[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12406-H12415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 122, FURTHER 
              CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 270

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     1996, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit without or 
     without instructions. The motion to recommit may include 
     instructions only if offered by the Minority Leader or his 
     designee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
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. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in the 
House without intervening points of order of the joint resolution 
making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through 
December 5, 1995. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations and further provides that the previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.

                              {time}  2000

  The motion to recommit may include instructions only if offered by 
the minority leader or his designee.
   Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is not the legislation that 
will bring us a balanced budget in 7 years. However, the political 
confrontation that has preoccupied this city and the national media, if 
not all Americans for the last few days, has been about one simple, but 
fundamental issue--balancing the budget.
  The continuing resolution we will consider this evening will fund the 
Government for 20 days. Taken alone, 

[[Page H12407]]
that may not seem like much. However, it is extremely significant 
because it will give Congress and the President more time to pass the 
regular spending bills, and a balanced budget reconciliation bill, to 
get the Government on a realistic glidepath to a balanced budget.
  Frankly Mr. Speaker, it is taking us more time than we would like to 
pass those appropriations bills. We have run this House in a much more 
open manner than it was operated under the old majority. There have 
been more amendments and more open rules. The open process delayed the 
House. The result has been that we have worked more days and cast more 
votes than past Congresses. Along with the other body carrying out its 
constitutional role of slowing down the legislative process, it is 
simply harder to craft appropriations bills when you are operating 
within the constraints of a balanced budget. You can not just throw 
money at every problem.
  As those who served on the other side of the aisle for many terms as 
members of the old majority certainly know, past Congresses often used 
continuing resolutions to provide spending authority in lieu of regular 
appropriations bills. For example, in 1987 and 1988, all of the 
appropriations bills were wrapped up in a year-long continuing 
resolutions. In addition, legislative add-ons were a common occurrence.
  The administration precipitated this confrontation for political 
reasons. They looked at polls and saw that picking a fight over 
Medicare, even if there really were no Medicare reductions in the bill, 
was good for the President. Even the New York Times called the 
administration's Medicare charges purely political. The administration 
placed a Medicare attack strategy ahead of a balanced budget work 
strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration has called for a higher rate of 
spending for programs that were eliminated in the House and Senate 
appropriations bill. While a clean continuing resolution would not 
normally provide funding when the House and Senate both voted to 
eliminate the program, the original bill did provide 60 percent funding 
in the spirit of compromise. Calls for higher funding belie the true 
intention to simply continue with the status quo rather than have a 
clean continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, the overriding issue is whether we will have a balanced 
budget. This Congress was charged by the American people in an 
historical election to balance the Federal budget and restore the 
future for America's children. That is hard work as we found out. We 
can do it in 7 years, while letting programs like Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches and student loans grow--just not as 
fast as some people in Washington would like. That is the mandate of 
the 1994 election, and that is a responsibility we will not discharge.
  Balancing the Federal budget is not a trivial issue. It is about the 
role of Government and our Nation's future. While some oppose balancing 
the budget, and hope and pray that we fail, we want this to be a 
bipartisan, unifying way that includes the President. He repeatedly 
says that he supports a balanced budget. He called for a balanced 
budget in 5 years in his campaign when he was running in 1992, and has 
hinted that he would even support the idea that it can be balanced in 7 
years. He should sign onto this fundamental compact with the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, we must keep our eyes set on our ultimate goals. We will 
balance the Federal budget, save the Medicare system for a generation 
of retirees, end welfare as we know it, and implement a tax cut for 
families that increases the take home pay of workers and creates 
private sector jobs.
  This rule will permit the House to approve a fiscally responsible 
continuing resolution so that we can get back to accomplishing those 
critical goals without unnecessary diversions. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule so that we can proceed with balancing the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me the 
customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, this is staring to get ridiculous. This bill is as dead 
as dead can be, but my Republican colleagues are determined to waste 
time on it anyway. President Clinton said that he would veto any 
continuing resolution with extraneous provisions, and I believe him.
  So why are we wasting time on this one? Why is the Federal Government 
still closed? Why did 200,000 seniors who tried to call the 1-800 
helpline for Social Security get no help today?
  Why were over 7,000 American veterans unable to file claims today? 
Why were 781,000 people turned away from national parks and monuments?
  Why were 99,000 tourists shut out of Smithsonian Museums, the 
National Zoo, the Kennedy Center, and the National Gallery of Art?
  Why were 45,000 Americans unable to get their passports? Why were 700 
recruits unable to enlist in our Nation's Armed Forces?
  Because, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues insist on playing 
partisan games with this continuing resolution. They insist on 
attaching totally unrelated provisions designed to make a political 
point.
  Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of a continuing resolution is to keep 
the Government running while Congress works to pass the appropriations 
bills. A continuing resolution should not be used to further a 
political agenda. A continuing resolution is not to blackmail the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, a continuing resolution should be clean and bipartisan, 
plain and simple. But this one is not.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the American people expect more from Congress. 
They expect House Republicans to stop fiddling around and get the job 
done, and it could be very, very easy.
  Democrats and Republicans can pass a clean continuing resolution 
right this minute. The President will sign it, and the Federal 
Government can start up again.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to stop these political 
games. Defeat this ridiculous rule. Let us give Americans their 
Government back.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Economic Policy and Trade.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel the President is going to sign this new CR, and 
the reason I say that is because there is a Russian proverb that says 
two mountains can never come together, but two men always can. I 
believe the Congress and the President, if they will use good faith, 
can come together. The reason I think the President is going to sign 
this bill is because no one wants to see the Government shut down.
  Now as I see it, Mr. Speaker, our side has made a good-faith effort. 
We did send the CR to the President, and the President has vetoed our 
first initiative. Now here we are with a continuing resolution. A 
balanced budget is our commitment on this side of the aisle, and, quite 
frankly, to be fair with President Clinton, he also has put forth a 
balanced budget as his commitment, as he said in the 1992 Presidential 
election, that he will balance the budget inside of 5 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that in politics today a person's or party's 
word must be their bond. We gave our commitment to the American people 
that we would balance the budget in 7 years. The President said that he 
was going to do it in 5.
  Now here we have before us a resolution, and basically this is the 
bill, H.J. Res. 122, and a short paragraph in the back basically states 
that the President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the 
104th Congress to achieve an unified balanced budget not later than 
fiscal year 2002 as scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office.
  I think it is plain, it is straightforward, and I do believe that the 
President is going to sign this legislation because basically what we 
want to do is not only have our essential people work. Do my colleagues 
know essential people working for the Government are working now, but 
nonessential people are not, but both are getting paid, essential and 
nonessential? So we have 

