[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12490-H12504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 270, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making further continuing 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The text of House Joint Resolution 122 is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 122

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of 
     applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, 
     for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and 
     other organizational units of Government for the fiscal year 
     1996, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                       CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS

       Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 for continuing 
     projects or activities including the costs of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for 
     in this joint resolution) which were conducted in the fiscal 
     year 1995 and for which appropriations, funds, or other 
     authority would be available in the following appropriations 
     Acts:
       The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, 
     notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956, section 701 of the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, section 313 
     of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 
     and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), and section 53 of the Arms 
     Control and Disarmament Act;
       The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996, 
     notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security 
     Act of 1947;
       The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 1996, notwithstanding section 10 
     of Public Law 91-672 and section 15(a) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956;
       The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, H.R. 2492;
       The Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government 
     Appropriations Act, 1996;
       The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1996:

     Provided, That whenever the amount which would be made 
     available or the authority which would be granted in these 
     Acts is greater than that which would be available or granted 
     under current operations, the pertinent project or activity 
     shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the 
     current rate.
       (b) Whenever the amount which would be made available or 
     the authority which would be granted under an Act listed in 
     this section as passed by the House as of the date of 
     enactment of this joint resolution, is different from that 
     which would be available or granted under such Act as passed 
     by the Senate as of the date of enactment of this joint 
     resolution, the pertinent project or activity shall be 
     continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the current 
     rate or the rate permitted by the action of the House or the 
     Senate, whichever is lower, under the authority and 
     conditions provided in the applicable appropriations Act for 
     the fiscal year 1995: Provided, That where an item is not 
     included in either version or where an item is included in 
     only one version of the Act as passed by both Houses as of 
     the date of enactment of this joint resolution, the pertinent 
     project or activity shall not be continued except as provided 
     for in section 111 or 112 under the appropriation, fund, or 
     authority granted by the applicable appropriations Act for 
     the fiscal year 1995 and under the authority and conditions 
     provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal 
     year 1995.
       (c) Whenever an Act listed in this section has been passed 
     by only the House or only the Senate as of the date of 
     enactment of this joint resolution, the pertinent project or 
     activity shall be continued under the appropriation, fund, or 
     authority granted by the one House at a rate for 
     operations not exceeding the current rate or the rate 
     permitted by the action of the one House, whichever is 
     lower, and under the authority and conditions provided in 
     the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 
     1995: Provided, That where an item is funded in the 
     applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 and 
     not included in the version passed by the one House as of 
     the date of enactment of this joint resolution, the 
     pertinent project or activity shall not be continued 
     except as provided for in section 111 and 

[[Page H12491]]
     112 under the appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the 
     applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 1995 and 
     under the authority and conditions provided in the 
     applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 102. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department 
     of Defense shall be used for new production of items not 
     funded for production in fiscal year 1995 or prior years, for 
     the increase in production rates above those sustained with 
     fiscal year 1995 funds, or to initiate, resume, or continue 
     any project, activity, operation, or organization which are 
     defined as any project, subproject, activity, budget 
     activity, program element, and subprogram within a program 
     element and for investment items are further defined as a P-1 
     line item in a budget activity within an appropriation 
     account and an R-1 line item which includes a program element 
     and subprogram element within an appropriation account, for 
     which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not 
     available during the fiscal year 1995: Provided, That no 
     appropriation or funds made available or authority granted 
     pursuant to section 101 for the Department of Defense shall 
     be used to initiate multi-year procurements utilizing advance 
     procurement funding for economic order quantity procurement 
     unless specifically appropriated later.
       Sec. 103. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be 
     available to the extent and in the manner which would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
       Sec. 104. No appropriation or funds made available or 
     authority granted pursuant to section 101 shall be used to 
     initiate or resume any project or activity for which 
     appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available 
     during the fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 105. No provision which is included in an 
     appropriations Act enumerated in section 101 but which was 
     not included in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 1995 and which by its terms is applicable to more than 
     one appropriation, fund, or authority shall be applicable to 
     any appropriation, fund, or authority provided in this 
     joint resolution.
       Sec. 106. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint 
     resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act, 
     appropriations and funds made available and authority granted 
     pursuant to this joint resolution shall be available until 
     (a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or 
     activity provided for in this joint resolution, or (b) the 
     enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by 
     both Houses without any provision for such project or 
     activity, or (c) December 5, 1995, whichever first occurs.
       Sec. 107. Appropriations made and authority granted 
     pursuant to this joint resolution shall cover all obligations 
     or expenditures incurred for any program, project, or 
     activity during the period for which funds or authority for 
     such project or activity are available under this joint 
     resolution.
       Sec. 108. Expenditures made pursuant to this joint 
     resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, 
     fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained 
     is enacted into law.
       Sec. 109. No provision in the appropriations Act for the 
     fiscal year 1996 referred to in section 101 of this joint 
     resolution that makes the availability of any appropriation 
     provided therein dependent upon the enactment of additional 
     authorizing or other legislation shall be effective before 
     the date set forth in section 106(c) of this joint 
     resolution.
       Sec. 110. Appropriations and funds made available by or 
     authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution may be 
     used without regard to the time limitations for submission 
     and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of 
     title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall be 
     construed to waive any other provision of law governing the 
     apportionment of funds.
       Sec. 111. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, whenever an Act listed in 
     section 101 as passed by both the House and Senate as of the 
     date of enactment of this joint resolution, does not include 
     funding for an ongoing project or activity for which there is 
     a budget request, or whenever an Act listed in section 101 
     has been passed by only the House or only the Senate as of 
     the date of enactment of this joint resolution, and an item 
     funded in fiscal year 1995 is not included in the version 
     passed by the one House, or whenever the rate for operations 
     for an ongoing project or activity provided by section 101 
     for which there is a budget request would result in the 
     project or activity being significantly reduced, the 
     pertinent project or activity may be continued under the 
     authority and conditions provided in the applicable 
     appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 by increasing 
     the rate for operations provided by section 101 to a rate 
     for operations not to exceed one that provides the minimal 
     level that would enable existing activities to continue. 
     No new contracts or grants shall be awarded in excess of 
     an amount that bears the same ratio to the rate for 
     operations provided by this section as the number of days 
     covered by this resolution bears to 366. For the purposes 
     of the Act, the minimal level means a rate for operations 
     that is reduced from the current rate by 40 percent.
       Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, whenever the rate for 
     operations for any continuing project or activity provided by 
     section 101 or section 111 for which there is a budget 
     request would result in a furlough of Government employees, 
     that rate for operations may be increased to the minimum 
     level that would enable the furlough to be avoided. No new 
     contracts or grants shall be awarded in excess of an amount 
     that bears the same ratio to the rate for operations provided 
     by this section as the number of days covered by this 
     resolution bears to 366.
       Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except sections 106, 111, and 112, for those 
     programs that had high initial rates of operation or complete 
     distribution of funding at the beginning of the fiscal year 
     in fiscal year 1995 because of distributions of funding to 
     States, foreign countries, grantees, or others, similar 
     distributions of funds for fiscal year 1996 shall not be made 
     and no grants shall be awarded for such programs funded by 
     this resolution that would impinge on final funding 
     prerogatives.
       Sec. 114. This joint resolution shall be implemented so 
     that only the most limited funding action of that permitted 
     in the resolution shall be taken in order to provide for 
     continuation of projects and activities.
       Sec. 115. The provisions of section 132 of the District of 
     Columbia Appropriations Act, 1988, Public Law 100-202, shall 
     not apply for this joint resolution. Included in the 
     apportionment for the Federal Payment to the District of 
     Columbia shall be an additional $15,000,000 above the amount 
     otherwise made available by this joint resolution, for 
     purposes of certain capital construction loan repayments 
     pursuant to Public Law 85-451, as amended.
       Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the authority and conditions 
     for the application of appropriations for the Office of 
     Technology Assessment as contained in the Conference Report 
     on the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, House 
     Report 104-212, shall be followed when applying the funding 
     made available by this joint resolution.
       Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, any distribution of funding 
     under the Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research 
     account in the Department of Education may be made up to an 
     amount that bears the same ratio to the rate for operation 
     for this account provide by this joint resolution as the 
     number of days covered by this resolution bears to 366.
       Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the authorities provided 
     under subsection (a) of section 140 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
     103-236) shall remain in effect during the period of this 
     joint resolution, notwithstanding paragraph (3) of said 
     subsection.
       Sec. 119. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the amount made available to 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the heading 
     Salaries and Expenses, shall include, in addition to direct 
     appropriations, the amount it collects under the fee rate and 
     offsetting collection authority contained in Public Law 103-
     352, which fee rate and offsetting collection authority shall 
     remain in effect during the period of this joint resolution.
       Sec. 120. Until enactment of legislation providing funding 
     for the entire fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, for the 
     Department of the Interior and Related Agencies, funds 
     available for necessary expenses of the Bureau of Mines 
     are for continuing limited health and safety and related 
     research, materials partnerships, and minerals information 
     activities; for mineral assessments in Alaska; and for 
     terminating all other activities of the Bureau of Mines.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, funds for the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall be made available in the 
     appropriation accounts which are provided in H.R. 2099 as 
     reported on September 13, 1995.
       Sec. 122. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations for 
     projects and activities that would be funded under the 
     heading ``International Organizations and Conferences, 
     Contributions to International Organizations'' in the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996, shall be the 
     amount provided by the provisions of sections 101, 111, and 
     112 multiplied by the ratio of the number of days covered by 
     this resolution to 366 and multiplied further by 1.27.
       Sec. 123. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
     resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations of 
     the following projects or activities shall be only the 
     minimum necessary to accomplish orderly termination:
       Administrative Conference of the United States;
       Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (except 
     that activities to carry out the provisions of Public Law 
     104-4 may continue);
       Interstate Commerce Commission;
       Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation;
       Land and Water Conservation Fund, State Assistance; and
       Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Rural 
     Abandonment Mine Program.
     
