[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13306-H13312]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A message from the Senate by Mr. Laundregan, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of 
further conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2126) ``An Act making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.''.
  The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its 
amendments to the bill (H.R. 1058) ``An Act to reform Federal 
securities litigation, and for other purposes,'' disagreed to by the 
House, agrees to the conference asked by the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Gramm, 
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Grams, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
Kerry, and Mr. Bryan to be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

[[Page H 13307]]


      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up H. Res. 275 and ask for its immediate consideration.

                              H. Res. 2175

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Saturday, November 18, 1995, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 
     rules: Provided, That the object of any motion to suspend the 
     rules is announced from the House floor at least one hour 
     prior to its consideration. The Speaker, or his designee 
     shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on any 
     matter designated for consideration under this resolution.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 275 is a straightforward resolution. 
The proposed rule merely provides that it shall be in order, any time 
today, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the 
rules. The Committee on Rules agreed to an amendment offered by Mr. 
Beilenson, which provides that the matters to be considered under 
suspension will be announced from the House floor at least 1 hour prior 
to consideration, and that the Speaker or his designee will consult 
with the minority leader or his designee on any suspension considered 
under this resolution. House Resolution 275 was reported out of the 
Committee on Rules by unanimous voice vote. Simply put, this 
resolution, will allow for a special suspension of the rules day for 
consideration of possible selective continuing resolutions to keep 
vital offices open.
  By passing this resolution, we are attempting to speed up the 
legislative process so that we can reopen the Government as soon as 
possible while keeping our commitment to the American people to balance 
the Federal budget within 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
yielding me the customary half hour and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see this rule come to the floor today.
  This rule permits the majority to call up suspension measures with 
proper notice. I assume they will use this to call up a targeted 
continuing resolution. I hope it will also be used to call up a 
governmentwide continuing resolution that the President will sign.
  This rule means that Federal employees can finally get back to work; 
it means that the U.S. Government will be open for business again as it 
should be.
  It is a good rule, it is a good idea, it is just a shame it took so 
long; the American people expect more from their Congress and they are 
right.
  The 84,000 American seniors and workers should have been able to 
apply for Social Security and disability benefits; 600,000 American 
seniors should have gotten answers from the 1-800 Social Security help 
line; 23,000 American veterans should have been able to apply for 
benefits.
  This should not have happened and I am glad President Clinton has 
taken steps to stop it.
  Yesterday, by Executive order, President Clinton reopened Federal 
offices providing services to veterans, Social Security recipients, and 
Medicare recipients.
  He made sure that this ridiculous Government shutdown did not hurt 
any more than it absolutely had to and today's rule will allow 
congressional Republicans to tell President Clinton he had a good idea.
  Given the partisan rancor around here these days, it is nice to see 
we still agree on some things.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is such a silly situation, it is very 
difficult to know where to start. But let simply say that what this 
rule is going to do is to make it possible for the House leadership to 
bring up an additional continuing resolution today, and my 
understanding of what is going to happen is that that continuing 
resolution will allow three additional functions of Government to 
continue that are now closed down.
  It will expand the ability of the Social Security Administration to 
meet and process its work, it will expand the ability of the folks 
running the Medicare Program to do the same thing; and it will expand 
the ability of the Veterans' Administration folks to do the same thing. 
There is nothing wrong with any of those three actions, and I would be 
surprised if we do not have a unanimous vote in support of them in the 
House.
  But the problem is that those are not the only three functions which 
ought to be released from their hostage situation. So when we get to 
the bill which this rule will allow to come forward, a bill which is 
going to be unamenable because it is on the Suspension Calendar, I will 
be asking to make a number of unanimous-consent requests to try to 
expand the number of Government functions which will be allowed to 
open.
  I do not see, for instance, why Gallaudet University, why that 
university for those kids, deaf kids, why they should be forced to 
close. But we have a letter indicating that they will if we do not let 
them out of the hostage box.
  I do not see why we should not make certain that all research at the 
National Cancer Institute is allowed to proceed. I do not see why we 
should not make certain that the civilians can be brought back to work 
in the Pentagon so that all of the military checks can be provided on 
the 29th. There is some concern they will not be able to do that unless 
those civilian employees are brought back. I do not see why we should 
not open up our national parks so that American families who have spent 
a good deal of money on vacation plans do not have that money wasted 
because of this silly argument on the floor of the Congress of the 
United States.
  So on the next bill that will be coming as a result of this rule, we 
will be trying to expand those functions of Government, or open up 
those functions of Government again. But I must say that I will be 
asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question on the rule because I 
believe that what this rule ought to provide is for the continuation of 
another full blown CR which will allow all of the functions of 
Government to continue while the Congress and the President go to the 
table on the budget.
  Again, I repeat, we have two separate problems here. We have a 
difference between the President and the majority in the Congress on 
what the outcome of those budget negotiations ought to be on the 
reconciliation bill that passed yesterday. The way to resolve that is 
to resolve it not to continue to talk about how you are going to 
resolve it, but simply go to the table and work out the disagreements. 
But the reason we need a continuing resolution is an entirely separate 
reason, and that is because this Congress has only passed at this point 
4 of the 13 appropriation bills necessary to keep the Government open.
  Mr. Panetta, the President's Chief of Staff, has just asked me by 
telephone to ask the Congress to send down to the White House the 
Legislative appropriations bill and the Treasury-Postal bill. They will 
sign them. That will make 6 bills out of the 13 that will have crossed 
the congressional finish line. But we still have the Interior bill, the 
Foreign Operations bill, the Veterans-HUD bill, the Defense bill, the 
District of Columbia bill, the Commerce- Justice-State, and the Labor-
HHS bill that have not gotten through the congressional process.
  The President is not holding those up. The Congress is. In most 
instances, it is because there is an argument between Republican 
Members in the House and Republican Members in the Senate, who control 
both bodies, about what the content of those bills ought to be.