[[Page H12408]]
people working for the Government whether it is in mail, or whether it 
is in medical care, whether it is in Social Security checks going out, 
welfare benefits, veterans' hospital. All the essential people are 
working.
  Let us pass this legislation and allow the nonessential people to go 
back to work because they are getting paid.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the former chairman of the committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight, not because we do not 
have a 7-year commitment to a balanced budget and not because lots of 
other things have not happened. We are here tonight for one very simple 
reason, because this has not happened. This chart represents each of 
the 13 appropriation bills which are supposed to pass in order for the 
Congress to fulfill its obligations. We have only passed three. So, Mr. 
Speaker, we have over 90 percent of the Government represented by these 
10 appropriations bills still not passed through the appropriations 
process. Most of those bills have been hung up because of the fights 
over extraneous issues such as the Interior bill that went down today 
because the majority party insists on continuing to reward Western 
mining interests with huge boondoggles. We have abortion tying up other 
bills. We have the Labor-HEW bill tied up simply because the Senate 
Republicans are so embarrassed by the extreme nature of the bill that 
passed the House that they would not even take it up. It is not the 
Democrats who will not take it up in the Senate, it is the Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not say that to point fingers. I say that simply to 
point out facts. This is our problem, not what is happening in some 
other committee on long-term budget problems. Our problem is that the 
Congress simply has not done its work.
  Mr. Speaker, first we were told earlier in the week that the way to 
solve this was to double Medicare fees, and so for 2 days our 
Republican friends said we are going to hold the Government hostage 
until we double Medicare fees. Well, they decided they were getting 
burned on that in the court of public opinion, so now they have found a 
way to try to shift the argument, and, no, I will not yield until I 
finish.
  I was shocked to see in the Associated Press an article which I think 
tells us why we are really here in what is the functional equivalent of 
an institutional temper tantrum, and I want to read this for my 
colleagues, Washington (AP), dateline today, Reporter Jill Lawrence:

       An angry Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that Clinton 
     administration snubs during lengthy flights to and from 
     Yitzhak Rabin's funeral led to this week's budget impasse and 
     government shutdown.
       House Speaker Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole 
     have been simmering ever since their 25 hours in the air 
     early this month.
       ``Both of us got on that airplane expecting to spend 
     several hours talking about the budget and how do we avoid 
     the shutdown,'' Gingrich said. ``Every president we had ever 
     flown with had us up front. Every president we had ever flown 
     with had talked to us at length.''
       The lack of contact and their having to exit through the 
     rear of the plane were ``part of why you ended up with us 
     sending down a tougher continuing resolution,'' Gingrich said 
     in an extraordinary exchange with reporters at a breakfast 
     meeting.

                              {time}  2015

  He then went on to admit ``This is petty. I'm going to say up front 
it's petty, and Tony,'' meaning Blankley, his press secretary, ``will 
probably say that I shouldn't say it, but I think it's human.'' Well, 
it may be human, but it is dead wrong, given the serious consequences 
facing this country.
  Who are we kidding when people say, as someone just did, that it was 
the President who precipitated this crisis? The Speaker was quoted on 
April 3 as saying the following: ``Gingrich boasted that the President 
will veto a number of things and will then put them all in the debt 
ceiling, and then he will decide how big a crisis he wants.''
  That was said on April 3, not after the President vetoed the 
continuing resolution. So I really think what we are looking at here 
tonight is the functional equivalent of an institutional temper tantrum 
brought on by the hurt feelings of the Speaker of the House because of 
his airplane episode. I think he ought to come down to earth and think 
about what the consequences are going to be for people on the surface 
of this globe, and they are not very pretty.
  I also want to raise some basic questions about the wisdom of tying 
ourselves into a 7-year promise. If I thought that that 7-year promise 
would be kept, I would say by all means, let us make a promise right 
now to balance the budget in 7 years. But I want to point out, we have 
had a number of multiyear promises before.
  In 1981, we had a promise from the President, President Reagan, that 
if we just passed his budget, we would balance the budget in 4 years. 
After it was passed, the President's Secretary of the Treasury, Donald 
Regan, said, ``This is our program. It is now in place.'' This chart 
demonstrates the difference between the promise and the performance. 
They promised to take the deficit down from $55 billion down to a $1 
billion surplus, does that sound familiar, in 4 years. They only missed 
by $185 billion.
  So then they produced Gramm-Rudman I. They said, ``Okay, we are going 
to make a 7-year promise. We are going to get to zero,'' from what was 
then a $172 billion deficit down to zero in 7 years. They passed it. 
They only missed by $220 billion, represented by these red bars here.
  Then they said, ``Okay, we are going to try it again, baby,'' so they 
passed Gramm-Rudman II. That was a 5-year promise to get us down from a 
$144 billion deficit down to zero by 1992. You know what? They only 
missed by $290 billion.
  So I would say, beware of those bearing multiyear promises.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying ``million'' or 
``billion''?
  Mr. OBEY. ``Billion.''
  Mr. MOAKLEY. With a ``B''.
  Mr. OBEY. With a ``B'', a big B. It fits with the big baloney we are 
being told to slice here tonight.
  What we are being told is that we should buy into another multiyear 
promise, but I want to know what assumptions are behind that promise. 
How much are you planning to cut Social Security in order to get there 
in 7 years? How much are you planning to cut education, and how much 
will that squeeze educational opportunity for young people today? How 
much are you going to be providing in taxes to your rich friends?
  Do we really have to buy into those assumptions in order to get a 
balanced budget? I do not think so. I am perfectly willing to sign on, 
in a minute, to a balanced budget if you will remove your tax cuts, if 
you will provide the President with a line item veto that applies to 
tax gifts as well as appropriations, so that he has all of the goodies 
that he can eliminate in order to hold to that timetable.
  I am willing to do it if you have a civilized and fair distribution 
of burden on taxes and on education and all the rest. But I am not 
willing to buy into a 7-year timetable just on vague promises, buy into 
a 7-year promise with a blindfold on, simply based on your promise that 
you are going to get it right this time when you screwed it up three 
times before.
  I would suggest we ought to quit all of the fancy promises, we ought 
to quit all of the past history, now that I have corrected some of the 
misstatements that we have had all day here, and what we ought to ask 
ourselves is one simple question: whether we will do what is right 
tonight, whether we will do what is right tonight to create a better 
future for our kids tomorrow. That is the choice before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker, get over your personal pique, get 
over your hurt feelings about an airplane trip, grow up, and do what 
this country expects, which is to meet the immediate needs of the 
country in the fairest way possible.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, I 
would ask him, these charts he has here on the broken promises, who was 
in control when all those promises were made? Who was in control?