[[Page H12492]]


                                TITLE II

     SEC. 201. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT FOR PARCHMENT PRINTING.

       (a) Waiver.--The provisions of sections 106 and 107 of 
     title 1, United States Code, are waived with respect to the 
     printing (on parchment or otherwise) of the enrollment of any 
     of the following measures of the first session of the One 
     Hundred Fourth Congress presented to the President after the 
     enactment of this joint resolution:
       (1) A continuing resolution.
       (2) A debt limit extension measure.
       (3) A reconciliation bill.
       (b) Certification by Committee on House Oversight.--The 
     enrollment of a measure to which subsection (a) applies shall 
     be in such form as the Committee on House Oversight of the 
     House of Representatives certifies to be a true enrollment.

     SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this joint resolution:
       (1) Continuing resolution.--The term ``continuing 
     resolution'' means a bill or joint resolution that includes 
     provisions making further continuing appropriations for 
     fiscal year 1996.
       (2) Debt limit extension measure.--The term ``debt limit 
     extension measure'' means a bill or joint resolution that 
     includes provisions increasing or waiving (for a temporary 
     period or otherwise) the public debt limit under section 
     3101(b) of title 31, United States Code.
       (3) Reconciliation bill.--The term ``reconciliation bill'' 
     means a bill that is a reconciliation bill within the meaning 
     of section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                               TITLE III

               COMMITMENT TO A SEVEN-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET

       Sec. 301. (a) The President and the Congress shall enact 
     legislation in the One Hundred Fourth Congress to achieve a 
     unified balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002 
     as scored by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
       (b) The unified balanced budget in subsection (a) shall be 
     based on the most current economic and technical assumptions 
     of the Congressional Budget Office.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 270, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].


                             general leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Joint Resolution 122, and that I may include tabular 
and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this joint 
resolution to the floor to provide authority for most of the Government 
to continue operations through December 5 or until the regular bills 
are enacted, whichever is sooner. We have come to this point because 
the President has vetoed House Joint Resolution 115 and in doing so 
shutdown the Government. This CR will enable the Government to get back 
to work.
  The House and Senate Appropriations Committees are continuing to work 
on the remaining regular funding bills in a manner that will allow us 
to present them to the President for signature. However it is clear 
that many of the budget decisions will extend beyond the next few days. 
Therefore, we need to provide spending authority for those portions of 
the Government which are not covered by signed bills.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is the same as the one the 
President vetoed with the following exceptions:
  It does not reference the energy and water development bill as it has 
been signed into law.
  Its provisions would remain in effect until December 5 rather than 
December 1, giving us a little more time to do the public's business.
  It does not include any provision dealing with Medicare part B 
premiums or breast or prostate cancer treatments or, indeed, any 
nonbudgetary riders.
  It does, however, include a commitment to a 7-year balanced budget as 
scored and with the technical assumptions used by CBO. This is a 
commitment we freely make. This is a commitment we ask the President to 
make with us.
  This resolution continues Government funding through December 5, or 
whenever a regular bill is enacted into law, whichever is sooner.
  This resolution provides temporary funding for the programs covered 
under 10 bills. Since three bills have been signed into law, military 
construction, agriculture, and energy and water development, and 
perhaps transportation, I have just been advised that Transportation 
has been signed as well, those bills will have been omitted from this 
resolution. But you will be pleased to know that we have two other 
bills, Mr. Speaker, Treasury-Postal and Legislative branch, all ready 
for the President's signature.
  All the projects and activities in the nine bills that remain operate 
under a restrictive formula that provides rates that do not exceed the 
lower of the House-passed bill, the Senate-passed bill, or the fiscal 
1995 current level. The resolution provides that for programs that are 
proposed for termination in either the House or Senate version of the 
regular bill, or are significantly reduced in these bills, they may 
continue, but at a minimum level not to exceed 60 percent of the 
current rate of operations. This is down from the 90-percent level 
provided for in the very first continuing resolution. All programs 
continued will be under the fiscal year 1995 terms and conditions. 
These incentives will help Congress and the President keep our eyes on 
the big prize: that is, 13 signable spending bills, to get back on the 
track to a balanced budget.
  This resolution continues the ``no furlough'' language that was 
contained in the first resolution. Early year distributions for 
programs that have historical high initial fund distributions are 
prohibited. Also no new initiatives can be started under this bill.
  There are additional items that are under this resolution. They deal 
with hand enrollment for various future bills and commitment to a 7-
year balanced budget. This continuing resolution keeps the Government 
functioning while locking all of us firmly into the commitment that we 
have championed, and that is a 7-year balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me in voting for a 
continuing resolution with five main principles:
  First, it provides funding at levels that are below the section 602 
allocation provided for in the budget resolution. This keeps us on the 
glide path to get us to a balanced budget by 2002.
  Second, it prevents costly Government furloughs and premature program 
terminations.
  Third, it does not prejudice funding decisions for the remainder of 
the appropriations bills, except for a limited number of program 
terminations that are agreed to by the President.
  Fourth, it continues a climate that is an incentive for all involved 
to conclude action on the regular appropriations bills.
  Finally, it commits all of us--House, Senate, and President--to a 
balanced budget in 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is a good-faith effort to get 
the Government operating again. We're moving the remaining bills as 
fast as we can, and we are making real progress, but we still need this 
CR. It is tough love, but we need tough love to keep the necessary 
pressure on both the Congress and the President to work out our 
differences on the remaining regular bills and get them enacted into 
law.

                              {time}  2145

  I urge all of our Members to support this joint resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on the Budget.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker this is one of those issues where, frankly, I 
am tempted in a variety of ways in how I should react because there are 
things within this resolution I agree with.
  My advice to the administration has been for a period of time that 
their goal should be to have a 7-year balanced budget, that they should 
also use 

[[Page H12493]]
the more cautious and conservative economic assumptions of CBO, that a 
variety of other differences need to be looked at. Neither CBO nor OMB 
have divine wisdom, and one needs to examine those.
  On the other hand, I also am going to vote ``no'' tonight in the 
strong belief that this is the wrong thing to do at this point in time. 
What we should be doing is simply passing a clean continuing resolution 
to deal with the reality that we have not passed our appropriation 
bills. Then the majority should pass their reconciliation bill, I 
assume, on Friday. It will be vetoed, and then we should get on with 
serious negotiations.
  Part of this is posturing. The rhetoric gets very hot around here, 
and if it were not for the fact that people were not working, I think 
the whole institution would be better off if everybody went home for a 
while and cooled off and calmed things down and then get back to work. 
It is getting increasing polarized.
  While I believe that we should move to a balanced budget in 7 years, 
using cautious economic assumptions, I also read today, I think 
accurately quoted, the leader, not of this body but of another 
institution involved in these negotiations, that there were four 
pillars to the Republican program. One was a 7-year balanced budget; 
the second was Medicare reform, and I am sure he meant his version of 
Medicare reform; welfare reform, and I am sure he meant his version of 
welfare reform; and a tax cut, and he meant his version of a tax cut. 
And those were nonnegotiable demands.
  This is one of those four pillars, and to pretend tonight that 
somehow we take up one of those pillars, that we are taking up one of 
those pillars when those three other pillars still exist in the minds 
of most of the majority, would be dreadfully wrong. Because, in my 
judgment, that tax cut is not justified. In my judgment, you cannot 
have a fair balanced budget with the size and scope of the tax cut 
proposed by the majority. In my judgment, any tax cut should wait until 
we balance the Federal budget, not now.
  Welfare reform, as passed by the majority, and I hate using this 
word, but, in my judgment, is mean. And the Medicare reform is of such 
nature that it puts too great a burden on millions of low-income widows 
in this country, and the scope of the change is such that it simply is 
not sustainable.

  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote this evening.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity for this House to 
send a message. It is a message, frankly, that at the end of the day 
the American people will send themselves. Now we can send a message 
from this side, and we are going to vote, I would believe unanimously, 
on our side to send a message about one single thing, one simple thing, 
balance the budget, do it in 7 years.
  Two years ago on Monday, my friend, Tim Penny, and I joined together 
in a bipartisan effort to send a message. It was a similar message. You 
know what the message was? We need to cut some spending. And I will 
tell you something, even though we lost the vote on the House floor 
that day, that message did not just get sent downtown but it got sent 
around the country.
  I am asking my Democrat friends and colleagues who believe in the 
concept of 7 years to step up to the plate tonight, to join with your 
Republican colleagues and let us send a message, and it is not a 
message that is strident.
  The simple fact of the matter is, under any plan to balance the 
budget over the next 7 years, this Federal Government will spend $3 
trillion more than what we spent in the last 7 years. The question is: 
Are we capable of saving that extra trillion dollars for the next 
generation?
  We are not fighting over the first $3 trillion. We are fighting over 
the last $1 trillion. Frankly, folks, to do this in 7 years, to let the 
Federal spending go up even though it goes up at a slower rate, it will 
help us to balance the budget. The drop in interest rates, short term, 
will make housing, cars, and education affordable, and in the long run 
it will guarantee the young people of this country will have decent 
jobs and decent homes and decent automobiles. That is what we are 
talking about.
  If we fail, well, I know my Democratic colleagues and friends who 
voted on Penny-Kasich will not let us fail.
  I told Leon Panetta yesterday in the meeting:

       Leon, just commit to 7 years. We can negotiate the 
     priorities. We can argue what ought to be emphasized. We can 
     get down. We can sit down, and we can have meaningful 
     negotiations. But we cannot have them without a reasonable 
     bottom line, and that reasonable bottom line is committing 
     today, right now, this minute, to a 7-year plan to rein the 
     Federal spending and save the next generation.

