[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 186 (Monday, November 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13364-H13374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
 CONCURRING IN SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 122, FURTHER 
              CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1966

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 
122) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, 
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
consider in the House a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations to dispose of the Senate amendment, that the Senate 
amendment and motion shall be considered as read, that the motion shall 
be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
their designees, and that the previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.


        postponing electronic vote on house joint resolution 122

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that if a 
recorded vote is ordered, or yeas and nays are ordered, or a vote is 
objected to under clause 4 of rule XV, on the question of adopting the 
motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to House Joint 
Resolution 122, then the Chair may postpone further proceedings on that 
question until a later time or place in the legislative schedule of the 
current legislative day, any may resume such proceedings as though 
postponed pursuant to clause 5(b)(1) of rule I.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House, I 
call up the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 122), making further 
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other 
purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       SENATE AMENDMENT:
       Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

     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;

     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 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.
       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.

[[Page H 13365]]

       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 15, 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 25 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 of complete 
     distribution of funding at the beginning of the fiscal year 
     in fiscal year 1995 because of distributions of funding of 
     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 $16,575,016 above the amount 
     otherwise made available by this joint resolution, for 
     reimbursement to the United States of funds loaned for 
     certain capital improvement projects pursuant to Public Law 
     81-533, as amended; Public Law 83-364, as amended; Public Law 
     85-451, as amended; and Public Law 86-515, as amended, 
     including interest as required thereby.
       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 provided 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 Organization 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.
       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 
     Abandoned Mine Program.

     Sec. 124. compensation and ratification of authority.

       (a) Any Federal employees furloughed as a result of a lapse 
     in appropriations, if any, after midnight November 13, 1995, 
     until, the enactment of this Act shall be compensated at 
     their standard rate of compensation for the period during 
     which there was a lapse in appropriations.
       (b) All obligations incurred in anticipation of the 
     appropriations made and authority granted by this Act for the 
     purposes of maintaining the essential level of activity to 
     protect life and property and bring about orderly termination 
     of government functions are hereby ratified and approved if 
     otherwise in accord with the provisions of this Act.

                                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. DFINITIONS.

       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.

     SEC. 203. COMMITMENT TO A SEVEN YEAR BALANCED BUDGET.

       (a) The President and the Congress shall enact legislation 
     in the first session of the 104th 

[[Page H 13366]]
     Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 
     as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the 
     President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget 
     must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, 
     reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, 
     education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the 
     environment. Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax 
     policies to help working families and to stimulate future 
     economic growth.
       (b) The balanced budget agreement shall be estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office based on its most recent current 
     economic and technical assumptions, following a through 
     consultation and review with the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and other government and private experts.


                    motion offered by mr. livingston

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion. The 
text of the motion is as follows:
  Mr. LIVINGSTON moves that the House concur in the amendment of the 
Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognize the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].


                             general leave

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Joint Resolution 122, and that I might 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 such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment before us now to 
the House Joint Resolution 122 represents the compromise agreement and, 
as I would call it, a contract between the Congress and the 
administration worked out with the joint leadership of Congress and the 
President and his administration to keep the Government operating 
through December 15.
  Last night the House concurred with the Senate amendment to House 
Joint Resolution 123, which was a clean continuing resolution to keep 
the Government operating throughout this day. That action cleared that 
joint resolution for the President and which he signed later last 
night. Today we are considering the Senate amendment to House Joint 
Resolution 122 that would keep the Government operating through 
December 15.
  Mr. Speaker, much has already been said about the language included 
in the Senate amendment on the 7-year balanced budget plan. It has been 
characterized with a lot of different twists, and I would just say that 
there is a clear 7-year balanced budget commitment in this continuing 
resolution. It is tough, it is real, and the House fully, or the 
leadership of this House fully intends to follow through with it, 
according, I might add, to the scoring procedure of the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  The other changes to this continuing resolution that the Senate 
amendment would make are as follows:
  It changes the termination date to December 15; it changes the 
minimum level rate to 75 percent of the fiscal year 1995 levels for 
those programs that are terminated in either House or Senate bills, 
those appropriation bills which have not already been enacted into law; 
it includes the compromise 7-year balanced budget language that I had 
mentioned earlier, binding the Congress and the President to work on a 
glidepath towards a balanced budget by the year 2002; it includes 
provisions for nonessential Government workers to be paid during the 
time of a shutdown, or the shutdown that just transpired; and it makes 
a technical correction to the District of Columbia funding rate to 
enable payment on guaranteed loans which will have no effect on the 
final District funding level.
  The bottom line is very clear, Mr. Speaker. This continuing 
resolution sets in strong cement the agreement that was reached 
yesterday to put the United States on the path to a balanced budget in 
7 years as scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Anything less 
could ultimately lead to another shutdown after the term of this 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution will be applicable to 7 of 
our 13 regular bills, since 6 have already been enacted into law. The 
defense bill is also on the President's desk, and I certainly hope that 
he will sign it. In fact, I urge him to do so for any number of 
reasons, but most particularly he is now working on a peace agreement 
with the Bosnians; and, obviously, this House is already on record with 
respect to its wishes on that peace agreement that we not put troops on 
the ground. But even if he wanted to put troops on the ground, they 
should be paid, and he can effect that by simply signing the defense 
appropriations bill that is on his desk.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be able to get to the foreign operations 
appropriations bill as well as the Interior bill and the VA-HUD bill, 
which we anticipate getting to him shortly. Commerce, Justice, and the 
District of Columbia bills are in conference and we should complete 
them very quickly. That leaves only the Labor-HHS bill, which, 
unfortunately, is still pending in the Senate, and we certainly hope 
they dispose of it as soon as possible.
  We are getting our work done, Mr. Speaker, and we need to complete it 
so that this will be the last continuing resolution. There are big 
issues in these bills that are outstanding, but we will need to address 
them and to negotiate them out so that our work will be complete and so 
that we can continue with the implementation of the balanced budget 
within 7 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, that we 
began last spring.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution represents the beginning of 
the negotiations to get this country's finances back in order and to 
ensure a future for our children and our grandchildren. It gets the 
Government back to work while we do that. I urge all Members to vote to 
concur in the Senate amendment and to pass this continuing resolution 
once again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here under these conditions today 
because this ends a fight which, in my view, never should have taken 
place in the first place. At the time that this fight started Congress 
had passed only two of its appropriations bills, military construction 
and agriculture. During the time that the fight ensued, two more were 
passed and signed by the President, and the President indicated just 
this weekend he would sign two more, which the Congress has now sent 
down to him.
  We still have a long way to go for the Congress to finish its 
appropriations business, but at the time this fight ensued, over 90 
percent of the appropriations required for the next fiscal year had not 
yet been passed by the Congress. Therefore, we had to pass a continuing 
resolution to keep Government open while the rest of the bills 
completed their way through the Congress.
  The Speaker, as we now all know, tried to use that need in order to 
require the President to walk away from deeply held principles and 
beliefs. First, the continuing resolution which was passed by this 
House required the President to accept the idea of a doubling of 
Medicare premiums. The President said no. Then the Speaker told the 
press that the continuing resolution was made more confrontational 
because he had wanted to receive more attention than the President's 
plane to the Middle East for Mr. Rabin's funeral. That Government 
shutdown that ensured cost the taxpayers half a billion dollars. I 
guess we could say that is the most expensive plane ride in Government 
history.
  Thank God that is now all behind us and the Government is again open, 
and this bill will keep it open until December 15. This continuing 
resolution will allow the real negotiations to now begin.
  Next week, Mr. Speaker, the Government will remain open while we 
debate the real issues. The language in the continuing resolution reads 
that it will ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide 
adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national 
defense, veterans, and the environment, and that we will adopt tax 
policies to help working families.

