[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13291-H13292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       MORE ON THE BUDGET IMPASSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, let me begin tonight by thanking the staff 
of the House of Representatives for staying so late and giving us a 
chance to address each other and our fellow countrymen. We appreciate 
it. It must be very scintillating for you to listen to all of us. We 
appreciate that you are here.
  It is a great honor and a humbling experience to serve in this body. 
It is something I am very proud of. But frankly, we have not brought 
ourselves very much honor the last couple of days by what has gone on.
  Tonight I would like to talk about a question and a challenge that I 
would offer to everyone on both sides of the aisle as we try to 
struggle through the next couple of days. It must be, Mr. Speaker, 
thoroughly exasperating to watch what we have done the last couple days 
or have not done the last couple days, when you consider the fact that 
there is a short-term question before the Congress and a long-term 
question before the Congress.
  The short-term question is, what do we have to do to open up the 
doors of the Federal Government again and get these 800,000 people back 
to work? Virtually everyone from both parties that comes to the floor 
says they want to do that. And then they degenerate into why the other 
side has blocked them from doing that. And I find it inconceivable that 
535 Members, including us and the other body and the President, cannot 
come up with a sensible solution in the next couple of days that would 
do that.
  The longer term question is, do we want to balance the budget in 7 
years? The answer is an overwhelming yes. Almost 300 Members of this 
institution have voted to do exactly that, not in 

[[Page H 13292]]
symbol, not in political symbol, but have actually voted for a 7-year 
plan to balance the budget, numbers and details. And it must be equally 
exasperating to figure out why that has not happened, why 300 of us 
cannot get together and do that.
  Let me offer a question and then the challenge that I talked about. 
The question is, I have to wonder whether the leaders of the Republican 
Party and frankly whether the leaders of my party at the White House 
really want to resolve this problem or whether they want to set 
themselves up for the 1996 election.

  It is not too farfetched, Mr. Speaker, to think that here is what is 
going on. The Republican Party has had tremendous success in this 
country at all levels of politics by making the argument that they are 
the party of lower taxes and leaner Government and zero deficits, and 
the Democrats are the party of higher taxes and larger Government and 
higher deficits. They have done very well having that argument in 
elections. The thought occurs to me that maybe the Republican Party is 
better served by keeping that argument going through the 1996 election.
  On the other hand, the Democrats have done well in the November 1995 
elections and the public opinion polls would suggest are doing well 
right now with the argument that Republicans are callous to the needs 
of seniors and children and the environment and maybe the leaders of 
our party have decided that we would be doing well to keep that 
argument going through the 1996 election as well.
  I pose the question tonight in all sincerity, without impugning the 
motive of any person in this House or any person in the Government, as 
to whether that is what is really going on, as to whether we are 
engaged in a huge choreographic exercise here that is simply designed 
to lead up to the 1996 campaign so we all have the right themes and the 
right sound bites. If that is the case, we are doing our country and 
this institution a tremendous disservice. Because there are two things 
at stake here that we may never again in our careers have a chance to 
address.
  The first is the chance to reverse a 25-year flood of red ink that 
has put the children of this country at great risk. I believe sincerely 
that there will never again come in this century and maybe not for the 
next couple of decades an opportunity to truly balance the budget of 
the Federal Government. There are 300 of us here in this Chamber who 
are ready to do that. I do not know why we have not been able to get 
together and figure out a way to do that.
  The other point that I would make to you, and I think is even greater 
significance, the credibility of politicians in general and this 
institution in particular was very low when this all began, and it is 
much lower as we stand here tonight. And I believe that what is at 
stake is not simply our ability to put the fiscal house of this country 
in order, it is also maybe our last chance in a long time to make 
people believe that the political system works for them again.

  I stand here tonight, 11:20, after a long day, frankly, wondering 
what is going on.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We are 
friends and classmates from the 102d Congress.
  I want to respond to the gentleman's question, because I think he 
raises more than a rhetorical question. He makes a valid point. I have 
wondered what it would take to forge a bipartisan compromise on a long-
term agreement to balance the Federal budget.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Andrews] has expired.

                          ____________________