  Let us send a strong message, not just downtown, but let us send a 
strong bipartisan message from one end of this Nation to the other that 
this Congress is serious, and we will work together to balance this 
budget and guarantee the children of the next generation a bright and 
prosperous America, a bright and prosperous future.
  Support the resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Gibbons].
  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my Republican colleagues 
for having come part of the way to getting this problem resolved part 
of the way. You have got a further way to go. But you are moving in the 
right direction, and I appreciate that, and I am sure the American 
public appreciates that.
  I am glad you have given up on the direct assault on the Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  Now, I am going to vote against this resolution tonight because I do 
not put as much faith in the so-called nonpartisan Committee on the 
Budget staff as perhaps some of my friends over there on the other side 
of the aisle do. I had a lot more faith in it when they were on our 
payroll. I do not have quite as much faith in them when on their 
payroll. I think all of you can understand that.
  Two, I believe that we ought to balance the budget, but my priorities 
are different than yours. My priorities are not to give a tax cut until 
the budget is actually balanced, and then if we have anything left 
over, we can talk about cutting taxes. And I will leave out all of my 
rhetoric about how terrible I think the priorities are in that tax cut 
bill.
  But I do not want to see us have that tax cut bill on the table, 
because if you do keep that on the table, you are going to have to cut 
Medicare far too far, and you are going to have to cut Medicaid and the 
welfare programs far too far if you keep that tax cut bill on the 
table.
  So the tax cut bill has got to go, and we have got to have some give 
in the Medicare changes, and we have got to have real give in the 
Medicaid changes and in the welfare changes.
  The Medicare changes and the Medicaid changes and the welfare changes 
are really hard and cruel. And I do not think that you all are hard and 
cruel, but I do not think you really understand what the problem is. 
You are cutting more money out of poor kids than you really are cutting 
out of Medicare. You are making huge cuts in the welfare budget.
  Seventy percent of all the people in America who are on welfare are 
children, infants and children, and you are taking food out of their 
mouths, you are taking medical care away from them, you are taking 
housing and shelter and everything else away from these children. That 
is not fair.
  I am sure when you focus on that, you will come to that same 
conclusion. So take the tax cut off the table. Take the Medicare cuts 
off the table. Take the welfare cuts off the table that you have given 
them, and take the Medicaid cuts off the table.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a distinguished member of our Committee on 
Appropriations.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, this is it. This is the moment of truth.
  We had a continuing resolution just a few days ago on this floor. The 
President vetoed that. He said he could not 

[[Page H12494]]
sign it because the language keeping Medicare premiums at 31 percent of 
Part B was unacceptable. He said he could not countenance keeping 
Medicare premiums at their current level.
  I think he is wrong. We have to do it to protect, to preserve 
Medicare. We will come back. We will revisit that issue on the Balanced 
Budget Act before this week is out.
  What we have here tonight is a clean continuing resolution to reopen 
the Government. There is no extraneous provision, no add-ons here.
  Oh, yes, yes, it does say we will balance the budget in 7 years, and, 
yes, it says the President will agree to work with us to accomplish 
that. But surely that is no problem. The President has already said we 
can do that. He said it not once, not twice, but repeatedly. President 
Clinton has said we can balance the budget in 7 years.
  In fact, he said he would submit a budget that would do it in 5 
years, and that is all this resolution says. It does not say we will 
have tax cuts or Medicare reform or welfare reform, nor does it say 
what their shape would be. I think we should have them. I think we 
should have all of those things. But this continuing resolution does 
not commit the President to any of those.

                              {time}  2200

  This stopgap spending bill would put Federal workers back on the job. 
It says we will work together to balance the budget in 7 years. If the 
President vetoes this, we will know it was not Medicare that caused the 
first veto. The truth will be out there for all to see, stark, bare 
naked.
  This President will be saying he cannot agree to a balanced budget, 
not now, not in 7 years, not ever. I say to the President, there are no 
more excuses. There is nothing left to hide behind. Your spokesman 
tonight misquoted you when he said you repeatedly rejected a 7-year 
balanced budget. But you can set the record straight. You can 
demonstrate your solidarity with the American people who want a 
balanced budget. You can put Federal workers back on the job. You can 
sign this spending bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support this continuing resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, the American public quite obviously wants us to be 
serious. I have 56,000 people who work for our Federal Government. They 
rely on each one of us to do our job seriously so that they can support 
their families and do their job on a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-
to-month, year-to-year basis. I believe the overwhelming majority of 
those people give outstanding service to the American public.
  I suggest to my colleagues, however, that they and America are 
distressed because rather than do our job totally seriously, we do what 
politicians like to do, send messages. Not necessarily do work, but 
send messages.
  I listened to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], for 
whom I have great respect. He got up and said, let us send a message 
that we are for a balanced budget. I had voted for that amendment. I 
voted for the resolutions. I voted for the coalition budget. I believe 
not only in sending the message but in doing it.
  My colleagues, we have here a bill. It is 16 pages in length. I 
suggest to my colleagues that the first 15 pages are, in fact, a 
relatively clean CR that would put those people who live in my district 
and in fact live in every district in America back to work tomorrow. 
The President would sign this 15 pages. That is the substantive part.

  Unfortunately, for me and for others, there is a 16th page. It really 
does not mean anything. It has words on it. It had words about 7 years. 
It has words about CBO scoring. It has words about the most recent 
economic statistics. But you and I both know that this really does not 
mean anything, and we ought not to fool the American public.
  We cannot, by this statute say, Mr. President, after you sign this 
bill tomorrow you cannot sign a bill which does something different. 
And we cannot say, by this bill, as all of my colleagues know, that 
tomorrow this Congress, after passing these 8 lines, cannot do 
something differently. Of course we can.
  All of my colleagues know on this floor that we are about to get 
real. It is called substantive. Because we are going to bring to this 
floor a reconciliation bill. That is real. It will incorporate real 
policy alternatives and each of us will have to vote on those 
alternatives.
  It is, therefore, a shame that with just 48 or 72 hours to go before 
we bring that bill to this floor that we have to continue to send 
messages, not to be real.
  This is real. It says tomorrow we put the Government back to work, 
that contractors who are doing work for our Government and their 
employees will get paid.
  But this is political message, political game playing. Is it not a 
shame?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution because 
it is time, Mr. Speaker, to put politics behind us. It is time to get 
back to the people's business. It is time to put 800,000 Federal 
employees back to work. It is time to be there for those 60,000 elderly 
and disabled persons and 15,000 veterans who have already been denied 
benefits that they are legally entitled to because there were no 
Federal employees to accept their claims. It is time to open up our 
national treasures to the 1\1/2\ million American families who have 
been turned away from their national parks and monuments because they 
have been shut down.
  My colleagues, it is time to balance our Federal budget. I personally 
do not think it is time to cut taxes because no business should pay out 
dividends when it is operating at a deficit. But the sooner we get to 
balance, the sooner we can reduce the American people's tax burden. 
Without his tax cuts, the President can reach his balanced budget 
objective in 7 years rather than 8 or 9 years. If, indeed, the 
President's higher economic forecasts are correct, then that additional 
revenue over and above the CBO forecast should be used to pay for the 
President's tax cut proposals. But first things first.
  Our very first responsibility is to vote for this continuing 
resolution and to put America's Government back into the business of 
serving America's people.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that I voted for the coalition 
budget. The coalition budget says that we will balance the budget, like 
the American people want us to do, in 7 years. Now, what this CR says 
tonight, it says, we want to balance the budget in 7 years and use CBO 
figures. I will support the continuing resolution because that is what 
it says.
  Now, the continuing resolution says on these parameters that we will 
vote to try to balance the budget in 7 years. It does not say that we 
are going to cut $270 billion out of Medicare. We will fight that. It 
does not say, we are going to cut $10 billion out of student loans. We 
will fight that.
  It does not say anything about where things will be cut and amended 
and pieced together. What it does say is that the American people want 
us to talk, Democrats and Republicans. If we can have Bosnians and 
Serbs and Croats talking in Dayton, OH, we should talk. If we can have 
Catholics and Protestants talk in Northern Ireland, we should talk. And 
if we can have Mr. Rabin to talk to Mr. Arafat about a longstanding 
feud going back centuries, we can talk and maybe fight about where our 
priorities are on a balanced budget.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], distinguished whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I do not know that I could improve on that last speech.
  Mr. Speaker, I do urge my colleagues to vote for this continuing 
resolution which is a giant step toward certifying a balanced budget.
  I just wanted to say to my good friend from Maryland, who spoke 
earlier, that said 15 pages of this bill are important and mean 
something and the 16th page means nothing. My answer to 

[[Page H12495]]
the gentleman from Maryland, if it means nothing, he has voted for a 7-
year balanced budget. He ought to be able to vote for this continuing 
resolution.
  Two-thirds of this House came here to balance the budget. I know some 
of my colleagues would rather not send this CR to the President. Some 
of my friends would rather keep the heat on the President and let him 
keep the government closed. And let me say to my colleagues, that 
choice does hold a little appeal to me. It would be nice to have the 
President come to the negotiating table rather than just make speeches 
that are misleading at best.
  But I think we have an opportunity to clarify where President Clinton 
stands on a balanced budget. And that is worth its weight in gold.
  After all, President Clinton has more stands than the Houston 
Astrodome when it comes to the balanced budget. The question today is 
simple: Will the President support a real, certified 7-year balanced 
budget or will he continue to evade and confuse this issue that is so 
important to the American people?
  Yesterday President Clinton said, let us say yes to a balanced budget 
and no to the cuts. The President really means yes to a balanced budget 
but only if it happens by magic.
  Well, the President needs to know that a balanced budget only happens 
through hard work, hard choices and very real cuts in spending. So I 
say to my colleagues that the country wins if we pass this CR, no 
matter what the President does. Because if he votes this CR, the 
American people finally know that President Clinton oppose a real 
balanced budget. But if he signs the bill, we have the real numbers 
from which we can negotiate a real agreement. I just urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to put President Clinton on the spot. Vote 
for this CR and let us clarify where the President really stands on a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if this resolution were just about 
balancing the budget over the next 7 years, I would vote for it. But it 
is not, and I will not.
  Several speakers from both sides have talked about the fact this is a 
clean resolution. Without editorial comment, let me simply state the 
facts. This resolution does more than that. On an annualized basis, it 
cuts veterans health care benefits by a half a billion dollars. Let me 
repeat that. On an annualized basis, it cuts veterans health care 
benefits by $500 million. This is not the first continuing resolution.
  I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, there are veterans in hospitals around 
this country who have served their nation who would probably take 
greater umbrage at the facts in this resolution than some of the 
Members who helped write it who object to the fact that I have stated 
the facts about this resolution.
  Let me also say that this is not a clean resolution on other matters, 
on many issues that most Democrats had no input on. Let me list some of 
the cuts, programs that will be cut by 40 percent. And let each Member 
decide whether he or she wants to support a 40-percent cut in these 
programs.