[[Page H 13308]]

  So I would suggest the simple way is for us to simply defeat the 
previous question on the rule, go back and get another rule, go back 
and send to us another continuing resolution on the House floor so that 
we can open up all of Government so that we do not continue to look 
like a bunch of silly children who are tying to dictate what the 
other's negotiating position ought to be.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, all the comments the preceding speaker made 
over 5 minutes, I can summarize it in less than a sentence. That is, we 
could have avoided it all if the President of the United States would 
agree to balance the budget of this country in 7 years.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I know we are in a hurry, but I heard the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] say that in effect, all we are doing in 
this CR is to ratify what the President has already done. In fact, that 
is not the case. The President issued an Executive order, and I am 
particularly concerned in the area of the veterans, but all his 
Executive order did was to authorize the processing of new claims. He 
could not send out the checks, he argued.
  We have checked with the Veterans' Administration. They argue that 
without this CR they cannot send out the veterans benefit checks. It is 
wrong for us to hold them hostage. It does not matter how much more 
should be done or what arguments we might make. This needs to be done 
on behalf of the veterans of this Nation.
  It is in fact a legal dispute as to whether or not the President has 
the authority as a veterans entitlement to send those checks out 
without us doing a CR. That is a disputed point. Had I been the 
President, I would have opted in favor of the veteran and said, ``Send 
those checks out, let's do it.'' In fact the Veterans' Administration 
has said, ``No, we aren't going to do that without Congress authorizing 
it.'' Therefore, we have come back with this CR, which is very much 
needed for the veterans of our country.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 second to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply respond to the previous speaker by saying 
nobody objects to opening those functions. You are going to see 
virtually every single one of us for the opening of those functions. We 
want you to open more of them. We want you to let all of the Government 
workers go. We do not want you to continue to hold any hostages.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I was responding to Mr. Moakley's comment that the 
President has resolved the situation. He has not. This is necessary.
  Mr. OBEY. But you said, Mr. Speaker, taking back my time, that we 
were continuing to try to hold these people hostage. We want you to let 
them go.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I would say again that if veterans are 
being held hostage, it is not this Congress that is doing it. We have 
checked with legal experts who say this is a disputed point as to 
whether or not the President has the authority to order this as a 
veteran entitlement and have the checks go out on time. He has opted 
not to do that. We are, therefore, going to solve the problem with this 
CR so that there is no question those checks will go out in a timely 
manner.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine [Mr. Baldacci].
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I know that a lot of discussion has gone 
on in regards to balancing the budget. Everybody is for balancing the 
budget. Nobody is arguing that point. But what the American people 
really need to do is ask my colleagues on the other side, ``Well, how 
are you balancing the budget?''
  You are cutting Medicare by $270 billion over 7 years. You are 
cutting student financial aid by almost $10 billion over 7 years. You 
are cutting the Medicaid Program by $182 billion over 7 years. And you 
are providing tax breaks to people who are earning over $100,000; they 
are going to get a check back for $8,000 and people who are making 
under $30,000 will get a check back for $127.
  That is how you are balancing the budget.
  I supported a balanced budget amendment that the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise] had offered. I had supported Mr. Stenholm's 
balanced budget in 7 years. I also supported the Coalition substitute 
budget for a balance in 7 years. But there were no tax breaks in that 
proposal.
  What the American people need to know beyond the glitz of a balanced 
budget, for or against, is, ``Well, how are you proposing to do it?''
  I submit to the members of the American public that when you ask my 
colleagues on the other side, that is when you notice the questions and 
the responses will not be as loud as the rhetoric on ``I support a 
balanced budget''----
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BALDACCI. Because what they are proposing to do is they are 
proposing to increase taxes on working people.
  We have an earned income tax credit program where people who are the 
waiters and waitresses and the cooks and dishwashers who are working 
and struggling to stay off assistance are not going to have that earned 
income tax credit so that they can continue to stay working.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield for a question about working 
people?
  Mr. BALDACCI. No, I will not. Thank you very much.
  As we talk about moving people off welfare to work, we are taking 
away the tools from people to go to work.
  When you talk about educational opportunities for the young people, 
when you are talking about the future and the computers and cyberspace, 
you are cutting student financial aid. There are 30,000 students in my 
State alone that depend upon guaranteed student financial aid so that 
they can go----
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield for a question on financial 
aid?
  Mr. BALDACCI. No. But if the Speaker would tell the gentleman to stop 
interrupting me, I would appreciate it.
  Mr. Speaker, could I have order in the House, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is correct. The 
House will be in order.
  The gentleman from Maine is entitled to be heard.
  The gentleman from Maine may proceed.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, there are 30,000 young people in my State 
that their only opportunity is a college education. That is their only 
dream in the world, is to have that college education. But my 
colleagues on the other side are going to make it more difficult and 
more expensive for them to go to college.