[[Page H12409]]

  Mr. OBEY. The Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats 
controlled the House and the White House.
  Mr. ROTH. No, you were in control for 40 continuous years.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, he is smart 
enough to know history. Do not rewrite it. You and I both lived it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend, the 
gentleman from California, yielding time to me. I certainly rise in 
support of the rule. I think it is a good rule. I commend the Committee 
on Rules for its work.
  Mr. Speaker, I was hoping my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, 
would have left me his charts. I wanted to talk from them, but he 
walked off with them. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at those 
Gramm-Rudman years. The fact is that our other friend, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], was right on the money. Back then, the 
Gramm-Rudman bill was primarily prompted by the Reagan administration 
and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who supported the 
Gramm-Rudman initiative were primarily Republicans, and we were in the 
minority.
  In fact, Gramm-Rudman, if I recall correctly, got it start in 1987, 
which was after the Republicans were no longer in control of the U.S. 
Senate. By the way, 1987 and 1988 were the 2 years when all 13 
appropriations bills were placed under continuing resolutions.
  It was also the 2 years that led to the break from the Reagan years 
when we were downsizing the budget, that put us on an escalating path 
toward increased deficits. They are also the years that led up to a tax 
increase, in conjunction with the majority party meeting at Andrews Air 
Force Base in 1990, which gave us continued deficits, and an end to 
Gramm-Rudman. Because of the constraints, the straitjacket of Gramm-
Rudman was ripped apart, so that the gentleman who did not support 
Gramm-Rudman and did everything, along with so many other Members of 
the then-majority of the House and the then-majority of the Senate, to 
just simply disregard Gramm-Rudman.
  Spending under the majority party's governance in both the House and 
Senate went up drastically. Gramm-Rudman did not work, because the 
majority did not abide by it. Now they are in the minority for exactly 
that reason. Finally, the American people said, ``Okay, you have had 
your time at bat, 40 years at bat is enough, let us give somebody else 
another chance.''
  The Republicans are in control. We are taking this country toward a 
balanced budget by the year 2002, with or without you, with or without 
the President of the United States, without their cooperation if 
necessary, but we are going to get there. There are going to be a lot 
of Democrats that are going to support us. There are going to be a lot 
of Republicans, Democrats, and independents around this Nation that are 
going to support us.
  The bottom line is the downpayment is being made, no smoke, no 
gimmicks, no mirrors, no distortion. We are working within a balanced 
budget glide path to the year 2002, and our children and our 
grandchildren will prosper because of it.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make two points. The gentleman 
from Louisiana is one of the hardest working Members of this body, and 
when people say, ``Hey, we have not done our work,'' I used and he used 
this card 797 times this year. Two years ago we used it about 500 
times. I want to ask the gentleman this question: Does he not think the 
President is going to sign it? The President on his campaign trail says 
he is going to balance the budget in 5 years. The gentleman is giving 
him 7.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, 7 years. Mr. 
President, I hope you sign the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, just to correct the misstatement of history, 
Gramm-Rudman was passed in 1985, not 1987. The Republicans controlled 
the Senate when it happened. That is why it is named Gramm and Rudman.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jesey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to defeat this 
rule on the continuing resolution, because it does not allow an 
amendment that would take out the budget language that is objectionable 
to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is wrong for us to cut back or close down on 
Government agencies because of a disagreement in this House over the 
budget. That is essentially what we have here. The President says that 
he does not want to be bogged down by this 7-year budget language and 
the language that is in the CR with regard to the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  I personally feel that the budget is wrong, as I have said many 
times, because it cuts Medicare in order to pay primarily for tax cuts 
for the wealthy. But I think that what we really should be doing is 
allowing a continuing resolution to pass that is clean, that does not 
get involved in the budget battle, and spend the time over the next few 
days or the next few weeks trying to come up with a compromise on the 
budget that is acceptable to both sides and that is acceptable to the 
President.
  What is happening now is that basically the American people are being 
asked to pay the price of the bickering that is going on in this House, 
that is going on, I should say, in this Congress. It is simply not 
fair. We know a lot of people came down to Washington the last couple 
of days and they want to see the monuments. Some of them had been 
waiting for the bill a year or two to do that. I have people in my 
office that have not been able to apply for Social Security benefits, 
for veterans' benefits, those who wanted to join the Armed Forces who 
have not been able to see a recruiter.
  What the Republican leadership is basically saying is that ``You have 
to have it our way. You have to go for the 7-year budget. You have to 
go with the CBO estimates. Otherwise, we are going to continue to close 
down the Government.'' They are essentially holding the Government, if 
you will, hostage to their view of the budget. It is not the proper way 
to proceed. We know there are disagreements on the budget. The way this 
rule provides, it does not allow for a clean CR. I think it is wrong, 
and for that reason it should be defeated.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very 
good friend, the gentleman from Fairfax, VA [Mr. Davis], chairman of 
the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted with the minority on Monday to recommit this 
bill and send a clean resolution to the President. I thought it was 
junked up. I wanted to get the Federal Government working again. I felt 
there were some extraneous matters that did not belong there.
  But having said that, let me note that continuing resolutions with 
extraneous matters is not new to this body on the other side of the 
aisle. The nuclear waste policy amendments were put on in 1988, the 
Boland amendment, called the Central American Nicaraguan Promotion of 
Democracy Act were put on in about 1987, along with 8 other riders.
  In 1984 we put on a comprehensive crime control act; in 1983, 
language designating part of the New Jersey Turnpike as part of the 
Interstate Highway System was put on a continuing resolution, as was a 
pay raise for House Members, as was the Ted Turner amendments, giving 
him tax breaks for cable operators; and in fiscal 1982, tax breaks for 
Members of this body were put on. So this has happened before, and 
Members on the other side are not being fair to say let us get a clean 
resolution now, when that has not been their history.
  Having said that, let us get to where we are today. I hope what I am 
not hearing on the other side is, do it our way or no way. This side is 
showing flexibility. We have come back with another resolution, in 
light of the fact that the President would not sign what 