                              {time}  2215

  Summer youth employment, AmeriCorps, veterans homeless programs, 
State offices of rural health, rural health research, substance abuse 
training, national vaccine program, new rural health grants, Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program at a time when we have freezing weather 
across many parts of this Nation, rural housing, Goals 2000, State and 
local grants, Goals 2000 national programs, school-to-work national 
programs, early childhood education also along with the others cut by 
40 percent, Federal Perkins loan capital contributions, State student 
incentive grants.
  This is not a clean resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virgina [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my Republican colleagues for 
stripping extraneous language from the continuing resolution as the 
President asked, and I applaud my colleagues on the other side who are 
willing to join the bipartisan dialog on how to balance the Federal 
budget. This continuing resolution does not mandate tax cuts, it does 
not mandate Medicare cuts, or education cuts. But it does get our 
Federal employees back to work without furloughs over the next 2\1/2\ 
weeks, and it does mandate that together Republicans and Democrats, the 
Congress and the President, will join together and work together to 
balance the Federal budget and do it within the CBO guidelines, 
something that the President stated right here that he feels was the 
best way, the best way really between what will work and what does not 
work. It does not cut the veterans benefits; basically, without 
furloughs, funds these agencies over these next 2\1/2\ weeks, and it 
leaves off Medicare, it leaves off cuts in education and the 
environment, which was ostensibly the reason the President gave for 
vetoing the last resolution.
  This gives the President what he wants, and it commits us to doing 
what we came here to do, and that is balance the Federal budget.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] for yielding this time to me. I want to thank the Democratic 
leadership for allowing us the time. I want to thank the Republican 
leadership for bringing forward a better CR than we saw heretofore, and 
I want to say that I speak for some Democrats who believe that we can 
balance the budget in 7 years and are prepared to support the CR 
tonight.
  But I want to say that we do not feel like we have a monopoly on 
wisdom and virtue and we do not think that either side here has a 
monopoly on wisdom and virtue. We think we ought to work together.
  This CR is a step in the right direction. It balances, or calls for a 
balanced budget, in 7 years.
  We think, if our colleagues will allow some of the minority to work 
with them and that if the minority will work with the majority, we 
think we can make an American solution, not a Republican or Democrat 
solution, to the problems that face us all as Americans. If this 
country goes under, it is not going to be just the Republicans or the 
Democrats going broke. It is going to be all of us, and we ought to set 
aside some of this partisan rhetoric that I hear from both sides, quite 
frankly, and try to get together here while we are here in the short 
time that we serve in public life and do something for the people that 
sent us here.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston] for yielding this time to me.
  There is nothing in this continuing resolution about how we will 
balance the budget. It merely says that we will do it. The words are:

       The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in 
     the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not 
     later than the year 2002 as scored by the nonpartisan 
     Congressional Budget Office.

  The President's response when he was asked the following question by 
Dan Rather, ``Are you saying flat out that you will veto a clean bill 
that contains only in it the insistence to balance the budget?''; the 
President's response was, ``Yes, I cannot tell you how strongly I feel 
that this would not be good for America. I do not believe in it.''
  The difference between the President and the Congress has finally 
been exquisitely clarified and perfectly defined. This is the people's 
House. The people will speak tonight through the Congress. Let us pass 
this resolution. Let us balance the budget in 7 years.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking to the 
Republicans because they are together. They have gotten their program 
together, and they are coordinated. I am speaking to my colleagues in 
the Democratic Party:

       I love each of you very, very much. I want to say to you 
     this is a time for you to stand 

[[Page H12496]]
     up, and be counted, and it's not time for you to go vacillating and 
     running all over the globe. It is time that you say we stand 
     for something, we support our President.

  Now do not let anybody be fooled. There is no way in God's Earth that 
they can balance this budget by doing $245 billion worth of tax cuts. 
There is no way it can be done. If they do it, my colleagues know they 
got to take it out of someone's hide. They are going to take it from 
the poor, from the elderly, and from the disabled.
  Now look at it. I do not care how smart my colleagues are 
mathematically or what kind of statistician they are. There is just to 
no way that can be done.
  Now let us get back down to bare facts. All of my colleagues have 
come up here. I have watched them. They want more from Medicare, they 
want more for the older people, they want more for Medicaid, and they 
are not saying too much about Medicare. I say, ``Think about it. You're 
talking about the environment. If you're any kind of environmentalist, 
then vote against this continuing resolution. There is no way you can 
do it. Face it.''
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time to fish or cut bait. My colleagues have 
got to cut bait now; the fishing is over.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the continuing 
resolution and the commitment to a 7-year balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, for years the Supreme Court has wrestled with the 
definition of the word obscene. They have not succeeded, but we here 
have. It is obscene to have a national debt approaching $5 trillion, a 
national debt which requires us to spend nearly $900 million every day 
just in interest payments--that doesn't feed anybody, or clothe 
anybody, or educate anybody, or provide jobs or medical care for 
anybody--it just services the national debt. That is obscene.
  This is an historic moment. We now have the opportunity to 
demonstrate, in tangible form by our vote, that we not only heard the 
American people and their message of November 8, 1994, we are heeding 
it.
  The American people said, in unmistakable terms, that they want 
smaller, less costly, less intrusive and yet more efficient government. 
That's a tall order, but we can do it.
  In this 104th Congress, with a new majority determined to respond to 
the will of the American people, we have demonstrated that we are 
keeping the faith. In this House we have passed a balanced budget 
amendment, we have passed a line item veto, we have passed welfare 
reform and we have been both responsive and responsible in moving to 
avert a crisis of monumental proportions by passing legislation to save 
Medicare. I proudly voted for these significant measures, but our job 
is not done.
  We must move to fulfill our commitment to the American people and our 
children and generations to come by approving this resolution which 
moves us ahead on our journey to a balanced budget, a balanced budget 
to be achieved on a date certain not decades away, but in seven years. 
When we have done what we must, we will be able to say a day's work 
well done.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the words of the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. This is indeed the time to stand 
up and be counted. Indeed this is not a debate about airplane trips, or 
education, or EPA, or veterans, or Medicare, or whether the national 
parks will be open or closed. This is a debate about whether or not we 
should pass a continuing resolution that is going to open this 
Government up, end the shutdown, and at the same time affirm the vote 
that 300 Republicans and Democrats cast earlier this year to have a 
balanced budget in 7 years and save this country.
  For my two little children, Jonathan and Lucy, and all the other 
children in this country in whose hands the future of this country will 
lie long after we are all gone, please join me in supporting this 
resolution tonight.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this continuing resolution 
tonight, I think it is important to look at the components of the 
budget negotiations that we are actually in the middle of. The majority 
would ask us tonight to support a balanced budget by the year 2002 
using Congressional Budget Office budget assumptions. Sixty-eight of 
us, myself included, have voted for a plan that accomplishes exactly 
that. But there is a third and essential leg to this three-legged stool 
that is conspicuously missing in the continuing resolution advanced by 
the majority tonight, and that is the $245 billion tax cut. There is 
not one word about backing off of the $245 billion tax cut in this 
continuing resolution.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose it tonight because we know that 
advancing towards the goal of a balanced budget in 2002, which I 
support, CBO numbers, which I think are sound, cannot be accomplished 
with the $245 billion tax cut without eviscerating cuts to Medicare, 
Medicaid, farm programs, student loans, and the rest of the litany of 
horrors represented in the budget reconciliation act, including the 
raid on pension funds that notwithstanding a 94-to-5 vote in the Senate 
has come back into the Budget Reconciliation Act in the conference 
committee.
   Mr. Speaker, we are at this point in the budget negotiations because 
the Republican majority has insisted upon increasing the part B premium 
for Medicare as part of passing a continuing resolution. Tonight they 
back off of that, but they insist on two points: balanced budget by 
2002, CBO numbers, and not 1 inch of budging off of their 245 billion 
tax cut disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest people in this 
country. We now that means cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in 
farm programs that cannot be sustained, and we must vote no.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, the American people are shouting 
about the shutdown of the Federal Government. Some are shouting that we 
are scared, we are not sure how we are going to pay the rent, we are 
not sure how we are going to buy groceries, and they have a right to be 
scared.
  But a lot of people are shouting some other things. Here is a 
message. I have a stack of faxes. ``We are 60 years old, close down the 
government as long as it takes, continue with Medicare reform.''
  Another message: ``The Republicans are on the right track. Stay the 
course. We have come a long way. We've got a long way to go.''
  Another one. ``Hold the line.''
  Another one. ``Balance the budget.''
  Another one. ``Just do it.''
  The message is very clear. Overwhelmingly, my constituents are 
saying, ``Stay the course. We want a balance budget.'' We have to 
resolve this issue.
  Tonight we are offering a solution. We are saying we will get back to 
work and we will move to balance the budget. I hope that the President 
is listening to the American people. We are, and we are determined to 
solve the solution. We are bringing it to his door today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this measure has been called a sham, a 
shame, but in short, it is nothing but a Medicare cut under another 
name. Our Republican colleagues were so committed to cutting Medicare 
that the one thing they sent over to the President, along with their 
proposal, was an increase in Medicare premiums. They got caught. The 
American people have been saying no, and they have been saying no all 
week to that kind of Medicare cut. So what are they coming back with 
tonight? They come back with a new straitjacket to accomplish through 
the back door what they could not get done through the front door.
  There is one thing this great revolution that they have provided us 
has not changed. That is elementary school arithmetic. Adding still is 
the same old way as it was prior to the last election. If you give 
hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts to those at the top of the 
economic ladder, you give the Pentagon $8 billion more than it asked 
for, 