[[Page H 13367]]

  I think that makes clear that the issue has never been whether the 
budget would be balanced. The issue has been whether or not the budget 
would be balanced in a way that unites society by being fair rather 
than in a way that divides society by being unfair.
  I think this language makes it clear that we on this side of the 
aisle, and the President, will insist that Medicare be strengthened, 
not crippled; that the safety net for children will not be shredded 
when they need a doctor; that education and environment will not be 
crippled; that taxes on working people with modest incomes will not be 
raised in order to provide tax cuts for the well-off and the wealthy.
  This debate, Mr. Speaker, has never been about accounting. This 
debate has been about values. We simply do not want just a balanced 
budget. In addition to a balanced budget, we also want a balanced 
society and we want a balanced economy.
  We believe, Mr. Speaker, that fairness is not an ornament. We believe 
it is a core value, and that is why I am delighted that the resolution 
before us today finally, properly, recognizes those core values. We 
will, as we move into negotiations on the budget bill to come, insist 
that those values be respected on behalf of all of the people we 
represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I want to commend 
him.
  As the author of the balanced budget language that was first included 
in the debt limit bill, and then in modified form in the continuing 
appropriations resolution, I want to comment our congressional 
leadership for holding firm to the mandate that the President and 
Congress enact a 7-year balanced budget bill this year.
  My original language in the debt limit bill, read that--

       With the enactment of this Act the President and the 
     Congress commit to enacting legislation in calendar year 1995 
     to achieve a balanced budget, as scored by the nonpartisan 
     Congressional Budget Office, not later than the fiscal year 
     2002.

  In the continuing resolution initially passed by the House and 
Senate, the language was modified to read that the President and 
Congressional ``shall enact legislation in the 104th Congress to 
achieve a unified balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002 
as scored by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.''
  The language before us today, as agreed to by the President and the 
congressional leadership yesterday, reads: ``The President and the 
Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th 
Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 
as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office * * * ''
  There is additional language in the latest version requiring CBO 
consultation with OMB and others. And there is new language providing 
that a balance budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare 
solvency, reform welfare, provide adequate funding for specified 
matters, and adopt tax policies to help working families and stimulate 
future economic growth.
  I don't know of anyone who disagrees with those additional 
stipulations of what a balanced budget should do and will do. The 
important thing, though is that we will now have signed into law a 
contract between the President and Congress to enact legislation this 
year that will give the American people a balanced budget by fiscal 
year 2002. What a Christmas present.
  Let me tell Members this is one tremendous giant step in the right 
direction. I am a little concerned with what I am seeing on CNN and 
some of the television and radio programs this morning, as if there is 
some kind of wiggle room here. Let me tell my colleagues, there is no 
wiggle room. This is a 7-year binding Balanced Budget Act.
  When I look at my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], and how he put emphasis on the agreement, let me read it to 
Members real fast. ``The President and this Congress shall,'' not 
maybe, shall ``legislate in the first session of the 104th Congress to 
achieve a balanced budget not later than the fiscal year 2002.''
  There is no wiggle room there, ladies and gentlemen. We will do it 
within the 7 years as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. 
There is no wiggle room there. No smoke and mirrors. We will do it with 
realistic figures.

                              {time}  1515

  And then it goes on to say that the President and the Congress agree 
that the balanced budget must protect future generations and ensure 
Medicare solvency. That means do not let it go bankrupt, and we are not 
going to let it go bankrupt. Reform welfare. That does not mean wiggle 
room to increase welfare benefits. That means reform this system that 
is a total failure. Also, provide adequate funding for Medicaid, 
education, agriculture, national defense, veterans and the environment. 
That means provide adequate funding for all of those things within the 
7 years. No wiggle room.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do what we did in 1985, when we 
passed Gramm-Rudman with no cuts in the first years, only in the later 
years, and then we never got around to it.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell the President and this Congress, there is no 
wiggle room here. I say to the President, ``Mr. President, this is a 
binding contract, morally. You must present to us a 7-year balanced 
budget, the same as we are going to you.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us compare apples to apples. Let the press look at 
it and let us stand on the merits of the two proposals. That is what 
this does. It is binding and meaningful, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], ranking Democrat on the Committee 
on the Budget.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we end this foolishness that we have been in for the 
last several days, and we get the Government running again. We get the 
debate focused again on how we go about balancing the Federal budget.
  Mr. Speaker, what kind of priorities do we deal with? How do we bring 
the deficit down? Let me speak to that issue briefly.
  Mr. Speaker, I was one of a number of Democrats who supported an 
alternative budget that did balance the budget in 7 years. We balanced 
in 7 years, but we did it in a fashion, reforming health care, Medicaid 
and Medicare in a fashion that did not penalize poor elderly; that did 
not drive millions of people out of health care or, as an alternative, 
substantially increase the costs to State and local government; we 
reformed welfare in a way that was disciplined and tough and workable, 
in contrast to Republican plans that would drive literally a million or 
more kids into poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, we did it in a fashion that enabled the Federal 
Government still to have the capacity to deal with education, the 
environment, and a variety of other programs that we fund on an annual 
basis.
  I look now at the program that my Republican friends bring and at 
their priorities, and what I discover to my amazement is that while 
they have a program that does, I think a lot of bad things to our 
society, they also increase the deficit for the next 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. This Republican program, which does 
drastic cuts to health care in this country, which would drive a 
million or more kids into poverty, which cripples our ability to fund 
education, the environment and other programs, increases the deficit 
for the next 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my Republican colleagues are listening. Let me 
give the numbers. We have had reduced deficits for the last 3 years. 
Under the Republican agreement, it goes up in 1996. For some reason, 
that seems to happen in all plans. But then, again, it goes up for the 
second year, 1997. In comparison to our coalition budget, the Federal 
deficit in 1997 would be $28 billion higher. Not lower; $28 billion 
higher.
  Let me give my colleagues the numbers. Under the coalition budget, 
$160.4 billion. Under the Republican conference agreement, $189.1 
billion. Why is the deficit under their plan $28 billion greater in 
1997? A tax cut.
  So, we not only are cutting at vital American programs to pay for the 
Republican tax cut, we discover we are also borrowing the money to pay 
for it.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we look anxiously forward to the potential to do 
what the 