[[Page H12410]]
was sent to him earlier. It is hardly an extraneous resolution.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I think we have some of the same concerns, 
representing probably more Federal employees than any other Members in 
this body.

                              {time}  2030

  I am concerned when I turn to the last page. I want to understand 
what kind of commitment we are making. Quite frankly, while I can live 
with a balanced budget and think we probably ought to get there, I am 
not willing to accept $270 billion cuts in Medicare nor am I willing to 
accept certain tax breaks.
  Do you interpret this language to mean that we are making commitments 
to essentially your budget?
  Mr. DAVIS. As my friend knows, I opposed the tax cuts. I was 1 of 10 
Members on this side to oppose that. I understand all of that will be 
on the table. All of that will be on the table. This does not commit 
you to vote for $270 billion in tax cuts. It does not commit you to 
vote for Medicare cuts. It is on the table to be negotiated between the 
President and Congress.
  This is hardly blackmail. It is clean, simple. If the President 
vetoes this resolution, it is going to be clear it was not Medicare 
that led him to veto the last resolution. Medicare is not in here. It 
is not in here at all. It was not educational cuts. There is enough 
money in this resolution to keep the Department of Education running at 
present levels over the next 18 days. It was not the environment, 
because there is enough money in here to keep the EPA running for the 
next 18 days, which is what this resolution provides for.
  So the excuses that were used for not signing the first resolution 
are not here in this case. It would only be because the President would 
not care about continuing the operations of government and would not 
care about balancing the budget, and I do not believe that. I do not 
believe that. I think the President will do the right thing. I think he 
will do the right thing for the country. I think he will do the right 
thing for Federal employees. I think he will do the right thing for the 
children and for our Nation's future by signing this resolution, this 
continuing resolution to keep the government going. I intend to support 
it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to talk a bit more about some of the 
really awful things that have happened by this government shutdown. 
Today in my State of Colorado they had to issue an emergency request 
for blood supply, for blood supply, because this happens to be the time 
when they run the blood drive at the Federal center, and so many 
Federal employees give so generously, and during the holiday season we 
have all sorts of people come to visit, and they feel that if they do 
not get 400 units of blood a day during this period, we are in dire 
straits during the holiday season.
  Now, we in our office have been asking people in Colorado to, please, 
go donate because this is very, very critical. But that is one more 
impact on top of people phoning our office day and night with all sorts 
of crises, from passports on, trying to figure out what to do.
  I must say tonight I was very angry to look at the AP wire and see a 
headline saying the House Speaker says that the Air Force 1 snub led to 
the government shutdown, and he said that morning at a breakfast, 
according to the AP wire, that the reason he felt obligated to shut the 
government down was that the President did not come chat him up or chat 
with him when he was on the way to the funeral.
  Now, I find this absolutely amazing.
  Number one, it was a funeral for a head of State.
  Number two, you had prior ex-Presidents sitting with the President 
and on, but to have that kind of temper tantrum and go through all the 
turbulence we have gone through this week is immaturity beyond belief, 
and I think this whole body deserves an apology if this story is 
correct, and it is not correct, then I hope the Speaker comes and 
corrects it.
  Because, really, the turbulence and what has happened to the lives of 
those 800,000 people who have been thrown out on the street, what is 
happening to the taxpayers who are going to be paying those 800,000 
people, thank goodness, but they are getting less service, they are 
going to be paying more money. And all of this is absolutely crazy.
  But to read that it is all about ego, all about ego, when, according 
to this story, the Speaker was accorded all sorts of privileges no one 
else had. He got to bring his spouse, when the prior Presidents did not 
get to, which other people did not get to. He got all of those. But it 
seems it was not enough.
  So I think there are days when I feel like I am in kindergarten or in 
a day care center. When I read about these kinds of tantrums, then I 
get these kinds of emergency cries saying the blood supply in Colorado 
is in jeopardy because of this issue, I am really disgusted, and I 
certainly hope we get some clarification of this AP wire story tonight.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vienna, VA [Mr. Wolf], who, as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation Appropriations, understands how tough the work is to 
balance the budget.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. 
Quite frankly, this body has become a partisan pit, and this town has 
become a partisan pit.
  There are Members on our side who think we have too much. I think 
they are wrong. There are Members on this side who think we are asking 
too much of the President. I think you are wrong.
  Merely what this does, it says in 7 years the President shall commit. 
It does not say how to reach a balanced budget, and I say to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the chairman, talked about Gramm-
Rudman and all those things. I understand. What he said may have had 
some points. The times have changed. The American people, both 
Republicans and Democrats and liberals and conservatives, want a 
balanced budget. So all we are doing tonight, and I would say to both 
sides, come together, work together, all we are doing tonight is voting 
to open up the government tomorrow so the social security checks can go 
out, the veterans can get their things and all the government workers 
can go back to work then the President says, ``Yes, I agree,'' as he 
said many other times, that we are going to have a balanced budget in 7 
years.
  It does not say how; it does not say how; it does not say how. it 
just says when, and when is the year 2002.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Are you saying to this House that the tax cut is going 
to be on the table, the $270 billion cut in Medicare is going to be on 
the table and negotiable, the doubling of the premium?
  Mr. WOLF. That is why the American people cannot stand this place and 
cannot stand this town. That is not what I said.
  I said we are doing tonight a continuing resolution to keep the 
Government open and merely saying to the President that we can come 
together in a bipartisan way. We throw the word ``bipartisan'' around 
this body. Very few people seem to meet it in this town. It says we 
will come together in a bipartisan way to try to reach a balanced 
budget in the year 2002. It does not say, it does not say how. It just 
says when, and the year is the year 2002.
  Mr. KLECZKA. If the gentleman will yield further, I intend to support 
the dumb thing. I have to know whether these things are negotiable and 
on the table. I am not hearing ``yes.'' You said that is not part of 
the debate tonight.
  Mr. WOLF. I urge support of the resolution.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule because this 
rule is necessary to pass a continuing resolution, and a continuing 
resolution is necessary to get us back into the business of governing 
responsibly.