[[Page H12497]]
the only other place you can look is to take it out of the hide of the 
senior citizens of this country, out of the schoolchildren, and out of 
the environment. That is what they are going to do through this 
resolution. If you believe in protecting Medicare, you are going to 
vote against this.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, with a flabbergasted expression of 
surprise, I am not happy to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly].
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I stand tonight in strong support of this resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time. The Nation is asking us to put 
partisanship aside and unite as a Nation on behalf of this very 
responsible blueprint that builds for a better tomorrow. On behalf of 
my child, Abbie, and my son, Ted, and all the children of America, it 
is time to embrace as a Nation this blueprint. I ask the protectors of 
the old order here in Washington to put it aside.
  Let us move forward, with the President and the Congress united, let 
us go forward in this blueprint that takes care of the future for our 
children, creates jobs for the future, hope and opportunity for all 
Americans. It is time to unite and pass the continuing resolution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I come to you this evening 
before this body as a strong supporter of a balanced budget, a strong 
supporter of a balanced budget in 7 years. I challenge the Republicans 
to give us a balanced budget within 7 years. Stop this ancillary 
nonsense of cutting every program out there. You go out and you cut 
programs that provide for youth employment, you cut the programs for 
veteran's homeless benefits, you cut programs that look out for the 
Native Americans, for AIDS education, for rural housing, for substance 
abuse, for low-income energy assistance, the Christa McAuliffe 
scholarship fund, all of the Eisenhower leadership grants, and the star 
schools programs.
  You sit there and cut those programs with grins on your faces, and 
yet you are willing to provide an enormous tax cut to the wealthy, you 
are willing to cut the Medicare Program, you sit there, two-faced, 
pretending to the American people that you are for a balanced budget 
when the only thing you are for is gutting the poor, hurting the low-
income people, hurting the senior citizens, and lining the pockets of 
the wealthy.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from asking unanimous 
consent for the gentleman to proceed for another hour, and I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial that 
appeared today in the Mobile Press Register.

              Nation's Future at Stake in Budget Showdown

       It finally happened. President Clinton and the Congress 
     were eyeball to eyeball, neither blinked, and the government 
     shutdown was under way. On its first full day, more than a 
     few Americans shared radio commentator Paul Harvey's 
     attitude: ``The government has shut down. Enjoy it while you 
     can.'' In reality, though, this Beltway tug of war is no 
     laughing matter.
       If it isn't resolved quickly, the man on the street may 
     conclude that neither the Clinton White House nor the GOP-led 
     Congress cares nearly as much about the future of the country 
     as they do about the upcoming elections. In the case of Bill 
     Clinton, who tracks opinion polls like a dog following a 
     juicy steak, the man on the street would be correct.
       Over in the House, though, one-third of the Republicans 
     were elected for the first time in the 1994 GOP landslide. 
     They believe passionately that they were sent to Washington 
     to carry out the will of the voters. Their constituents want 
     them to downsize government, fix welfare, restore Medicare to 
     solid footing, balance the budget and eradicate deficit 
     spending--and they intend to do it.
       They're the ones who are refusing to get drawn into 
     politics as usual, who aren't willing to be bullied by poll 
     numbers or even the threat of losing their Republican 
     majority in 1996.
       This budgetary clash of the titans erupted Monday over two 
     normally routine measures. One was a bill that would have 
     raised the national debt limit so the government could borrow 
     money to pay its bills. The other was a measure to fund the 
     government temporarily while Congress kept working on the 
     regular appropriations bill.
       The president vetoed the emergency measures because 
     Republicans insisted he sign onto their goal of balancing the 
     budget in seven years. That should have surprised no one; Mr. 
     Clinton is always weak when he should be strong, and 
     inflexible when he should be willing to negotiate.
       How can he fail to recognize that this is no mere political 
     struggle? What the president and Congress do now about 
     balancing the budget will define the scope and the nature of 
     our government well into the 21st century. This is a rare 
     chance to step off the deficit treadmill. Results would 
     include lower interest rates, increased investment and a 
     dynamic economy for years to come.
       Without action on Washington's part, before the year 2000 
     we will be spending more each year on the national debt than 
     we spend on national defense. Yet Mr. Clinton stands 
     stubborn, declaring that he'll protect Americans from the 
     GOP's ``unwise cuts'' in Medicare, Medicaid, education and 
     environmental protection.
       Whenever genuine balanced-budget advocates talk about 
     reining in government spending, this president accuses 
     Republicans of ``slashing'' social programs. Such shameless 
     rhetoric is obviously intended to rouse public ire and 
     obscure the real issues.
       Republican leaders are doing the nation a service by 
     holding out for a presidential commitment to a balanced 
     budget. Mr. Clinton is doing the nation a disservice by his 
     blatant attempts to fuel public hysteria.
       White House spokesman Mike McCurry said Tuesday that his 
     boss is ``willing to give up his presidency'' rather than 
     accept the GOP's priorities. That's nice to know; but if Bill 
     Clinton blows this opportunity for government to turn itself 
     around, his ``willingness'' to relinquish the presidency in 
     1996 will be academic.
       A year from now, voters will take care of that for him.

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I represent Hope, Arkansas, and Hot Springs, 
Arkansas. I represent where the President has grown up, where he has 
forged out his political career, where he has gotten votes from 
citizens in my district from years and years and years.
  I want Members to know I am in favor of this balanced budget, because 
those people at home are crying out for that to happen. They want the 
President to know that it is not a question of who we are taking money 
away from as far as the poor and the people who are dependent on 
government, it is who they are taking away from before they get to that 
point.
  The President knows that. He is from our district. He knows that. 
They are saying, almost unanimously, with every letter, every call I 
get, ``Balance the budget. Do not get fooled.'' I am saying the same 
thing. I would like for us to respect the people who earn the money and 
balance the budget for their sake, rather than the people who are 
receiving the money from the government.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House can say that I have routinely and 
blindly defended the President of the United States. If you doubt that, 
all you have to do is take a look at the newspapers this morning. But 
having said that, I want to stand here and defend him from some of the 
things that I have heard this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate, unfortunately, is not being driven by 
policy. It is, in my judgment, being driven by sheer, raw power 
politics. There is no question that the Speaker has been planning for a 
long time for this moment. All you have to do is to go back to his 
quotations in April and May, where he made quite clear that he was just 
waiting for the time that he could load up a debt ceiling or a CR and 
send 

[[Page H12498]]
it to the President, and he made quite clear on numerous occasions that 
he did not care what the price was.
  He made that clear as recently, I believe, as yesterday. I don't care 
what price political parties pay, or what people pay on this House 
floor, but I do care about the price that our system pays when the 
public concludes that what we are doing is driven by raw politics and 
raw personal ambition. And yet that is what the public has concluded on 
the basis of this sorry episode.

  We are in this position because this Congress has not finished its 
work. We are in this position because over 90 percent of the 
appropriations still have not become law, and that has given the 
Speaker an opportunity to try to leverage his position by sending down 
to the President a series of poison pills.
  First, he sent down to the President the CR which the President 
vetoed because that contained the poison pill that required Medicare 
premiums to be virtually doubled over the next few years. The President 
vetoed that. The majority party took a big public relations bath for 
that effort.
  Now you are in the process of trying to send a second poison pill 
down to the White House. That poison pill is to demand that the 
President, sight unseen, with no understanding of what underlying 
assumptions there are. Except for CBO's technical and economic 
assumptions, it demands that, sight unseen, he buy into the idea of a 7 
years balanced budget.
  Let me tell you why I am suspicious of that timetable. Because I have 
been here long enough to see three previous promises broken in terms of 
multiyear budgets. This chart shows the contrast between the promises 
that Ronald Reagan told us, that he would balance the budget in 4 
years, versus, in the red bars, the performance. He promised that in 4 
years we would hit a zero deficit. They missed by $185 billion.
  Then we were told, ``Well, let's try Gramm-Rudman.'' Again, they 
promised in 5 years we would get to a balanced budget. They only missed 
by $220 billion.
  Then they tried Gramm-Rudman II, and again, they promised that they 
would take us down to zero deficit. They only missed by $290 billion. 
So I think we have a lot of reasons to be suspicious of these political 
promises about multiyear balanced budgets.
  Nonetheless, nonetheless, I am willing to support that idea, provided 
we know what your other assumptions are. That is why the recommit 
motion, which I will offer tonight, would have us accept this 
proposition, provided that you buy some of our assumptions.
  Our assumptions would be:
  First, no tax cut shall be provided until the budget is in balance;
  Second, no reduction should be made in education which closed the 
door of opportunity to young people;
  Third, no alterations in the Medicare program should restrict the 
access or quality of care available to senior citizens, or 
disproportionately increase the cost of that care to those citizens;
  Fourth, no money may be appropriated, and no targeted tax benefits 
will be provided, including all fiscal 1996 appropriation measures and 
the reconciliation bill you are about to produce, if they are not 
subjected to a line-item veto which the President can exercise to hold 
us to that 7-year timetable.