[[Page H 13368]]
ranking member of our Committee on Appropriations spoke of, to deal 
with a balanced budget that is fair and equitable, but also doing it in 
a fashion that actually reduces the deficit in the immediate future.
  What I would ask Members to do is vote for this bill. Let us get the 
Government operating again. Then let us go on to do the real tough 
negotiations that need to be done so we can get a humane budget that 
actually brings the Federal budget in balance.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I believe this has been an unnecessary 
crisis that, frankly, should have been resolved with the passage of a 
clean continuing resolution on October 1, 6 weeks ago. But for the sake 
of hundreds of thousands of Federal workers, and the veterans and the 
seniors and the millions of citizens they serve, I am grateful this 
resolution will pass today.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the President and the Democratic 
Members of Congress, and the Republican leadership and Members in this 
House for developing a plan that does put people and our Government 
back to work today.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support everything in this new resolution, but 
I would like to point out, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Hospitals and Health Care, one important reason why this resolution is 
preferable to the continuing resolution we have lived under for the 
last 6 weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, under that resolution, sponsored and pushed by the 
Republican leadership in this House, VA health care has been cut by 
$3.2 million a day each day for the last 6 weeks, compared to the 
President's budget request.
  That is $3.2 million a day. VA health care system cuts in a system 
that is desperately struggling to provide adequate care for those men 
and women who have served our Nation in uniform.
  It is my opinion that if the majority party had not been supporting 
huge tax breaks for those making over $200,000 a year, these veterans 
health care cuts would not have been necessary; $140 million over 6 
weeks.
  Mr. Speaker, although I believe this continuing resolution falls 
short in some areas, it is far better than the first continuing 
resolution that I believe was unfair to our Nation's veterans and to 
our veterans health care system. For these reasons, I support and urge 
the passage of this continuing resolution today.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, last week as we were leaving to head home, 
the freshmen in the House met with the freshmen in the Senate and 
passed the baton on the Balanced Budget Act with two key criteria. 
First, that we balance the budget in 7 years; and, second, that we use 
honest numbers in reaching those budget projections.
  Mr. Speaker, I was delighted late last night and early this morning 
when I saw that Speaker Gingrich, Leader Dole, and the President had 
agreed to a continuing resolution that incorporated those very goals 
and committed in writing to be the watchword as we move forward in 
these budget negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say, though, that the key here is that we all 
recognize 7 years is 7 years. We are putting in writing a commitment to 
the American people that we will balance the budget in 7 years; not 8, 
not 9, not 10 years, but 7 years, so that they can take it to the bank 
and tell their children and their children's children that we have done 
our job and balanced the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a goal. This is not an objective. This is a 
solid commitment put in writing in a contract between the House, the 
Senate, and the President of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, we all signed the Contract With America, 
and as freshmen that has been our watchword to keep our word in 
fulfilling our promises to the American voters. This contract is 
exactly the same, and we will take it with exactly the same degree of 
seriousness. It is a sacred agreement to balance the budget in 7 years 
and promise to future generations that that is what we, indeed, will 
undertake this fall in Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that if the President does not agree with 
that, I think, Mr. Speaker, that he should decide maybe to take back 
the words and not sign this bill, because we need to be honest with the 
American people. If he signs it, he should view it as a sacred 
agreement to balance the budget in 7 years.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is a victory for 
the American people. For the first time, the Republicans have agreed 
with the President to protect Medicare, education, and the environment.
  Additionally, while seniors and families were the winners in this 
agreement, Speaker Gingrich has said that the crown jewel of the 
Republican contract, the $245 billion tax break for the rich, is on the 
table for the long-term budget negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a winner not only because it gets the 
Government back to work. This agreement is a winner because it sets the 
right ground rules for the coming negotiations on a long-term budget. 
No cuts in Medicare, education, or the environment. No increase on 
taxes for working middle-class families to pay for tax breaks for the 
rich.
  That is important, because the budget debate is not some heartless 
discussion about formulas, numbers and budget scoring. It is about the 
lives of the American people and protecting what is important to them. 
We need to balance the budget in a way that protects health care for 
our seniors, educational opportunity for our youngsters, and cleans up 
our environment.
  This Thanksgiving, as American families give thanks for the blessings 
of this past year, let Congress work to give the American people 
something to be thankful for in the coming years: A balanced budget 
based on the values that we all share.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  (Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Speaker, I think that a very important compromise was 
reached and that it should be a big Christmas present for the American 
people. Nevertheless, I think it should be very clear what agreement 
was reached and where we are now as we go forward.
  Mr. Speaker, immediately after the agreement, it seemed that there 
were very different discussions or representations to the American 
people about what was agreed to. In fact, that prompted a letter from 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader of the House 
of Representatives, to Mr. Leon Panetta, the chief of staff of the 
White House, to clarify what we are talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks, I will put the letter 
from the gentleman from Texas in the Congressional Record to clarify 
that the agreement which was reached was an agreement that does require 
us to balance the budget in 7 years. It was an agreement that does 
require that we all operate off the same sheet. In other words, that we 
all use the same numbers and the same projections as we discuss 
balancing the budget, that being the CBO projections.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been probably been said many times, but it needs 
to be said again, that as recently as 1993 when the President gave his 
first message to Congress, he talked about how CBO is the most honest 
and correct scorekeeper for our budgets and that the numbers we are now 
using are the numbers developed by the CBO as they were subject to the 
management of the Democratic Party at the time the numbers were 
developed.
  We must all talk off of the same sheet. We must all use the same 
numbers and we must all realize that the act that we are creating 
today, and the law that the President will sign, will commit this 
Nation to a balanced budget in 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous change in the dynamic of the debate 
in Washington. To this point, we have been debating about whether we 
cut 

[[Page H 13369]]
too deep into this or that program, or whether it was a cut at all. 
Everyone has been claiming that they wanted to do it in the context of 
balancing the Federal budget.