[[Page H12411]]

  We are not governing in a fiscally responsible manner when 800,000 
Federal employees are sitting at home getting a paycheck, not being 
able to perform the work they need to perform. We are not governing in 
a morally responsible manner when 56,000 elderly people have already 
been unable to claim their social security and disability benefits, 
when more than 15,000 of America's veterans have not been able to file 
for their compensation, their pension and their education benefits, 
when more than a million people have tried to visit our national 
monuments and have not been able to because this Government has been 
shut down. That is not responsible. We are not doing our job.
  This continuing resolution, I grant you, is not as clean as we would 
like it, but the reality is that a 7-year budget is attainable. Sixty-
eight Democrats voted for a budget that can be achieved without even 
making as severe domestic discretionary cuts as are in the President's 
budget. It is doable.
  One thing the President could do, it is up to him, if he believes 
that his forecasts are correct rather than CBO's, with the additional 
revenue that would come in from his economic revenue forecasts, that 
money can be used for tax cuts. But you do not pay out tax cuts when 
you are running at a deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule and then of the continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Harrisburg, PA [Mr. Gekas], the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Commercial and Administrative Law.
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. There is only 
one issue before us. It is just a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote, a plain, 
solitary, vital issue. If we vote ``yes,'' we are proceeding toward a 
balanced budget, a giant step towards a balanced budget. If we vote 
``no,'' we are saying that we are in favor of continual borrowing. We 
want the American people, if we vote ``no,'' to continue to borrow 
money as citizens of this country, to pay a rising debt and interest on 
an already multitrillion-dollar debt. That is the issue.
  Do we want to continue borrowing? If you do, then vote ``no.'' If you 
want to take this simple, ecstatic step towards a balanced budget that 
could occur in 7 years, you vote ``yes.''
  Why is this so important? Have we made it clear to the American 
people that if we reach a balanced budget, we can stop borrowing money? 
Because every time we borrow money, we take away from the community, we 
take away from homes, we take away from schools, we take away from 
enterprises the wherewithal to do a better job in creating jobs and 
hiring people and promoting education and promoting all the societal 
needs all of us agree must be met.
  So we are forcing ourselves, by continuing to borrow, to neglect our 
communities. So what happens if we reach a balanced budget? No longer 
will we have to use extra money to pay interest on the debt. We can 
take that money and invest it in our thresholds at home. That is what 
the rationale is behind a balanced budget.
  If you vote ``yes,'' you are voting to allow the communities in 7 
years and the local enterprises to blossom into a new kind of 
prosperity that will come with the turn of the century. If you vote 
``no'' on this, you want to borrow into the next century until the year 
2000 and 50 beyond.
  Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the American people have been asking good 
questions. Why has the Federal Government been shut down? Why are 
veterans at risk of not receiving their checks and their disability 
payments? Why are senior citizens, social security recipients not able 
to have their cases processed? Why has their national Government for 
the first time in two centuries been put at risk, at the brink of 
national bankruptcy?
  Well, my colleagues, tonight we find the answer. The answer is 
because the Speaker of the House was snubbed on an airplane ride. The 
Speaker of the House was snubbed on an airplane ride. Unless anybody 
thinks this is a David Letterman top ten joke, let me refer to an 
Associated Press article today, the headline of which is, ``Air Force 1 
Snub Led to Government Shutdown.''
  Quoting the article, ``The lack of contact and their having to exit 
through the rear of the plane were,'' quoting the Speaker, ``part of 
why you ended up with us sending down a tougher continuing 
resolution.''
  The Speaker goes on to say, ``This is petty. I am going to say up 
front it is petty, and Tony will probably say I shouldn't say it, but I 
think it is human.''
  Well, it may be human, but it is petty, and certainly it must be the 
first time in the history of this country that our Nation's economy has 
been put at risk, hundreds of thousands of people have been put out of 
work because of the seat assignment and service on an airplane ride.
  The Speaker, in the same article, went on to say that, ``Every other 
President, every President we have ever flown with has had us up front. 
Every President we have had has talked to us at length.''
  My friends, it is time for us to put the pettiness aside and get on 
with the serious business of governing our Nation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Davenport, IA [Mr. Leach], chairman of the Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services.
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, what is at issue tonight is whether Congress 
has the spine to stop spending dollars we do not have, not whether the 
President can find a spinal column and through the veto stand up for 
something, in this case, continued deficit financing.