                              {time}  1030

  It is not going to be 4 years to go to college, it is going to be 5 
and 6 because they are going to have to work while they are in college. 
That is what we need to do. That is what we need to address.''
  So if the President of the United States is going to be blackmailed 
into supporting a continuing resolution that supports the scheme of 
balancing the budget on the backs of working people, on the backs of 
seniors, in my State alone there are people who are struggling for 
their prescription drugs. The seniors in my State have to cut the 
prescription drugs up because they cannot afford to take it all at one 
time.
  What we are doing is we are cutting Medicaid because in my State that 
provides for the prescription drug program. So when you are hearing 
people on this floor talking about a balanced budget, I support a 
balanced budget, but I do not support it the way the majority wants to 
accomplish it.
  That is what the President of the United States have been talking 
about. It hurts the seniors. It hurts the children. I hurts the people 
who are struggling. That is what this fight is about. This is not about 
government as usual.
  My colleagues on the other side are trying to roll back the 
environmental 

[[Page H 13309]]
standards. They are trying to roll back the educational opportunities. 
And they are trying to roll back the standards in nursing homes to 
protect our seniors.
  I would submit to you that the President and the majority on this 
side are trying to move forward. They are trying to go forward into the 
future in providing a bright future for all of our young people and all 
of our seniors because we are not any stronger at all unless we all 
move forward together. That is what this country was founded on, and 
those are the responsibilities that we assumed when we swore to the 
oath as we were new Members of Congress. To allegiance to the country 
of the United States of America.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like the preceding speaker, he spoke 
for 5 minutes to go back to the mircophone. I would be happy to yield 
him 5 seconds to say to the American people that he has a balanced 
budget plan that will balance the budget in 7 years without raising 
taxes on the American people.
  I would also like the gentleman, on his own time, to come back up to 
the American people while he talks about the 30,000 young people in his 
State, what about the Federal debt on those young people, what about 
the deficit this country is facing, what about the $30 million an hour 
that this Government spends more than it brings in, spends $30 million 
more?
  Let me ask the gentleman, what about the child born today who faces 
$180,000 on their lifetime earnings just paying interest on the Federal 
debt? When is the gentleman going to help this country get out of this 
fiscal insanity? One-seventh of the Federal Government's budget goes to 
pay interest on the debt. So it is easy, very easy.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Is the gentleman 
going to yield to me?
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask for order in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The House will be 
in order. The gentleman from Colorado has the time and can decide 
whether or not to yield.
  Mr. BALDACCI. The gentleman wanted to ask me a question.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask for order in the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman 
from Maine will suspend. The gentleman from Colorado has the time and 
does not choose to yield.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this discussion today on 
the House floor at this point in time is on the rule. The gentleman 
from Maine decided to utilize this time to go through a 5-minute 
problem of what we face in this country, but the biggest problem that 
the gentleman from Maine failed to refer to is the deficit that this 
country faces.
  We have a lot of people, and, frankly, we have people on both sides 
of the aisle who are committed, committed, not as a goal but committed 
to balancing this budget in a 7-year period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Colorado.


                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Maine rise?
