to settle this thing, but it is not going to be 
done by defeating the previous question on this. The responsible thing 
for us to do is to pass this rule and proceed with the appropriations 
bills, which is what we very much want to do. I hope my colleagues will 
join in doing that.

                          ____________________