                              {time}  2045

  Here let us be clear. What the White House is blatantly engaging in 
is an effort to divide society along age-group lines. The President is 
attempting to appeal, as if he is compassionate, to the young and the 
old with other people's money.
  Yet, what young people have a vested interest in is ending the 
deficit. It is they, after all, that will be spending their working 
lives paying for past legislative excesses. It is they who want lower 
interest rates to buy a home, to save for their kids to go to college.
  What the baby-boom generation wants, those aged 40 to 55, is to have 
a solvent Medicare system when they retire.
  And what the elderly want is inflation not to rob them of their 
savings, as it did in the late 1970's.
  No age group in America, young or old, has a vested interest in 
fiscal profligacy.
  Mr. Speaker, let me stress the basics. The Republican approach 
includes a 3-percent-a-year increase in spending. This is not radical. 
It is common sense. It is an inflation-adjusted freeze.
  As for Medicare, it is the single largest programmatic increase in 
the Republican budget. It will go up at 6.4 percent a year, which in 
relation to inflation is equal or greater than increases in Medicare 
over the last decade. This is a reasonable, socially responsible set of 
guidelines.
  Like all of us, I might disagree with some of the parts, but a 7-year 
achievement of a balanced budget is the least Congress can do for the 
American people at this particular time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the level of the 
rhetoric has necessarily increased or advanced the case to be made for 
the Republican side this evening, but whether my colleagues are 
Republican or Democrat, if they are going to be using the phrase 
``balancing the budget,'' I have been down on the floor before and I 
will be here again, and I am going to ask whether or not these numbers 
are going to be honest.
  Are we talking about reducing the deficit or are we talking about 
balancing the budget? This, after all, is a continuing resolution. It 
is only going to take us up until December. The fundamentals are what 
have to be met.

[[Page H12412]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am maintaining that no one has come to the floor yet, 
to my knowledge, to refute this point: The Republican budget, 
ostensibly balancing the budget in the year 2002, is going to start 
next year by taking in the neighborhood of $63 billion from the Social 
Security trust fund. It is going to take an increasing amount every 
year until 2002. In the year in which the Republican budget claims that 
it will have somewhere between a $10 billion to $12 billion surplus, 
that figure will be achieved by taking $115 billion, approximately, 
from the Social Security trust fund.
  At this point at which Republicans claim that the budget has been 
balanced, we will be some $636 billion in debt, plus interest, to the 
Social Security trust fund.
   Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Members to think about it, Democrats 
and Republicans. If we are going to do a balanced budget, I am willing 
to work on that along with everybody else. But please do not come down 
to the floor in a discussion of a continuing resolution and continue to 
repeat this canard, this misleading approach about a balanced budget.
  If it is truly in surplus, then give it back. Reduce the amount of 
funds that have to come in from Social Security, if it is genuinely a 
surplus.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes 
and 45 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Madison, MI [Mr. Smith], my friend and a member of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the attention 
of the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie]. Is it not a shame that 
this is a balanced budget that still borrows money from the trust fund 
in 2002? The gentleman is absolutely correct, because this balanced 
budget is a very modest balanced budget. We should do much more.
  Mr. Speaker, for 40 years the Democrats have been in control of this 
Congress, and we have been going deeper and deeper in debt. We now have 
a debt of $4.9 trillion. The year 1996 is the first of a 7 year effort. 
The spending in this first year is the most modest of any of the 7 
years, and yet the whining and moaning and complaining we hear.
  Mr. Speaker, how can we expect this Congress to have the intestinal 
fortitude to do what needs to be done. And that means not only 
balancing the budget, but starting to pay back the debt, stop borrowing 
from the trust funds?
  Mr. Speaker, I need to say this in my last few seconds. The last few 
speakers on the Democrat side have not talked about this rule. They 
have not talked about the fact that this is a clean CR, except that it 
says, ``Let us balance the budget in 7 years, according to CBO.'' Let 
us just do it!
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response of the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] and his kindness in requesting that 
I come back.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, so it is a fact that the Republican 
budget will be taking some $600 billion from the Social Security trust 
fund in order to achieve its version of a balanced budget? The 
gentleman did say that during his comments; is that correct?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it 
is a fact that this Congress has been pulling a sham on the American 
people by using the Social Security trust funds for the last 40 years.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I again ask the 
gentleman is it a fact that this is going to take $636 billion, 
approximately, for the next 7 years, from the Social Security trust 
fund? Mr. Speaker, that question will hang in the air.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez].
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer a quick vocabulary lesson 
for any American who wants to follow this beltway budgetary battle.
  You see, the Republicans are now trying to tell us that this new 
version of the concurrent resolution is so simple that we just have to 
accept it. They are right--their plan is simple. In fact, it's so 
simple, it can be summed up in three simple words. That is right--there 
are only three simple words you need to know to follow the Republicans' 
budget antics. Here they are: Cut. Gut. And shut.
  The Republicans will cut the safety net that helps the poor and 
elderly live healthy lives. They will gut every environmental law that 
protects the food we eat and the air we breath. And until they get 
their way--they will shut the door of government services that help 
veterans who served our country and students who want to serve. Cut. 
Gut. And shut. That is the entire GOP plan.
  Now, Republicans are outraged that the President would use his veto. 
Well, for them, I offer not a vocabulary lesson, but a civics lesson. 
Remember--this is just a part of our American system of ``checks and 
balances.''
  Unfortunately, when many Republicans think about ``checks,'' they can 
only picture the huge campaign checks that paid for their election. 
When they hear ``balances,'' they only think about a budget 
``balanced'' on the backs of working families.
  Mr. Gingrich: instead of ``cut, gut and shut,'' please cut out the 
political posturing, show some guts, and shut the door on the special 
interest lobbyists who financed your election. That's the simple 
solution that all Americans want.
  And that's why we need to defeat this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research of 
the Committee on Science.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, this is it. All of the conditions in the 
continuing resolution have been removed except for one: that we reach a 
balanced budget through a common procedure; in this case, over 7 years 
using Congressional Budget Office economic projections.
  Both of those conditions have previously been agreed to by the 
President of the United States. There is no commitment in voting for 
this continuing resolution in supporting the Republican plan or any 
other plan.
  Mr. Speaker, the question was asked what will be on the table, and 
the point is that the President of the United States can put anything 
on the table he wants, as long as it will balance the budget in 7 years 
and uses Congressional Budget Office economic figures.
  So, if the President does not like our budget, the President can 
offer his own budget, only as long as it meets the same standards that 
we have used for ourselves.
  Mr. Speaker, in my judgment, this is really a vote to decide who 
supports a balanced budget and who does not. Dozens upon dozens of our 
Democratic Party colleagues voted for a 7-year balanced budget. I hope 
they will do so again.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from East 
Petersburg, PA [Mr. Walker], chair of the very important Committee on 
Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, is it not sad and tragic and somewhat 
pathetic that the people who oppose the balanced budget can only come 
to the floor and attack the Speaker? It is the only thing that they 
have left.
  Mr. Speaker, it really is kind of tragic, folks. The fact is that 
many of the American people have come to the conclusion that the 
Government is too big and spends too much. They figure that the way to 
stop that problem is to balance the budget.
  That is what this is all about. A large number of people have been 
bragging for weeks out here about how they voted for the balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution. That was about 7 years. A 
substantial number of people have come to the floor and talked about 
how they voted for alternative balanced budgets in the course of the 
year. Those are all 7 years.
  All the language says tonight is that we are going to commit, we and 
the President, to a contract. That that is what we are going to do. All 
of the people who have voted on both sides of the aisle for a balanced 
budget of some type in the course of this year, or for the balanced 
budget amendment to the 