  Mr. BALDACCI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I had thought the gentleman had asked me 
questions and was going to provide 5 seconds for me to respond.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not state a proper 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. BALDACCI. My parliamentary inquiry is, if questions are posed to 
me, do I have an opportunity to respond to those?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has control of 
the time. If he chooses not to yield, he does not need to do so.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Did you yield me time to respond?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few statements 
because I asked for time when someone else controlled it, and he was 
not willing to take on a couple of questions.
  One of the preceding speakers talked about an antipathy, an animus 
toward letting the American people hang on to more of their hard-earned 
money. He did not degree with the notion of tax cuts. He said this new 
majority was cutting the earned income tax credit for working 
Americans, for those lower income Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know and as the facts reflect, the earned income 
tax credit funding increases by some 43 percent.
  Then another speaker earlier said that this new majority was intent 
on cutting student loans. Mr. Speaker, the record reflects that the new 
majority is offering a $6 billion increase over the next 7 years in the 
student loan program.
  Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the rhetoric needs to square with the 
facts, and when we talk about working people, it is interesting that 
the President of the United States, in the State of the Union Message, 
stood at this podium and defined working Americans as those making 
under $70,000 a year. I do not know by what barometer working Americans 
have to make $70,000 a year or less. I find it very curious.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear about what is going on 
here. First of all, I would say to the prior speaker with regard to 
earned income tax credit, the earned income credit has been eliminated 
for families without children. Now, if you do not call that a cut for 
those folks, I do not know what you call a cut. So it has been 
eliminated, eliminated, done, finished, for families who do not have 
children. There is a cut in the earned income tax credit.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona says it is not a 
cut. Then how come in their budget they count money from the EITC 
toward balancing the budget? Is that Washington-speak reform?
  Ms. DeLAURO. Just one more sham.
  Let me tell you what this is about. It is not about a balanced 
budget. That is not what the issue is about today. It is about holding 
the President of the United States hostage to a set of Republican 
budget assumptions which say that what we ought to do is to cut $270 
billion in Medicare, throw senior citizens in this country in disarray 
and provide devastating cuts, increase their premiums, and deny them 
their choice of doctors. That is what they want to do. They want to cut 
Medicaid, which allows nursing home coverage. That is one issue, one 
area that this is about, and holding the President hostage.
  The President is right. The President is absolutely right in saying 
``no'' to $270 billion in Medicare cuts, ``no'' no to the slashing of 
education benefits for our young people.
  I do not know how all of you got to school. I went to school with 
student loans. We are about to cut student loans and deny working 
middle-class families in this country the opportunity to send their 
kids to school.

  They would like to hold the President hostage on those assumptions. 
The President has said ``no'' to that. He is right to do it.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask a question, and you are 
talking about the tax cuts of $270 billion. The gentleman here says 
that is not a tax cut. But it is strange to me.
  What is strange to me under CBO scoring, if you do not get the $270 
billion cuts in Medicare, you cannot have the $240 billion in tax cuts. 
So you have got to take it from somebody to give it to somebody else 
regardless of who you give it to. Whether they make $10,000 or $15,000 
or $20,000 or $30,000 a year, it is a cut.