                              {time}  2245

  You want us to buy your technical assumptions on CBO. I will be happy 
to buy them, but we want to know that in the process you are not going 
to gut social security, you are not going to gut Medicare, you are not 
going to gut education, you are not going to provide a tax cut, a huge 
percentage of which goes to the highest income people in this country.
  We want to know in short order that your economic prescription for 
reaching that balance is not going to fall disproportionately on the 
shoulders of working people so that once again the richest one-half 
million families in this country can clean up on the gravy train as 
they have done by your policies for the last 12 years. You buy our 
assumptions, we will buy yours.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, 435 Members of this body claim in principle to accept the 
balanced budget, and every break we go back to the Kiwanis Clubs and 
Lions Clubs, and we tell the Rotary Club we want a balanced budget. 
``Of course, I support it.''
  I call this Rotary Club speech versus reality. Tonight you have a 
chance to make that vote. There is nothing to squirm about in this. It 
is just a clean bill. Very simple. Do you want a balanced budget in 7 
years or not? Do you want to get the furloughed employees back to work 
or not? Do you want to leave the gates of old faithful open or not? Do 
you want the social security services and passport services to be 
reopened or not? That is what we are debating.
  We are not debating Medicare. We are not debating welfare reform. We 
are not debating taxes. We know you all love taxes as much as you seem 
to disdain the middle class.
  But this is only a bedrock, fundamental question. Statement in 
principal: Do you want a balanced budget in 7 years or not?
  You know, the previous speaker said that our Speaker, the Speaker of 
the House, had been waiting for this for months. Well, I will tell you 
what, 234 Members on this side of the aisle have been waiting for this, 
and so have the American people. Let us balance the budget and let us 
do it tonight.
  Let us vote for this bill.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not one who usually takes the floor on things like 
this. I usually like to reserve to bills that I have direct 
jurisdiction.
  But I am alarmed tonight at what I am hearing, the restoration of the 
partisanship on both sides, in fact, that does not really fit tonight.
  We have been criticized by the media, by the American people, because 
we have been partisan. The last week in Terre Haute I was criticized 
because I said there was ample responsibility and blame for both sides 
of the aisle here in not achieving this continuing resolution.
  Now, I am going to be critical of you on the Democratic side. I am 
about as least partisan as anyone here and still claim to be a loyal 
Republican. But you asked for a clean CR. I am surprised that this is 
as clean as it is, with one exception, the provision that we have 
almost all of us voted for that we will support to balance the budget 
by the year 2002. That is all this says, that we are reestablishing.
  Tonight, support this. If the President does not sign it, then I will 
say the blame is all one way. And I am sorry to say that.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing 
tonight, talking about the poison. The poison, Mr. Speaker, is the $5 
trillion debt. The antidote is a balance budget.
  The President said on no less than six occasions, in fact, a balanced 
budget is something he wants. Well, all of America is waiting for it.
  This legislation is bipartisan. A balanced budget, according to Alan 
Greenspan, will reduce mortgage payments, reduce car payments, reduce 
college payments, reduce health care costs.
  This is the best legislation for seniors, for children, working 
families. This bill is good for America.
  I ask all Members to vote for it. It is good for America.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, men and women and children of America, listen up, look 
into the eyes of this Chamber, listen to the words in this Chamber, for 
tonight for the very first time in the entire 11 months of this 104th 
historic Congress, the issue is crystal-clear. The issue is crystal-
clear, as it will go down to Pennsylvania Avenue. This issue is 
crystal-clear, as it will go over tomorrow to the U.S. Senate. Does 
this body join the American people in support of 

[[Page H12499]]
a balanced budget or do they not? Is the President going to stand by 
what he said over and over again, or is he not?
  He will have that chance. America has that chance. This is America's 
night. This is America's day. Stand up and say we will balance the 
budget and make sure that the folks on both sides are accountable for 
that, and, most importantly, men and women of America, make sure the 
gentleman at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue hears that message. Call, write, 
fax: ``We want a balanced budget amendment, we want a balanced 
budget.'' This is the vehicle to do it.
  Let us commit ourselves as America has committed us to do and vote 
for this continuing resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The Chair wishes to inform the 
Members that all remarks should be address to the Speaker, not to other 
Members or to those outside the Chamber.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, let me see if I get this right: If we vote 
for the alternative proposal being offered tonight, then we are 
basically admitting that we are willing to cut, or we are willing to 
meet the balanced budget? We just do not want to change our spending 
any? That is a joke. I think we all know that. I think the American 
people know that, that there really is only one way to balance the 
budget, and that is to reduce the rate of growth and to stop spending 
as past Congresses have done.
  Why are we doing this? We talked about poison pills. We have talked 
about a system, protecting a system.
  Well, let me tell you, you cannot go home and hug a system. I can go 
home and hug my four children. This is for them. This is for the future 
of our children.
  The balanced budget means the very lives and future of every one of 
those children just as it is for my children. Put up or shut up. Come 
on, you have got the opportunity to do so. Quit squawking, get the job 
done.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in favor of this clean 
continuing resolution to balance the budget and, as a matter of fact, 
to let Government start operating again.
  I also rise on behalf of 800,000 Federal workers who have been 
furloughed. These men and women are frightened, anxious, and confused. 
Through no fault of their own, they find that they no longer can work. 
Even though they have been assured that there will be an appropriation 
for them in the future, they want to work. They want to continue 
research on the AIDS virus. They do not want to stop looking for better 
educational strategies for our children. They do not want to stop 
developing alternative energy sources. And they want a balanced budget.
  To me, this is so very simple. There is no requirement in balancing 
this budget, the commitment the President has made and will make with 
this continuing resolution, that says he has to have tax cuts in it. 
There is no commitment that he has to follow any of the suggestions 
that have been made by the majority side. He simply has to show he can 
balance it in 7 years using the CBO figures.
  We must do that tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a need to balance the budget. But, what is 
getting lost in the budget debates and the shutdown posturing is the 
fact that Federal workers are human beings--they are taxpayers; and 
they are consumers. They have kids off in college. They buy food at the 
local grocery and worship at the neighborhood churches and synagogues.
  These public servants also want a balanced budget and believe in a 
future for their children--the common vision that we all share, even 
though there are different roads to get there.
  I've been assured by the leadership that action will be put forth 
that would pay Federal workers for any time off resulting from this 
shutdown, and I am sure the President will agree with this. And I'm 
grateful for this commitment, but Federal workers do not want something 
for nothing. They want to work. They don't want to stop research on the 
AIDS virus; they don't want to stop looking for better educational 
strategies for our children; and they don't want to stop developing 
alternative energy sources. And they want a balanced budget.
  Shutdowns are inconsistent with the principles that bring people to 
Federal service. They are contrary to good government management and an 
affront to the taxpayers who must foot the shutdown bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we all look bad on this--from the President to the most 
junior Member of Congress. I hope we learn a valuable lesson from this 
experience, because I never want to come to this floor again to speak 
about a Federal shutdown.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this continuing resolution, 
and I reach out my hand in thanks to the many Members of the other side 
who are going to join us in supporting this continuing resolution and 
making it a bipartisan bill going back to the President
  Frankly, I am stunned that before we had even taken action this 
evening, the President took it upon himself to say that he would veto 
legislation that is going to have strong bipartisan support that would 
reopen the government and, most importantly, establish the principle 
that 300 of us on both sides of the aisle voted for, and that is to 
balance the budget in this country for the first time in 33 years.
  I urge my colleagues to support this continuing resolution on both 
sides of the aisle. Let us send this to the President and let him know 
that we want to see a balanced budget for the first time in this 
country in over 25 years.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill that is good 
for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, a lot of our constituents have been wondering what this 
whole government shutdown crisis is all about. Contrary to the 
characterizations by some in the media and elsewhere, this is not a 
petty, partisan, pushing match between a Republican Congress, and a 
Democrat President over who is tougher or stronger.
  This is a very serious debate over the future size, shape, role, and 
direction of this Federal Government.
  It is about our commitment to achieve a balanced budget in 7 years.
  It is about downsizing and streamlining the Federal bureaucracy.
  It is about returning more responsibility and, tax dollars to the 
States, localities, and most importantly, to the people.
  It is really all about the first three words of the Constitution, 
``We the People.'' The people want a balanced budget.
  The people want a trimmed down Federal bureaucracy.
  The people want us to cut waste fraud and abuse from Government.
  The people want us to re-think, re-set, and, yes, reduce our Federal 
priorities, because they recognize that when the Federal Government 
tries to do everything for the people, it usually fails to do much of 
anything successfully, other than collecting the people's hard-earned 
tax dollars.
  That is what this dispute between the President and the Congress is 
all about. We have invited the President to join with us in our task of 
bringing the Federal budget into balance by fiscal year 2002.
  The President has thus far balked at our invitation on grounds that 
he doesn't want to give up his priorities and programs. He would still 
like to have the American people believe that we can not only continue 
with all we are now doing (and spending) but that we can even do and 
spend more, not less, and still balance the budget at some time after 
he has long left office.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a recipe for disaster. The Federal Government is 
not what will save our Nation and its economy. It is our ability 
through the private sector to create new and better jobs and 
opportunities for today's workers and their children.
  The Federal Government is not our salvation. But it is what is 
standing in the way of this country's salvation, as long as the 
Government continues to spend us deeper and deeper into debt, and 
consume the capital that is so desperately needed to re-build this 
country and its economy.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the differences between this Congress and 
the president are not petty, partisan squabbling, by any means.