[[Page H12413]]
Constitution, tonight will prove whether or not they meant it for real.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Portland, ME [Mr. Longley].
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate tonight. It 
was barely 8 or 10 months ago that on this floor 300 Members voted for 
the balanced budget amendment, including a significant number of 
Members from the other side of the aisle.
  Not only that, but there were a number of Members that stood up in 
the well of this House and piously intoned how they could not support a 
balanced budget amendment, because what we really needed to do was to 
have a Congress with the will to make the tough decisions.
  My, my, my. Well, tonight we have a clean continuing resolution. 
Frankly, we should have had it a week ago, maybe even 6 or 8 weeks ago, 
because I think we should have started the new fiscal year on the 
assumption that we are going to balance the budget within 7 years, just 
like 300 Members voted back in January.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight is where the rubber meets the road. Who means 
what they say or who is just down here posturing?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing magical about 
7 years. Our Republican friends made a promise in their Contract With 
America that the fictional 7 years was important. I say fiction, 
because they know and the American people really know, that we are not 
able to bind future Congresses any more than we have been bound by 
previous Congresses.
  We will not balance the budget in 7 years. We will create more pain 
for the elderly; more pain for the young; more pain for veterans; more 
pain for American citizens. It is simply a question, when trying to 
balance the budget, of whether or not we are going to do it in a 
certain time frame.