[[Page H 13310]]

  The bottom line is you are going to cut $270 billion from the most 
vulnerable people in this country and you are going to give it away. If 
you were going to do that, why not put it to the deficit?
  Ms. DeLAURO. That is a tax break for the wealthiest Americans in this 
country. That is what this budget is about.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and before I yield time to my colleague down here, I would like to just 
say, after hearing the preceding speaker, it is kind of, and I will 
give an example, it is like going to your employer. Let us say you make 
$5 an hour and you go to your employer and you say, ``I would like a 
pay raise to $10.'' Your employer says, ``Well, I am going to raise you 
$2. I am going to give a pay raise from $5 to $7 an hour.'' You say, 
``No. I want $10.'' He says, ``No. I am going to get you to 7.'' You go 
out to your other employee and you say, ``Hey, hey, I got a pay cut of 
$3 an hour.''
  We are not cutting Medicare. We are increasing Medicare. We are not 
cutting student loans. We are increasing student loans.
  In regard to that, I will give you specific numbers. I will give you 
every reason in the book why this President should agree to balance the 
budget in this country within a 7-year period of time, why this 
President should agree to this budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am listening to this debate, and I cannot stand it. I 
cannot stand when I hear someone say we all want to balance the budget. 
If we all wanted to balance the budget, the budget would be balanced.
  When Members say we all want to balance the budget and then talk 
about all the cuts they do not want and do not talk where they are 
willing to make reductions to slow the growth in spending or to cut 
programs we do not need, I cannot stand it.
  We are, in fact, allowing this budget to grow. When I heard Members 
on that side say we are cutting EITC, the earned income tax credit, it 
is going from $19 to $25.5 billion. Only in this place when you spend 
more money do people call it a cut.
  When they say we are cutting the school lunch program and it is going 
from $6.3 to $7.8 billion, that is an increase, not a cut.
  When I hear people particularly say we are cutting the student loan 
program, it is going from $24.4 to $36 billion. It is growing 50 
percent. The number of students in the next 5 years is growing from 6.7 
million students to 8.4 million students.
  Only in this place, in this town, when you spend 50 percent more, do 
they call it a cut.
  Medicaid, it is $89 billion today. It is growing to $127 billion. In 
this town, that is a cut? Only here.
  Then, in Medicare, it is going from $178 to $289 billion. That is not 
a cut. It does not even come close to being a cut. That is a 
significant increase.
  Get a life.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is especially important because it seems to 
me that during this discussion that we should be holding on the rule, 
that instead we are having some speakers up here who are trying to 
scare the senior citizens, who are trying to scare students out there 
about their student loans, who are trying to scare the general 
population. I think the scariest thing we have got out there is this 
Federal deficit which is accumulating at a rate of $30 million an hour.
  I think the people in America are prepared to assist us in balancing 
this budget. I think the people in America understand that we are not 
cutting programs but that we are reducing the rate of growth there in 
programs.
  I think the people of America want to preserve the economics of this 
country for the next generation and the next generation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get the Government working again. We are not 
holding the President hostage to tax cut or Medicare cuts. Everything 
is on the table right now. Everything is on the table.
  Medicare is not being cut. It goes up 6.3 percent annually, every 
year, under this proposal, from $4,800 a year per beneficiary to $6,700 
a year per beneficiary over a 7-year period.
  But if you do not like our plan, let us see your plan to balance the 
budget. If you do not like the tax cuts, let us do it without the tax 
cut, but let us work together. Work to balance the budget in 7 years, 
and let us get the CBO to score it. It has been nonpartisan for year.
  Let us send the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill up the President 
and get 100,000 more people working again. We can do this today. We can 
have these people back to work by Monday.
  The District of Columbia Government should not be shut down because 
of our inability to get this signed by the President.
  We ought to do something for them and get them back with their own 
money. We should not hold them hostage. We ought to be ashamed of 
ourselves. Let us pass this rule. Let us move ahead.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say, my colleague from Virginia is right. There 
is a reason why we are in session today, and there is a reason why the 
Government is shut down, and it has a lot to do with the new majority 
that my freshman colleagues from the other side of the aisle talk 
about.
  Here are the facts. First of all, this Congress, controlled by the 
Republican majority in both Houses, has only passed 4 of 13 
appropriations bills. Those are the bills that are supposed to be 
passed by October 1. Had those bills been passed, sent to the White 
House, and signed into law, almost 2 months ago, we would not be doing 
this today. We would not be talking about a shutdown of Government. 
Because this is how Government is shut down. They are funded through 
the appropriations bills.
  Second, the Republicans are holding up the continuing resolution. In 
fact, the continuing resolution that was adopted by this House the 
other day that we hear so much about, to my knowledge, is still sitting 
in the Senate and has not even been sent to the President for him to 
either sign or veto as he should choose.
  The fact is the reason why you cannot pass a clean CR is because you 
want to put a 7-year requirement. We can sit down, like my colleague 
from Virginia said, and talk about whether we want to get to a 7-year 
balanced budget. I voted for one. There are differences. But it has 
nothing to do with the CR. What it has to do with is the bill that this 
House adopted yesterday, the reconciliation bill.
  So why are you trying to put it in this bill when you have adopted 
another bill to do it? Is it because you are holding the Government 
hostage? Is it because it is either your way or no way?
  Yes, that is what it is. It has nothing to do with appropriations. So 
you are muddling up an appropriations bill with what should be in a 
reconciliation bill. The facts are very, very clear.
  Now, there is a bipartisan way to get there. Quite frankly, I do not 
think the new Republican majority wants to do it. They are in a bind. 
They are in a bind because they do not have the votes to pass their 
version. They do not want any other version. They want a version that 
cuts $270 billion out of Medicare, $140 out of Medicaid, and gives a 
$245 billion tax cut.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the problem and that is why we are here.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I think the gentleman's inquiries deserve some type of response.
  First of all, the question is why does the continuing resolution have 
such an onerous requirement that the President of the United States 
ought to commit to balancing the budget of the country within a 7-year 
period of time? I would suggest that the gentleman look at the TV 
commercial right now going on on at least five or eight different 
times. The President of this 