                              {time}  1530

  Now we have parameters put to that debate. Now while Members talk 
about balancing the budget, they are going to have to use the right 
numbers.
  Mr. Speaker, we can move on to discuss the proper priorities for this 
country and move us to the prosperity that will come from a true 
balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter to which I referred:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, November 20, 1995.
     Hon. Leon Panetta,
     Chief of Staff, The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leon, I was dismayed by your comments this morning 
     regarding the carefully crafted agreement reached between the 
     Administration and congressional leaders. To the untrained 
     eye, it might appear as though the Clinton Administration is 
     already preparing to break its commitment to a seven year 
     balanced budget.
       On the Today Show this morning, you said, ``If we can work 
     out an agreement that protects those priorities, we can do it 
     in seven years or eight years.''
       That is inconsistent with the language you and the 
     President personally committed to yesterday, which reads: 
     ``The President and Congress shall enact legislation in the 
     first session of the One Hundred and Fourth Congress to 
     achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as 
     estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the 
     President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget 
     must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, 
     reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, 
     education, agriculture, national defense, veterans and the 
     environment. . . .''
       In addition, a White House spokesman said this morning that 
     a ``seven-year timetable for the balanced budget is an 
     important goal, it's an important objective.'' Remember, we 
     flatly rejected your suggestion that we commit to a ``goal'' 
     of balancing the budget in seven years in favor of an 
     explicit commitment to a balanced budget in seven years.
       Words have meaning, Leon. Seven years is seven years, not 
     ``seven years or eight years.'' A commitment to balance the 
     budget in seven years is more than just a ``goal'' of seven 
     years. Past congresses and presidents have embraced the 
     ``goal'' of a balanced budget countless times, and all we 
     have to show for it is nearly five trillion dollars in debt.
       You also said this morning, ``I don't think the American 
     people ought to read a lot into what was agreed to last 
     night. I think the important thing was that we put America 
     back to work.'' I believe most Americans think the important 
     thing was that their Congress and their President have made 
     an explicit commitment to balance the budget for the first 
     time in a generation, not that federal bureaucrats got to go 
     back to work today.
       The American people now have their hopes up for an honest 
     balanced budget in seven years. If the President intends to 
     break this commitment, he shouldn't make it. If the President 
     intends to sign the bill he agreed to last night only for 
     short-term polling gains but with no intention of abiding by 
     it, it would be better for him to veto the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dick Armey,
                                                  Majority Leader.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding time 
to me and thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, congratulations to all of the parties to the agreement 
that brings us here today to vote on this continuing resolution.
  I am particularly grateful to President Clinton for holding firm to 
his commitment to protect Medicare, the environment, and education and 
to scale back the tax breaks for the wealthiest people in our country. 
I believe that the reconciliation bill the Republicans are proposing is 
not balanced at all; indeed, it is imbalanced in terms of its tax 
unfairness in addition to the priorities which I do not agree with.
  For example, in that imbalance a $16-billion tax break will be given 
to America's corporations while there will be a $32-billion tax 
increase for America's families to pay for that corporate tax break.
  In terms of capital gains, our colleagues are strong supporters of 
the capital gains cut. The capital gains cut in this bill, in the 
reconciliation bill is retroactive until January 1, while the much 
heralded $500 family tax credit is only effective October 1, thereby 
making it a $125 tax credit. How could it be that the capital gains tax 
is more important to be retroactive than the family tax credit?
  In light of these and other unfair aspects of this bill, including 
the fact that taxes will go up for working families making under 
$28,000 a year, it is easy to see why when our Republican colleagues 
look in the mirror and say, mirror mirror on the wall, who is the 
fairest of them all, the mirror cracks, because of the unfairness 
contained in their reconciliation bill.
  The mirror and the American people know that it is not fair to raise 
taxes on working families in America in order to give tax breaks to the 
wealthiest people in our country. That is why I am so pleased the CR 
establishes the framework for debate. What are our priorities. It will 
be a statement of our values, this budget should be. How we spend our 
money says what is important to us. Medicare, protect the environment, 
invest in children and how we pay for it should not be on the backs of 
the working poor families in our country.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hobson's introduction mentioned that I am 
a member of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Appropriations. That is true. I think that has given me a very 
interesting perspective on this whole struggle that has been going on 
here now for so many days and weeks.
  I rise in strong support of this continuing resolution which puts 
Federal workers back to work and, even more importantly, commits the 
President and Congress to working for a balanced budget in the next 7 
years. We could have had this agreement last week. In fact, what we are 
voting on today is not really any different than what we passed and 
sent to the President last week. At that time we said we would do just 
exactly what we are doing now, adopting an agreement for a 7-year 
balanced budget with no preconditions. But it was not to be for 
political reasons last week.
  Now we are here and that is water over the dam. It is time for us to 
move forward. What is important about this agreement is that we have an 
absolute rock-solid commitment to have a balanced budget in 7 years. 
That is not 9 years. That is not 8 years. That is not 5 years. That is 
not 10 years. That is 7 years. We have an absolute agreement that that 
is what we are going to negotiate. And it is not just a goal.
  It is not just would-it-not-be-nice. It is not a want to have. It is 
an absolute. It is in a contract with the American people. It is a 
contract between the White House and the Congress that we will 
negotiate to have this balanced budget in the next 7 years. And it will 
be certified by the organization that the President, in his State of 
the Union Address in 1993, said that he wanted because it was the more 
conservative, it was the better of the two organizations; that is, the 
Congressional Budget Office. So it will be certified and the numbers 
will be conservative.
  If it's so conservative, and it turns out we can do it faster than 
that, great. If we can have more economic growth, great. But I think it 
is important for us to understand that all of this is just a 
preliminary. This is the first round in a 10-round championship boxing 
match. This is the preliminaries if you will, if we want to use a nicer 
way to look at it, the preliminaries of lovemaking.
  We are engaged in a long marathon, a long struggle. This is only the 
beginning. Passing this continuing resolution does not get us to the 
balanced budget. This is just the beginning.
  This is simply the beginning of the process that we must go with in 
order to achieve a balanced budget, a commitment to the American 
people, to our children, to the next generation. We are telling them 
that we will not continue borrowing from them. And we know the benefits 
of that, the benefits of lower interest rates, the benefits of 