[[Page H12500]]

  They are a very fundamental debate about the future direction and 
scope of this Government, and what it will or will not allow the people 
(by their individual and collective enterprise and efforts) to do to 
save this great Nation of ours.
  And balancing our Government's books, in a reasonable amount of time, 
in a carefully measured way, is critical to the success of ``We the 
People'' to save ourselves by our private sector initiatives and 
efforts.
  Let's vote for this bill that will permit the Government to function 
at a reduced rate of spending, while we hammer-out the final details of 
that 7-year balanced budget bill, that will put us on that steady 
glide-path of digging this Nation out of its debts, and putting it back 
on a glide-path of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like very quickly to say that this should not be 
a partisan vote tonight. This is a question of whether or not we are 
going to balance the budget of this country within 7 years. It is about 
the economic future of this country. It is not about a tax cut. There 
is no tax cut in this bill.
  It is not about Medicare. Medicare is not in this bill.
  It is not about a Republican or a Democrat agenda. It is simply about 
common sense: Do we want to leave the country that we received from our 
parents, do we want to leave that quality of life and economic future 
to our kids?
  Tonight, before each one of us casts our vote, close your eyes for 
just a second, think about your kids, your grandkids. Think about the 
generations to come after us. Do we want them to have what we had? Or 
do we want to leave them a bankrupt Nation?
  Think about it tonight. This is the only question that we should 
really consider: Do we want to live within our means and leave a better 
country for our children than we have today?

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 1 minute 
to me, and wish it were 1 hour.
  I rise tonight to ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to please vote for this bill, this CR. I think it is not that 
complicated. We are trying to put our Federal workers back to work. We 
are simply saying that we need to balance our budget, and Members all 
know that.
  My colleagues have all said they wanted to do that in a 7-year 
period. I am asking my colleagues to help us balance this budget for my 
children and my grandchildren, for the 80 percent of the American 
people who believe we need to balance it, for the 66 percent of the 
people in my district who voted for me who sent me here to balance it, 
but maybe most of all for one Federal employee who left a note in my 
office the other night. I would like to read it to my colleagues and 
share it with them and ask them to consider voting for us.
  The note read,

       Congressman Norwood, please don't give an inch to Clinton. 
     I work in the AC shop and I met you the other night. I have a 
     wife and 5 children and stand to lose $531 this week from 
     furlough days. I support Newt and yourself and all others for 
     the current balanced budget. The only Christmas we may have 
     is this bill, but I can't think of a better Christmas.
       Please support this bill.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], minority leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Gephardt] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this bill. 
We are here tonight because we have not gotten our work done. We are on 
a continuing resolution because the appropriation bills have not been 
done on time.
  I respect greatly the work that has gone into this budget. I respect 
the legitimate intentions of the Members in the majority that have 
worked on this. But we have expended a tremendous amount of energy in 
the last days simply trying to extend the government, extend the debt 
so that we could have the time to do either the presentation of bills 
to the President so that we could bring this to a successful conclusion 
or to get the veto from the President, which is certain to come, so 
that we could get to the negotiations, if that is what is to happen 
next, so that we again can bring this to a successful conclusion.
  We are expending energy needlessly on a continuing resolution tonight 
that includes admonitions about the budget in a bill that is not the 
budget. We know that there are many Members in the body, Democrats and 
Republicans, that want to reach a balanced budget in 7 years. This bill 
does not do it. The bill tomorrow or Friday is the bill that does that. 
And we cannot quite seem to get to the main act.
  Now, let me say to my friends, if this is to be successful at the end 
of the day, at some point there has to be a willingness in the majority 
to say that there have to be 100 minority Members who are part of 
voting for this budget so the President will ultimately sign it. For 
the good of the country, I would hope that we could get to that point. 
But many on the majority side have said over and over again, well, the 
only way this works, the only way we will be for it is if there are 218 
Republican votes for the bill. And in fact, some have said we will 
never be for a budget that gets as much as 100 Democratic votes. If 
that is the ultimate outcome, I think then we are bound to argue these 
issues into the campaign.
  I am not unwilling to do that. In fact, I have come to believe that 
these issues are of such importance over such a long period of time 
that the American people should be dealt into these decisions, if the 
decisions are simply yours alone. So at some point there has got to be 
a coming together.
  Let me finally say this: I understand the Speaker said today, 
reported in a news article, and sometimes those news articles are wrong 
and I understand that, but he said that the 7-year number was 
intuition. I respect his intuition. I respect anybody's intuition. But 
I am here to tell my colleagues that this issue of 7 years is a clash 
of values. A budget is not just about 7 years. A budget is about a lot 
of different decisions.

  I am here to tell my colleagues tonight, like a lot of people among 
the American people, I am not for balancing the budget in 5 or 6 or 7 
or even 8 years, if it means decimating and ruining the Medicare 
program that the people of this country have come to depend upon. I am 
not for balancing the budget in 6 or 7 or 8 years if it means that the 
young people in my district and in your district cannot get a student 
loan when they need a student loan to get their education. I can tell 
my colleagues for sure that I am not for a balanced budget if it means 
that we are going to cut Medicare and Medicaid and cut seniors, if we 
are using the majority of that money to pay for a tax break for the 
wealthiest people in this country.
  So I say to my friends on the Democratic side tonight, vote against 
this bill. Let us not put bookends on this decision that says that it 
has got to be my way or the highway. Let us decide in a rational way, 
either through the presentation of bills or through an honest 
negotiation between the parties for a good, sensible, logical, humane 
balanced budget for this country, even if it takes 8 years or 9 years. 
Let us not lock our hands tonight and say there is only one way to do 
this. There has got to be a number of ways to do it. Let us work 
together to get it done sensibly.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the lines are clearly drawn. The other side wanted a 
clean bill. This is a clean bill with one exception. It says all we 
want to do is achieve a unified balanced budget not later than the 
fiscal year 2002 based on the most current economic and technical 
assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office. That is the difference 
in this bill from the bill that they have been saying they wanted from 
the beginning, and all this one does is commit us to a balanced budget.
  On behalf of all the Americans who want the Federal budget balanced 
and on behalf of all Americans who want their government working and 
fully functioning, I would urge all our Members, Republican and 
Democrat alike, 

[[Page H12501]]
to pass a clean continuing resolution that will commit us to a balanced 
budget by the year 2002.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, finally the choice has been made clear: 
whether the Congress and then the President are committed to a balanced 
budget or not. The question is not 7 years, or whether there will be a 
tax cut or not, or whether Medicare and Medicaid will be reformed. The 
question is solely whether the Congress is committed to balancing the 
budget in 7 years or not, and then whether the President has such a 
commitment.
  The issue is really whether business in Washington will continue as 
usual or whether there will be a new commitment to change. To change 
from policies that have left our children in major cities uneducated, 
or welfare system supporting persons in the third and fourth 
generations, our population plagued with drugs, our prisons overflowing 
with people who do not obey our laws.
  Change has come to the private sector in America, and while the 
transition in the post-cold-war world has been difficult, our country 
today is in position to successfully compete throughout the world. We 
have known that it was necessary to change how we organized and 
conducted or business enterprises, to reduce inventories, to lay off 
unproductive and unneeded employees, to do those things to meet 
competitive pressures in the world economy. We have turned the corner 
and today are as competitive as we have ever been, with an economy 
characterized by both low inflation and low unemployment.
  But change in the private sector is not enough. Everyone understands 
that government must change as well. That 40 years of accumulating 
programs to serve narrow constituencies at high administative costs can 
no longer be afforded. That huge deficits year after year, draining the 
future from our children and grandchildren, cannot be tolerated. That 
all the rights we are guaranteed as a free people in this most free 
land on earth come with responsibilities--the responsibility to give 
something to our country, to contribute to solving its problems.
  It's time, Mr. Speaker, that we start from the premise that we are 
all Americans, that we must change business as usual, stop demanding 
that our interests as seniors, or business people, or union members, or 
farmers, or of any group come first, and that we find the way to work 
together to solve our country's problems. We must begin by a commitment 
to balance the budget and put ourselves on a solid economic foundation 
that will guarantee our children and grandchildren the opportunity for 
a better economic life.
  This resolution does that. It puts the Government back to work for 
the American people and commits the Congress and the President to 
balancing the budget. There is no escape for the President, nor for any 
Member of Congress, Mr. Speaker. You're either for balancing the budget 
or against it. There's no question of how, or what spending cuts will 
or will not be made or whether tax cuts are or are not part of it. It's 
only a commitment to do the job. Yes or no. How will you be counted?

                              {time}  2310

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). All time has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 270, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mr. OBEY. In its present form I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk, read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit House Joint Resolution 122 to 
     the Committee on Appropriations with instructions that it 
     report back the joint resolution to the House forthwith with 
     the following amendments:
       On page 9, line 12, strike ``40 percent'' and insert ``10 
     percent''; and,
       Amend Title III by striking the last period and inserting 
     the following: ``and shall be based on the following 
     substantive assumptions
       (1) tax cuts shall be provided only after the budget is in 
     balance;
       (2) no reductions in education shall be made which close 
     the doors of opportunity to young people;
       (3) no alterations in the Medicare program shall restrict 
     the access or quality of care available to senior citizens or 
     disproportionately increase the cost of that care to those 
     citizens; and
       (4) no money will be appropriated and no targeted tax 
     benefit will be provided (including all fiscal year 1996 
     appropriation measures and any reconciliation bill enacted 
     after the date of enactment of this joint resolution) that is 
     not subject to a line item veto in order to maintain the time 
     table for a balanced budget.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is 
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what this motion to recommit says is that we 
will be happy to buy into the idea of a 7-year balanced budget despite 
all of the blindfolds that that implies provided that the majority 
party will be willing to buy into the following requirements: First of 
all, that a tax cut will be provided only after the budget is in 
balance. We do not want any $14,000 tax cuts going to people making 
$300,000 a year before the budget is balanced. I do not want them 
anytime.
  We also do not want any reductions in education which will close the 
doors of opportunity for young people. I thought the reason we came 
here was to open doors of opportunity, not close them.
  Mr. Speaker, we also do not want to see tax cuts that are provided by 
cuts in Medicare and cuts in Medicaid, and we do not want cuts in those 
programs to affect the quality of care or disproportionately increase 
the cost of that care to the citizens who rely on those programs.
  Lastly, we want the line-item veto to apply to each and every 
appropriation bill that passes for this fiscal year, we want it to 
apply to every item in the reconciliation bill that passes, and we also 
want it to apply to all of the tax goodies that from time to time work 
their way into bills in this place, especially for rich friends. We 
want the President to be able, if he indeed is expected to adhere to a 
timetable of 7 years, we want the President to have all of those tools 
available, and we want them available now.