[[Page H 13311]]
country has on each of those different occasions given a commitment, 
commitment, to the American people to balance the budget. The first 
time was when he was running for office, 5 years, then it went to 10 
years, then back to 7 years, then to 8 years, and who knows what.
  All we are asking for is a commitment in writing. Talk is cheap. The 
American people want a commitment in writing from us, which we just 
gave on the continuing resolution, and I say proudly it was bipartisan; 
48 Democrats joined us in that. We gave our word in writing to this 
country we will balance the budget in 7 years.
  I think it is fair, and I think it is appropriate, that we ask the 
President of the United States to give his commitment in writing that 
this country will have a budget balanced, not as a goal but as a 
commitment, within a 7-year period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, briefly I would like to say that we have 
been doing our job here. We voted about 800 times last year; the entire 
Congress only voted 507 times. By trying to work with the President, we 
have been wasting our time, and that is why we have not been successful 
in getting our appropriations bills through.
  We see the confusion of the American people when people talk about 
cuts in Medicare. When it goes from $4,800 to $6,700, that is not a 
cut. We are not balancing the budget on the backs of working people or 
senior citizens. That is what the Clinton tax burden did in 1993. It 
increased taxes on the working people through the gas tax and the poor. 
That is who pays the most for gas taxes. It increases taxes on Social 
Security. Mr. President did that.
  But what we are trying to do here is relieve some of that burden. We 
are trying to reduce taxes on working people, on people with children, 
and we are also trying to preserve and protect Medicare. But the real 
fundamental issue here is can you balance the budget in 7 years.
  We are tired of the dance. The music is playing. Let us dance to the 
music. The American public wants a balanced budget. I think this has 
been playing on for such a long time we are going to hear it over and 
over again. The real issue here is are you going to balance the budget 
in 7 years.
  Now, there has been talk about a little leverage, play room, maybe 
not quite 7 years. For 26 years we have been hearing this about we 
cannot quite do it this time, we are going to have to do it some other 
way, we are going to have to wait awhile. The American people want us 
to draw a finite line, say we are going to balance the budget, and 7 
years is an optimal time. It is the time when we can do it with the 
least amount of discomfort.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman complaining a while 
ago about the tax increases of 1993. Would you believe that none of 
those taxes are repealed in your tax bill this year. Not a single one. 
I do not know what you are bellyaching about.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what we are trying to do 
here is relieve people who have children, relieve seniors, trying to 
get them back to work, become actively involved. The President has 
failed to balance the budget in 7 years. He has even failed to agree to 
it. I support the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 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, we have been hearing roughly the same debate 
and good speeches now on both sides of the aisle for about 11 months. 
Where are we today, on a Saturday, about 45 days after we should have 
had a budget for the American people?
  Well, we have the government shut down; we have hard working people 
throughout America that have saved all year long that are going on 
vacations, and the parks are closing; we have people working hard in my 
district making the HMMWV, one of the best Jeep vehicles for the 
military, and because the defense contracting agencies are shut down, 
they may start to be laid off next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are sending us the message 
that it is time for us to open the government up and to sit down and 
negotiate, to negotiate, and not talk about Air Force One, and who 