[[Page H 13370]]
greater economic growth. Those benefits will be with us, and with them, 
for decades.
  Now is not the time to flinch. We must go forward. We must achieve a 
balanced budget and that is what the debate in the next several weeks 
will be all about.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, this truly is a historic day. My Republican 
friends have admitted that once and for all Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, the environment are important. They are no longer intuitive. 
They are no longer subsequent to a $245 billion tax cut. They have said 
that everything is on the table, including that $245 billion tax cut.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the hard part. The differences are deep. The 
differences are very, very deep. As one of my colleagues said today, we 
are only $4 apart on Medicare. But quite frankly, that is simply not 
the case. We are hundreds of billions of dollars apart on Medicare, 
hundreds of billions of dollars that affect seniors, doctors, 
hospitals, medical research, and jobs.
  We are hundreds of billions of dollars apart on Medicaid, affecting 
children, affecting women, and, again, affecting seniors and the 
hospitals that treat those individuals. We are very far apart on 
education, and we are very far apart on taxes.
  We have two alternatives. We have one that would give tax cuts 
primarily to those in the upper income spectrum while at the same time 
raising taxes on the working poor, very much the contrary of where all 
of us want to go on welfare reform. And others who would stand by the 
earned income tax credit that says if you are a family and you are 
trying to make it and you do not want to be on welfare, the Tax Code is 
going to work for you.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a long way to go, but I believe the agreement 
made yesterday shows the American people that both sides can come 
together to get to the table and start the hard work that is necessary. 
We have 75 Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans, myself 
included, who are willing to work together on a budget. We can do it, 
Mr. Speaker, and we can do it to be fair to our seniors, to our 
families, to our children, and to the working people of this country.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this continuing 
resolution. Frankly, as we all have to admit, this resolution is 
basically identical to what the House passed this past week with the 
votes of Republicans as well as 48 moderate and conservative Democrats 
who at that time were committed to balancing the budget over 7 years.
  As a result of an agreement which was announced yesterday, the 
President has now given his word that he shares our commitment to 
balance the budget over 7 years. As we all know, 7 years is not 8 
years; 7 years is not 9 years; 7 years is not 10 years. The agreement 
that we are passing today is a contract that the President has made 
with the Congress, with the taxpayers that cannot and will not be 
broken.
  We have to remember that this contract is not a goal. It is a 
contract to produce a balanced budget to eliminate the deficit over 7 
years. It is a contract for taxpayers to use honest numbers, not smoke 
and mirrors but honest numbers.
  This last few days, this House of Representatives and the Senate have 
passed a specific plan to balance the budget over 7 years. This 
Congress has a plan and a group of moderate and conservative Democrats 
have a plan. The Democratic leadership does not. And the President has 
yet to give us his specific plan on how he would balance the budget 
over 7 years.
  The Republican plan to balance the budget and live within our means 
over the next 7 years accomplishes that goal using honest numbers. So 
we meet criterion No. 1, which we are passing today.
  We also, in our balanced budget act, increase spending for Medicare 
and save Medicare from bankruptcy by spending over $355 billion more 
than we are spending today. Considering we are only spending $180 
billion this year, that is a lot of money. That is a 50-percent 
increase in spending on Medicare over 7 years. We are reforming welfare 
to emphasize work and family responsibility. And we are also giving tax 
relief to working families.
  Congress has a plan. Where is the President's plan? I want to see the 
specifics of the President's plan to balance the budget over the next 7 
years.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I do not have quite the smile 
that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] did, but all over America, 
him lifting his hands and smiling, it is a great victory for the 
American people.
  I think it is a change. It is a revolution. It is where we are going 
to be heading in this country, is to start cutting spending. I was a 
little concerned on one of the morning programs when Mr. Panetta said 
we can do it in 7 or 8 years. I hope the understanding is clear that it 
is a 7-year contract that we are after, and that is what we hope to 
achieve in 7 years.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I was confused. The gentleman said cutting 
spending. Are we slowing the growth or cutting spending?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to talk about 
that. I would hope some day we could have a true balanced budget and 
stop borrowing from the trust funds of this country. In fact, that is a 
real question, has the President and the Secretary of the Treasury 
legally gone in and borrowed $39 billion of increased spending to have 
that money available for an increased debt of this country. I think 
that is something that needs to be examined.
  But let us look a minute at where we go on taxes. In 1993, spread 
over 7 years, we had a 1990 tax increase that was about $280 billion. 
The 1993 tax increase spread over 7 years was $350 billion. The 
question I think we need to examine very carefully is, should we give 
part of that tax increase of those past years back in this balanced 
budget effort that we are proceeding on. I think the answer is yes, if 
we care about the American families.
  We think, we hope the President is going to keep his word on this 
contract, that we are going to do it, that we are going to do it in 7 
years, that we are going to start cutting down the spending of this 
country and let more of that hard-earned money stay in the pockets of 
the American taxpayers.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Flanagan].
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the CR today. I must 
make one observation though, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly hope that 
the President, in working very hard to reach this agreement, and a fine 
agreement it is, I hope that he will also understand that there is no 
``if then'' language in it. There is no ``if but'' language. We are 
going to get to balance in 7 years, he has agreed to, that we are going 
to use the Congressional Budget Office numbers and the resolution says 
that as well. There is no ``if but'' language in there though. We are 
going to take his priorities into consideration unequivocally, 
absolutely. There was never a plan to do anything other than that.
  But with the President's comments yesterday, I am concerned, Mr. 
Speaker, that the President will fall back or retrench into a position 
where if he does not have his way exactly, he will find a way out of 
this.

                              {time}  1545

  This is the business of compromise. We are trying to get to a 
balanced budget, not to do it exactly one way or the other, and I hope 
the President is willing to yield on that point. If he is not, if it is 
such that it has to be his way or not at all, I would hope that he 
would veto this CR as being very much like the one the other day.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 