  Now everybody talks about personal experiences. I held a lot of 
hearings in my district over the past months, and the person I will 
never forget is a young woman who was 22 or 23 from Rhinelander, WI, 
who appeared at a hearing of mine. She had two young children. She 
divorced her husband because he beat the hell out of her on a regular 
basis, and she needed Medicaid desperately, she needed to maintain her 
student loan, she was homeless for 4 months last year, and yet she kept 
going to school each and every day because she wanted to make something 
of herself.
  I do not want to balance the budget on the backs of people like that 
when at the same time in the reconciliation package coming down at us 
on that freight train we are going to be asked to make life a whole lot 
easier for the wealthiest people in this society.
  Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely nothing against rich people. I want 
everybody to be rich. But in the 1980's, in the 1980's, we saw the 
richest one-half million families in this country increase their share 
of national wealth from 24 percent to 32 percent. Think about it. At 
the same time we saw the average working person in this country either 
hang on or lose ground.
  We want to change that. We do not want to see the budget balanced in 
a way which increases the disparity--in income and well-being--between 
the very wealthiest people in this society and the folks, the everyday 
folks, who struggle every day just to make ends meet.
  If we are going to listen to the accountants who tell us how we 
numerically pull the numbers together, we also want to listen to the 
folks who will talk to us about the morality associated with these 
choices so that we also pay attention to the need to hold this society 
together. And we will not hold this society together if we continue to 
follow a prescription which asks as its first question, ``What can we 
do for the boys on the top?'' We will not hold this society together if 
we wind up with a prescription that gives table scraps to everybody 
else in this society, and that is what has been happening for the last 
12 to 15 years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this resolution if the motion to recommit 
is not adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

[[Page H12502]]
  Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit, in favor of the continuing resolution, and I yield the 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the distinguished 
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very historic debate, 
and I thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for yielding 
this time to me.
  The Mobile Press-Register had it right today when they ran an 
editorial entitled ``Nation's Future at Stake in Budget Slowdown,'' and 
that is what this is really all about.
  I listened carefully twice this evening to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the distinguished leader of the Democrats on the Committee 
on Appropriations. I really liked his one chart about how past efforts 
had failed. He did not note that he was part of the majority in 
Congress during those failures and that we are different. We have been 
here 11 months, and we are different, and we recognize that, and we 
accept it.
  As my colleagues know, this does not need to be a fight.

                              {time}  2320

  Virtually every liberal who opposed the balanced budget earlier this 
year said, ``We don't need a constitutional amendment. We need the 
courage to make the decisions now.'' You go back and read the Record. 
Virtually every liberal said, ``Vote no on the constitutional amendment 
for a balanced budget. We can do it here.'' And they are right. And we 
are.
  Just last week, 68 Democrats voted for a 7-year balanced budget. Let 
us be very clear, the language tonight says nothing about taxes. It 
says nothing about defense. It says nothing about education or 
environment. All it says, all it says the President of the United 
States, in return for us giving him billions of dollars to spend, 
should commit to a 7-year balanced budget, scored honestly, by the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Everything is on the table. You want to negotiate over the taxes? 
Fine. Let us negotiate. We believe that a $500 tax credit per child for 
a working mother with three children is a good thing. That is $1,500 in 
her pocket when she goes to work. But that is not in this resolution. 
That is to be negotiated. All this resolution says is ``Use the 
Congressional Budget Office.''
  Now, I was here in the minority, I sat right there where the 
gentleman from California is sitting, in the Whip's chair, and I 
watched the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton, right there is 
his first speech to the Congress. And he said to us: ``We should score 
all of these things with the Congressional Budget Office.'' He said it. 
Why? Because historically it was more honest, it was more accurate, and 
it was not under the political control of the President.
  So all we have done is take the President's advice. Now, there is one 
constant misrepresentation I just have to take a moment to comment on. 
It is in the statement of administration policy sent out. And it 
saddens me. It was in the quotes from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett], from the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], from my good 
friend, the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt]. Here is what the administration says: ``Drastic cuts in 
Medicare.''
  Let me say to my friends, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
talked about ``gutting Medicare.'' The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Doggett] talked about ``simply arithmetic.'' Let me give you the 
actual facts, and I am not asking all my Democratic friends to agree to 
this. That would be on the table to be negotiated. But I at least have 
to make the record clear.

  This year we spend $4,800 per senior citizen. At the end of 7 years 
in our plan to balance the budget and save the Medicare trust fund from 
going broke, we spend $6,700 per senior citizen. That is just an 
arithmetical fact. That is just true. You may not like it, maybe you 
want to spend more, but that is an increase per senior citizen of 
$1,900, per year per senior citizen, more than the inflation rate, more 
than the medical inflation rate. In fact the total growth in this 
program, which is 45 percent, is twice the inflation rate.
  When people say the word ``cut,'' it is just not accurate. I really 
wish they would have somebody on their staff do the arithmetic; from 
$4,800 to $6,700 is an increase.
  But let me come back to what is really happening. The President wants 
money. We need to get the furloughed employees back to work. That is 
the right thing to do. We want the Federal Government to work at full 
speed. That is the right thing to do. But the President, since April, 
when I first said we would not accept a veto strategy, we would not 
allow ourselves to be stopped by the power of the veto, the President 
simply refused to negotiate, and as recently as tonight he has said he 
does not want to get to a balanced budget in 7 years. He wants a lot 
more money, a lot bigger deficit, a lot higher taxes.
  We have a document right down the hall called the Magna Carta. It is 
a reproduction from England of the original, created in 1215, when the 
barons said to King John, ``You can't have money unless the people who 
are taxed have some say.'' In America that got translated pretty 
simply: No taxation without representation.
  Then we created the Congress based on the House of Commons, the House 
over here. The Senate was supposed to be the House of Lords, and I will 
not comment, out of a sense of comity. But the power to originate all 
taxes and the power to originate all spending is in the legislative 
branch.
  Why? So that the 435 people elected every 2 years from back home, and 
the 100 Senators elected to represent the States, would have the power 
to say to a President: ``If you want money from the American people, 
there are legitimate, honorable conditions.''
  And tonight we only say we want one condition, and it is not a hard 
condition. Almost 90 percent of the American people want this 
condition. Our phones are ringing off the hook with people who are 
saying, ``Don't back down. Don't give in.'' What is that condition? 
Balance the budget. And how long do we take? I say to my friend, the 
gentleman from Missouri, you are right. Seven is an intuitive number. 
It is based on having spent 35 years studying this business and trying 
to figure out what is the shortest time without causing immense pain 
that we could get to a balanced budget.
  I would say that the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Kasich, has done a 
brilliant job in working that out, and I would say that 68 of your own 
colleagues voted last week to 7 years because it is doable in 7 years. 
Why should we take a year longer than necessary?
  So all I say to all my friends on both sides of the aisle, we do not 
ask you to agree on tax cuts, we do not ask you to agree to a number in 
defense, we do not ask you to agree to a number in education, we do not 
ask you to agree to anything but two principles, that the budget shall 
be balanced in 7 years and that the scoring will be honest numbers 
based on the Congressional Budget Office.
  We say to the President, ``We offer you a contract with the 
representatives of the American people. We will give you the money to 
bring back the furloughed employees. You sign on the line that you 
agree to work to a balanced budget.'' It is that simple. It is that 
direct. It is that American.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I support 
balancing the Federal budget within 7 years. It can be done if we roll 
up our sleeves and work in a bipartisan fashion.
  However, I am not able to support this evening's continuing 
resolution as it fails to provide even the most basic protections for 
Social Security or Medicare. Further, it would immediately cut 
education, veterans' homeless programs, and--at the outset of winter--
the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
  This is not a vote taken in a vacuum. The House has adopted a 
balanced budget that calls for $270 billion in Medicare cuts. I cannot 
and I will not support the weakening of Medicare for our seniors.
  I am prepared tonight to work across the aisle to balance the budget. 
My priorities for cutting the Federal budget include slashing military 
spending, agricultural subsidies, the space program, and Federal agency 
overhead, as well as eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Medicare and Medicaid Programs.

[[Page H12503]]

  I will work with anyone to bring the Federal budget under control, 
but I cannot support tonight's partisan effort.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 241, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 801]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     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
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                               NOES--241

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     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
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     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
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Fields (LA)
     Houghton
     Tucker
     Waldholtz
     Yates

                              {time}  2344

  Mr. RAHALL and Mr. QUINN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was not agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The question is on the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 277, 
noes 151, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 802]

                               AYES--277

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     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
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner 
     
[[Page H12504]]

     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--151

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Fields (LA)
     Houghton
     Tucker
     Waldholtz
     Yates

                              {time}  0004

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

                          ____________________