played hearts for how long, or what person was told to get off what 
exit of Air Force One.
  Mr. Speaker, let us get off of personalities and get on to 
negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton], a Republican 
from Michigan, and I have language to try to get this government moving 
in the right direction again. We have 90 Republicans and Democrats that 
are trying to move forward on a CR that will give us some negotiating 
room to get this government open again in a bipartisan way.
  If the leadership will not talk to each other, maybe it takes the 
grassroots here to get government moving in the right direction again. 
But I think the American people are losing their patience for a 
government and a Congress that will not work together to solve the 
Nation's biggest problem, and that is trying to balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to begin to work together in a 
bipartisan way. If Mr. Rabin could have talked to Mr. Arafat one year 
ago, I think that Republicans and Democrats can talk to each other in 
Washington, DC.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, speech after speech today from the Democrat 
Party has one central theme: Not that of balancing the budget, but a 
theme of fear. Scare your grandmother, scare your child, scare your 
fellow Democrat; that if this fear mongering does not work, we will not 
be reelected.
  Now, let us examine the low income housing credit which they claim to 
be champions of on behalf of the poor. What do they really use it for?
  Now, Democrats, I want you all to watch this, because I think it 
might make you squirm a little bit in shame. Here is what you know you 
are doing on franked, taxpayer expenses. You send out this letter. And 
it says, and this is shocking to me, ``Put some extra money in your 
pocket with the earned income tax credit. You may be eligible for as 
much as $2,258 a year back. Come clean, your money.''
  Then it goes on, ``Even if you do not owe income taxes, you can get 
EIC.''
  I want to ask you Democrats, how many of you do not do this? Raise 
your hand.
  Very few hands go up on the Democrat side. That is very interesting 
to me, very interesting. And I appreciate the honesty of the fact that 
only three or four of you are not doing this.
  I would like us to say if we do restore the earned income tax credit, 
I would love your side to take a pledge that you will not be sending 
out such a shameless flyer on taxpayer expense. If you would take this 
pledge not to abuse the franking privilege in this way----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I guess I got your attention, and I will be glad 
to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Are you saying every Democrat sent that out? 
I did not send it out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Florida 
will suspend. The gentleman from Georgia has the time. The gentleman 
will suspend.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, I asked the Democrats who 
were not doing this to raise their hands. Not many hands were raised.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia will suspend. The 
House will be in order. The House can conduct its business with better 
decorum than that. The gentleman from Georgia will suspend until the 
House is in order. The gentleman from North Carolina will suspend until 
the House is in order. The gentleman from Georgia has the floor.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H 13312]]

  Mr. KINGSTON. I will be glad to yield for a quick question to the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Well, you know, sending out these flyers, what you have 
done, you have let the people who are going to get the big tax breaks 
sit in on the committee markups. Which is the worse?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my question was 
simple. How many of you all do this at taxpayer expense, and how many 
of you will pledge to stop doing it? That is all my question is. I 
think this is an abuse of the franking privilege. You can read that in 
the Congressional Record. I have already gone over it. But I say it is 
time we stop this.

                          ____________________