[[Page H 13371]]
  Obey] for yielding this time to me; and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support 
of the continuing resolution, but also let me make clear to my 
colleagues and to those listening that we are here because, not having 
anything to do with the debate over a balanced or the budget 
reconciliation package; we are here because Congress has failed in its 
responsibility to pass appropriation bills for fiscal year 1996.
  Having failed to pass those bills, and having passed one continuing 
resolution, and still failing to pass those bills, we are now back 
again, continuing until December 15. I support that continuation 
because I oppose closing down the Government. However, it would have 
been much better to have a clean continuing resolution; we do not have 
that. We have a provision in there dealing with a commitment to a 7-
year balanced budget. I support the continuing resolution with this 
language in it because the balanced budget, which we proposed and I 
presented here on the floor of the House 2 weeks ago, does in fact get 
to balance over 7 years with using CBO scoring.
  In fact, if my colleagues read the provisions of the commitment to a 
7-year balanced budget, it also requires ``that the balanced budget 
must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform 
welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, 
agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment.''
  In fact, there is one way that we can accomplish the 7-year balanced 
budget and insure all of those things. It is through the coalition 
budget which I presented on the floor of the House 2 weeks ago. So, 
hopefully, we now, on a bipartisan basis, can start moving to that.
  Let me just point out one additional factor of concern. It is the tax 
provisions in the bill. I am not opposed to tax cuts, but I believe we 
should not be borrowing money from our children's future to make the 
tax cuts. I hope we can negotiate reasonable tax policy, as this 
reflects, but if those, if those tax cuts, increase the deficit over 
the next 2 years, or in fact put us into deficit in years 8, 9, and 10, 
we will be in a worse position.
  So, I urge us to be very careful as we move forward in those 
provisions.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations for all the fine work he has done in trying to get our 
business done, and I know there is always at this time of the year 
people claiming we have to be here in this position because we have not 
got our business done.
  Mr. Speaker, if the President had ever come to the table during this 
whole year we might be home with our families right now enjoying the 
holidays. The problem is that finally, finally the President has 
decided to sign this most historic agreement, and I am just absolutely 
thrilled that for the first time in recent history the President of the 
United States and the Congress has agreed to balance the budget and 
balance the budget in 7 years. This is historic, it is phenomenal, and 
I am just so excited about it and looking forward to the negotiations 
over the next few weeks.
  But I want to get into the language because, make no mistake about 
it, unfortunately the national media has not picked up on it yet. What 
we have here is an agreement, not a goal, not a maybe, an agreement to 
balance the budget in 7 years using honest numbers, and here is the 
language, and it does not say we are going to achieve a goal of a 
balanced budget, or we are going to achieve a maybe balanced budget. 
The language that will be in law when the President signs it is the 
104th Congress is to achieve a balanced budget not later than the 
fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Very 
real. Very meaningful.
  And I want to just touch on the rest of the language because the 
President seems to be saying he has now saved Medicare, Medicaid and 
all these other programs he has been fighting for so long on. Mr. 
Speaker, the language says that, protect future generations to ensure 
Medicare solvency. We have done that in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1995. Reform welfare; we have done that in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1995. And provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, 
agriculture, national defense, veterans and the environment; we have 
done that in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  So I think the President, once we pass the Balanced Budget Act of 
1995 this afternoon, and we send it, the President ought to sign it. He 
will get both. He will get the 7-year balanced budget and all the 
things that are in this language. He ought to sign it, but let me warn 
my colleagues that, if the President does not believe in this, it will 
be law when he signs it, and if the President goes to the American 
people and says, ``Oh, by the way, no, I didn't really mean 7 years, I 
really meant 8 years,'' as his Chief of Staff has already said, then 
the President of the United States should not sign this CR. He should 
not sign it because he is promising the American people a balanced 
budget, and he is promising--
  Mr. Speaker, I just finish with this. The President, when he signs 
this CR, is promising the American people a balanced budget using 
honest numbers. There is no equivocation, that is what this CR says, 
and, if he does not honor that, then he will not only be misleading the 
American people, but he will be breaking the law.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to something the gentleman just said.
  First of all, let me say that yesterday at 1:30, when the President's 
Chief of Staff came down to meet us in the office of Senator Dashle, I 
was very pessimistic that in fact an agreement would be reached. But 
the two compromised proposals that were developed, which the White 
House then took to Senator Domenici, wound up producing a happy result 
for everybody, and I think we all ought to be very grateful for that.
  But in light of what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] just said, 
I want to remind my colleagues that the language says that the balanced 
budget shall be reached by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office. That does not mean that the Congressional 
Budget Office baseline is the one that will be used. And it points out 
in (b) that that budget agreement shall be estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office. That always occurs.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas had also better 
remember, however, that in balancing a budget within 7 years it will be 
necessary, as the agreement says, to ensure that Medicare, or to ensure 
Medicare solvency, reform welfare, provide adequate funding for 
Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the 
environment. Now it is clear that we will not be able to do that on a 
7-year timeframe and still provide the large unnecessary tax cuts which 
the majority party wants to give to people who are making a lot more 
money in this country than are the people whose taxes they want to 
raise in their reconciliation bill.
  So I think we had better remember that this agreement is a balanced 
agreement which will not just balance the budget, but balance the 
economy in society along with it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that whenever two parties 
sit down to make out an agreement it is a binding agreement, words have 
meaning and should be, in fact, honored; and I was disappointed that 
Mr. Panetta, the Chief of Staff, would say this morning the budget 
could be balanced in 7 or 8 years.
  Now is not time to waffle. When this agreement gets sent there, we 
have to place meaning to those words; and doing it in 7 years, and 
using CBO scoring, is exactly what must be done.
  I listened to some of my colleagues here on the Republican side say, 
``Use words such as excited, thrilled, and historic to describe this 
agreement.''
  I have to share with my colleagues that I have somewhat of an 
ambivalence in my feelings here today because I think the American 
people, as they view the work we do here, are probably saying, ``So 
what, we balance our books at home all the time. What's the big deal 
that Congress is now balancing its books?''
  If my colleagues stop to ponder and think about that, they are right. 
Why 