                              {time}  2100

  You have come up with 7 years. I could do it in 3 with a lot of pain. 
I could do it in 10 with less pain. There is not a damn thing magical 
about 7 years.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Birmingham, AL [Mr. Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago on ``Larry King Live,'' 
candidate Bill Clinton made a promise to the American people to balance 
the budget in 5 years. He spoke of a balanced budget as both an 
obligation to our children and a necessity of our country.
  Tonight we will give him an opportunity to make good on his promise 
to the American people. To balance the budget--not in 2 more years as 
he originally promised, or in 5 years from tonight. No, we ask simply 
that he commit to a real balanced budget in 7 years. Seven years.
  Tonight is his and our moment of truth. Tonight he, and we in this 
body, will be given the opportunity to choose between higher taxes and 
a bigger, more costly, more reaching Federal bureaucracy, and, on the 
other hand, lower taxes on American families, and a smaller, more 
effective, less intrusive Washington.
  Will Bill Clinton choose the latter, as he promised? Will he keep his 
word? Or will he break his promise to the American people, to our 
children, and the future generations, and in the process, shut the 
Federal Government down.
  The choice is first ours, and then Bill Clinton's. It's promise 
keeping time. Mr. President?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Palm 
Bay, FL [Mr. Weldon], a hard-working new Member.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when I was running for Congress 
in 1994, I had many, many people who told me they had never worked on a 
campaign before and never donated to a campaign before who got involved 
with getting me elected to Congress.
  I remember one fellow, Doug Jackson, told me he had saved up some 
money for a new entertainment center in his living room. He had no 
furniture in his living room and he gave me that money. I tried to talk 
him out of it. I asked him, why are you doing this? He told me he was 
concerned about the future for his children regarding the problems with 
education and crime in our country. But the most important thing he 
cited was deficit spending, the debt that this nation was incurring.
  I am rising today to speak out in strong support of this rule and 
this continuing resolution which will finally for the first time commit 
us to what Doug Jackson sent me to the U.S. Congress for, and that is 
finally balancing the books here in Washington. I am very encouraged to 
hear that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
going to be joining with us tonight, but I am very disappointed by the 
words of the President. I do not know why he does not want to join with 
us. Clearly the American people want a balanced budget. They spoke 
clearly in 1994. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
has 3 minutes and 45 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative 
Process of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from greater metropolitan 
San Dimas, CA, distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
for yielding time to me.
  It is a good rule. It is an appropriate rule. It is a timely rule, 
and I urge its support, and this debate is about the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, most everyone in the country agrees that we need to. 
That is why we have this good rule. But most also think it is very 
important that we stick to our commitment to balance the budget in 7 
years and if the President can commit to that, then this limited 
government shutdown problem will get resolved very quickly if not 
immediately.
  Americans want this budget balanced by 2002 or sooner, as my friend 
from Florida noted. In fact, the calls and faxes to our offices today 
tell the story. Not the predetermined poll results of the liberal media 
but the calls and faxes that came into my office, they were running up 
to 7 to 1 in favor of the balanced budget and get on with it.
  I note that the President has said over and over that he thinks he 
wants a balanced budget, too. Unfortunately, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the President's best plan leaves this 
country $200 billion in the red, in deficit, in the year 2002, while 
our plan does balance the budget.
  There is no plausible reason for the President to veto this bill 
unless he really does not want a balanced budget. And in the spirit of 
bipartisanship, we have created a cleaner CR for him now. There are no 
more excuses. Now is the time to sign. We hope he is going to do the 
right thing and so do most Americans.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] is 
recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I find this an extraordinary 
circumstance. I think every one of us anticipated that we would be at 
this crisis point about this time in the calendar year. Why? Because we 
assumed the President would have used his veto power and there would be 
so many issues that we would be in conflict on, bills unresolved. Mr. 
Speaker, I think we all assumed we would be at a point of conflict 
because the President had exercised his veto authority and, therefore, 
appropriations bill after bill would be before this body for override 
and then perhaps because we would fail to do so, each would end up in a 
CR.
  But this is a contrived crisis. This is not a result of a clash 
between the President and his veto pen and this Congress. We have not 
even sent him most of the bills to veto. He made one veto of the 
legislative branch bill because, as he said, he wanted us to feel the 
pain of a government shutdown and not exempt our selves. Now, all of 
the remainder of our appropriations bills have not even been sent to 
him. We 

[[Page H12414]]
have not sent a budget resolution. It was supposed to have been passed 
6 weeks ago. The debt limit would have been dealt with in the context 
of that.
  So we are in a contrived crisis tonight. Of course public opinion was 
not serving the new majority well. They did not look well jacking up 
Medicare rates on senior citizens so they tried a new tact. They have 
begun to peel back the onion, begun to try to put together something 
that on the surface looks like a cleaner CR.

  But there is one little hooker in it. It relates to the concept of a 
7-year balanced budget. I am for a 7-year balanced budget. I have voted 
not only for the Stenholm resolution, but I have voted for the balanced 
budget proposal that was made on our side by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], and the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. But I took that position in the context of a 
detailed alternative to what the Republicans have offered.
  For example, I do not believe we ought to be cutting taxes for people 
at the upper income level by $250 billion. So what I would like to say, 
if I could have the attention of my Republican colleagues, is we cannot 
pull out the 7-year issue from the context of all of the components of 
a balanced budget. When you do not deal with taxes--whether you 
increase them on working people or cut them for the wealthy. When you 
do not deal with the question of how much you are going to cut Medicare 
or how much you are going to cut Medicaid; when you do not deal with 
the other demands that have to be part of what will constitute a 
balanced budget plan, you cannot legitimately come here and ask us to 
take one issue--the time frame to reach balance--off the table.
  It is a complex combination of policies that will get us to a 
balanced budget in 7 years. If we have no ability to cut back on the 
massive tax cuts or reduce the Medicare cuts, for example we may have 
to go beyond 7 years to 8. Those of us on this side who have stood up 
for a 7-year balanced budget have done so laying out our policies that 
differed dramatically with your Republican plan, but we cannot simply 
concede that time line without knowing the details.
  We ought to be given the opportunity to allow the give and take 
between the executive and the legislative branches, between the 
President and your majority, to take place without it being 
circumscribed tonight by this rider. This is not a clean CR. It ought 
to be defeated, and then we ought to go about the business of bringing 
the bills to the President so he can exercise his authority to sign or 
veto them. A clean CR is what we need tonight. Not another political 
gesture.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from Stamford, CT [Mr. Shays], a 
senior member of the Committee on the Budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
is recognized for 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, former Prime Minister Rabin of Israel once 
said, politicians are elected by adults to represent the children. 
Children do not vote. They do not respond to political polls, but they 
ultimately are the ones who will be helped or hurt by what we do here. 
That is why we are determined to get our financial house in order and 
balance our budgets.
  We are determined to save our trust funds, particularly Medicare, and 
we are determined to transform this social and corporate welfare state 
into an opportunity society. For our children, we are determined to 
balance our Federal budgets within 7 years with or without the help of 
the President. And we are doing it by increasing the earned income tax 
credit from $19.8 billion to $27.5 billion. The school lunch program, 
from $6.3 billion to $7.8 billion. The student loan program from $24.5 
billion to $36 billion. The Medicaid program from $89 billion to $124 
billion. The Medicare program from $178 billion to $278 billion.
  Only in Washington, when you spend so much money for our children, do 
some people call it a cut in spending. Over 300 Members of this House 
supported a balanced budget amendment in 7 years, Republicans and 
Democrats. We are asking the President to join with 300 Members, well 
over two-thirds of this body, to get our financial house in order. 
Balance this budget and save this future for our children.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 249, 
nays 176, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 800]

                               YEAS--249

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

                               NAYS--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     
[[Page H12415]]

     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Fields (LA)
     Houghton
     Rose
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Yates

                              {time}  2132

  Mr. DOGGETT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HOBSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________