[[Page H 13372]]
has it taken so long to do this? Many view government as how it 
personally affects themselves, whether they are a customer of a 
particular agency or a constituency of particular programs, and they 
view it, self-interest, in nature. But I submit, if we look at it from 
the greater perspective, the greatest threat to the American stability 
in our future as a nation is that of the national debt and our budget 
deficits. If we open the eyes of our mind to the greater vision, what 
we have to see is that we must address this, we must also address the 
budget deficits, and think about this.
  Here is why I have the ambivalence here today. My colleagues can say, 
``Oh, we should be thrilled, and excited, and historic,'' but think 
about this. By 2002 the national debt will accrue from $4.8 trillion to 
approaching $6.8 trillion. Then it is going to take us up to year 2030 
to 2035 to bring the debt into better balance.
  Now in this town, talking about 2035, some would say, ``Steve, have 
you lost your mind,'' and that is part of the problem with this town, 
is according to the emotions of the moment, decisions only for the next 
election cycle; that is the profound difference that has made. So what 
I will share with America, why it is historic and the profoundness of 
it, is in fact we are talking about the long-term vision of the 
country, not some emotion of the moment, not some decision just for the 
next election.
  Pass this.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we were 
able to reach an agreement, and I am equally pleased that we are going 
to be able to work toward a balanced budget in 7 years. In doing so I 
am happy that my colleagues on the Republican side have dropped a 
provision in the continuing resolution that will increase Medicare 
premiums at four times the rate of inflation for our country's seniors.
  But I also have to comment on the workings of last week. When the 
Republicans took control in January, they said they were going to run 
Congress like a business. They were going to come in here and run this 
place like a business. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a business 
in this country that would have done what Congress did last week. There 
is not a business in this country that would send its employees home 
and say, ``We're mad. You go home, but we're still going to pay you.'' 
That, my colleagues, is insanity.
  Mr. Speaker, I also have to comment on the tax cuts. We are hearing 
about tax cuts in the next 7 years. I would like tax cuts, everybody 
would like tax cuts, but each of those 7 years there is a deficit that 
is going to be running in this country, so for those tax cuts that 
benefit primarily the wealthier people in this country, that money is 
going to be borrowed because we are in a deficit situation. The money 
is going to be borrowed from my children and my grandchildren, and for 
them to come here and say they care about the children and 
grandchildren, and then turn around and borrow money from the children 
and grandchildren to give tax cuts to people who have done very well in 
this society is not what we should be doing.
  Yes, what we should be doing is telling the wealthier people in this 
country, ``Once we get the books balanced, once we have no longer a 
deficit, then come back. Then let's talk about a tax cut.'' But to tell 
the wealthier people in this country we are going to borrow money from 
our children and grandchildren, and that is exactly what they want to 
do in order to give a tax cut, is wrong, and we should not do it.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], a great member of the Committee on 
Appropriations and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. I 
do want to say it was the President, though, that sent the employees 
home, and not the Congress. This essential and nonessential is not 
accurate.
  Third, this is a balanced budget amendment that most Americans, 
almost every Member, their constituents support.
  Fourth, it is 7 years. It is 7 years and no more. It is a promise 
made and a promise kept.
  Fifth, I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I want to congratulate the Republican leadership 
for the effort. I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio 
[John Kasich], for his work in negotiating this. I was pleased that 
Federal employees will continue to be paid, in this case, as they have 
been in the past.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. I 
have a question for the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. We 
see Federal employees are now going to be paid for this time period, 
but Federal contractors who have been out working under procurements 
that they earn competitively during this time period are not covered. 
For the work they are doing, the work products for the Federal 
Government, will they be paid for those efforts?
  Mr LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis] that all ongoing contracts, no new starts, but all 
ongoing contracts will be compensated for any work done during the 
outage last week.
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we promised a balanced budget; promises made, 
promises kept.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
Congress is now going to apply the laws made for the rest of the 
country to this Congress of the United States. That did not happen in 
the last Congress. Gifts from lobbyists we have taken away. We are 
cutting our legislative budget. I think we are moving in the right 
direction here. I think that ought to be noted in light of some of the 
comments from the other side.
  Mr. WOLF. To have a balanced budget in 7 years is historic.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, simply to respond 
to the last gentleman by saying we did pass such legislation in this 
House. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it was filibustered in the other 
body by the now majority leader, Mr. Dole, as the gentleman knows. I am 
speaking, of course, about the lobby reforms and about the legislation 
making us live under the same laws as everyone else. We did both of 
those by rule after, or we did one by rule after we were prevented from 
doing it by the Senate, and we passed the other through the House and 
it was filibustered by the Senate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDAZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the continuing 
resolution. I wanted to come to the floor after listening to some of 
the debate, because the question has never been for Democrats whether 
or not to balance the budget; we want to do that. But a budget to be 
balanced must also be balanced not only in its numbers, but in its 
application and the way it affects working people in this country.
  The fact of the matter is we have heard a lot about one side of this 
agreement. I, as an attorney, am looking at the language and saying, 
``but Congress and the President also agree that the balanced budget 
must,'' and it goes on to name several things.
  One of the things it says, it must ensure Medicare solvency. You do 
not do that taking $270 billion out of Medicare. That has to be 
negotiated. You do not ensure future generations in terms of their 
education when you are cutting back on education. You do not ensure the 
environment if you gut the essential programs that give us clean 
drinking water.
  So yes, there is an agreement to have 7-year balanced budget, but a 
budget to be balanced is also a question of priorities, and those 
priorities include the second part of that agreement that you failed to 
highlight.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] chairman of the 
subcommittee.

[[Page H 13373]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let us go back to the language. Let us look at what it says. 
Remember, a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate has 
already voted a program to balance the budget in 7 years. What this 
document says is, ``a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 
2002.'' One of the reasons people are complaining about the current 
Congressional Budget Office numbers is they are too conservative. You 
think a whole lot more money is going to come to the table. This 
agreement says not later than 2002.
  If a lot more money comes to the table, there are going to be a 
number of people who are going to say,``We are going to do it in 2001 
or 2000.'' A majority of the House and Senate has a balanced budget 
already in 7 years. Do not think that you folks are going to be part of 
the agreement if you think what you are going to do is have your 
priorities overtake the majority's priorities.
  This agreement is between the President and the Republicans, the 
majority in the House and Senate. If you want to keep talking about 
cuts, you are not going to be at the table. If you want to keep it at 7 
years, calm your rhetoric just a little bit.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted someone in the White House has 
finally taken the advice of the great Senator from Vermont, George 
Aiken. A quarter of a century ago he said about Vietnam: ``Mr. 
President, declare victory and come home.'' Mr. President, I am glad 
you have declared victory by accepting the Republican principles. Now, 
come home, sit down at the negotiations, and let us get a bipartisan 
agreement. The budget, and a balanced budget, is your Vietnam. Let us 
end that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I think, in light of that previous comment, it is 
interesting to note that until the Democrats insisted there was no 
language whatsoever guaranteeing the protection of Medicaid, education, 
the environment, and so forth, I think those are Democratic principles. 
I do not know what Republican principles he was talking about, but 
those are Democratic principles.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, because this continuing resolution 
supports the principles of helping working Americans, I rise to support 
it. It protects Medicare, Medicaid, the environment, and education 
while balancing the budget.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Ewing]. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] is recognized for 4 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this continuing 
resolution, which is essentially an appropriation, instead of passing 
all of our appropriation bills. That is why we are here. But for the 
inability to do that, we would not be here.
  We have just seen and America has witnessed a shameful shutdown of 
the Federal Government. It was not only shameful because it reflected 
our inability, the President, Republicans, Democrats, all of us 
together, an inability to get our job done. Now frankly, some have 
talked about the CR and been angry about the fact that it was the 
President. In point of fact, the President refused to sign CR's which 
he thought undercut priorities for Americans that he thought were 
important: the environment, education, Medicare, the list could go on. 
In fact, it is included in this CR.
  The fact of the matter is whatever the reasons we shut down 
Government, it cost us money. It could have been avoided. In point of 
fact, it should have been avoided. I want to rise also, as an aide, to 
say that I am pleased that the Wolf-Hoyer-Davis-Wynn-Morella-Moran-
Gekas language indicating the Federal employees, as they have every 
time the Congress has failed to do its job and the President has failed 
to sign a CR, has shut down, that we have repaid, we have paid those 
folks, and that is good.
  But we ought to realize, as well, that this is not a debate about 
commas or dots or even contracts. Yes; it is important that each of us 
keep our word, but it is, in the final analysis, an argument about the 
vision for this country and about people, and how people will be 
affected, how seniors will be affected on Medicare, how students will 
be affected, and their families, trying to get a college education to 
compete in world markets; a vision of how we can best defend this 
Nation and lend credibility to this country's role in maintaining 
international security.
  That is why the President was so concerned about including in the 
language those references to Medicare and Medicaid, to education, 
agriculture, the national defense, veterans, and the environment; 
because in the final analysis, whether we call it a CR or 
reconciliation, words that most Americans do not understand, they do 
understand that when they get up in the morning, they are worried their 
health care and that of their families, they are worried about 
their childs safety as they go to school, they are worried about their 
18- and 19- and 20-year-olds' ability to get a college education. These 
are things that mean something very real to the American public.

  This CR will neither balance the budget nor ensure its balance. What 
it will say, however, is that we will get the Government back to work. 
Then we will deal with the reconciliation bill shortly. We will talk 
about the priorities of the Republican party and the priorities of the 
Democratic party.
  We differ. We differ as to whether there ought to be a tax cut for 
some of the wealthiest, and yes, some of the not so wealthy in this 
country at the expense of school lunches, at the expanse of working 
Americans earning under $28,000 having a tax increase, in effect. That 
is what we are going to discuss.
  The American public, I believe, thinks that is an important debate, 
because they know in the final analysis it is not about CR's, it is not 
about reconciliation, it is not about budgets per se, it is about 
people. It is about a vision of America. That is what the President was 
talking about. Very frankly, I think it is what all of us are talking 
about on both sides of the aisle.
  It is time to get on with that debate, now that we have overcome the 
shameful shutdown, the expensive shutdown, the inappropriate shutdown, 
the unintended shutdown of the Federal Government because we were 
trying to force the President to retreat from his commitment and his 
vision. That is a vision we will now debate. I ask for support of this 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the balanced budget 
provisions and the CR, and ask for a yes vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's men have been making the circuit of the 
talk shows today trying to tell the American people that the words of 
this agreement don't mean what they say.
  Mr. Speaker, the words are plain and simple. When the President signs 
this agreement, he is saying without reservation that he will balance 
the budget in 7 years--not 8, not 9, not 10--he is saying he will do it 
in 7 years.
  Second, when he signs, the President is agreeing that it will be the 
independent Congressional Budget Office that determines whether or not 
the numbers are real.
  Mr. Speaker, there are other words in this agreement. They restate 
our commitment to ensuring Medicare solvency, reforming welfare, 
providing adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, 
national defense, veterans, and the environment. In addition there are 
words that restate our commitment to adopt tax policies that help 
working families and stimulate future economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, these words about our principles and priorities are 
important, and we will do our best to live up to them. But we need to 
be very clear that we are not agreeing to let those words be an excuse 
for not balancing the budget in 7 years with real honest numbers.

[[Page H 13374]]

  Mr. Speaker, nothing in this agreement allows for any excuse. We are 
saying, in law, that we will balance the budget in 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, when we vote for this measure, we give our word that it 
will happen. Likewise, by signing this agreement, the President gives 
his word--no excuses--no reinterpretations--no outs--just a balanced 
budget with honest numbers in 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, if the President doesn't understand it that way, he 
should not sign this bill. And if he does sign it, and I hope he will, 
let's not insult the American people by having any army of the 
President's spin doctors running all over the country in the next few 
days telling us it really means something else. Let's stop the 
political games and get the job done.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has written and passed in this 
Congress its 7 year balanced budget. We've proved it can be done. After 
the President signs this agreement into law making his commitment to 
balancing the budget in 7 years, he should send us a detailed budget of 
his own so the negotiation can begin.
  Mr. Speaker, the time for sound bites is over. It's time for the 
President to translate his principles into specific budget numbers so 
the negotiation can seriously begin.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. 
Livingston] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. 
Mr. Speaker, in the little time I have left, let me close this debate 
by thanking all of the members of both sides for what I thought was a 
fine debate, and I join with the preceding Speaker, the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], by saying that I, too, am glad that we are 
putting the Federal workers back to work.
  The fact is, though, there is a fundamental difference between the 
parties that brought us to where we are. I, for one, was a little 
concerned by the media portrayal which would say, ``A pox on both your 
houses. It is a temper tantrum by the Congress or by the President or 
by one party or another. They could not get along.''
  The fact is that this debate that we have been having for the last 
several weeks is a real, a meaningful, a fundamental representation of 
difference between the approaches, the vision, as the gentleman said, 
of the two parties. For the last 40 years, the Democrats have 
controlled the House of Representatives, and, hence, the legislative 
body of Government.
  In those 40 years, they have opted for higher taxes, higher 
regulations, greater bureaucracy, greater central control, and 
ultimately, less freedom for the American taxpayer and for the American 
citizen in general.
  The Republican, as the minority party, has opted for more freedom, 
less taxes, less bureaucracy, less central control, but we have lost 
the argument until this last year.
  As of this last year, we are winning the argument, and yesterday the 
President of the United States capitulated, yes, capitulated, when he 
said OK to a 7-year balanced budget, a 7-year balanced budget, scored 
by the Congressional Budget Office. He has in effect said, ``Okay, 
Congress. Time out. Let us get back to work. We will do it in 7 
years.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is critically important that we stay 
on the glide path to a balanced budget, that we keep this Congress 
working according to the intent of yesterday's agreement. The business 
is not done. It is not settled. It is not finished. But if we fulfill 
the agreement that was made yesterday, our children and our 
grandchildren will have a fiscally sound country. The people of the 
United States will have lower interest rates. We will find it easier to 
finance our homes, to send our children to college, to prepare for 
retirement. The American people will be better off with less 
Government, less control, less bureaucracy, less taxation, and less 
regulation. I urge the adoption and passage of this continuing 
resolution. I urge the continuation of this Congress towards a balanced 
budget by the year 2002.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan 
compromise continuing resolution that will fully restore Federal 
Government operations and commit the President and this Congress to a 
balanced budget by 2002 using Congressional Budget Office [CBO] 
numbers.
  One year ago we made a promise to our constituents that we would 
bring fiscal responsibility to the Federal Government.
  Today, we are keeping that promise.
  This agreement reflects a long awaited realization from the President 
that we must be serious about putting our fiscal house in order.
  Now that the President and Congress appear to be on the same page I 
am hopeful that we can finally accomplish the task at hand.
  Many will try to define the Federal Government shutdown and this 
compromise in terms of winners and losers. In my opinion, the only 
winner is the American people and our Nation's children.
  With the national debt soaring towards $5 trillion, its good to see 
that Congress and the President are finally able to summon the 
political courage to make the difficult choices and balance the budget.
  For too many years Congress has made broken promises and half hearted 
attempts to balance the Federal budget. Time after time these attempts 
have failed because many have lacked the moral fortitude and dedication 
required to make the tough decisions.
  We cannot continue to mortgage our country's future anymore. I am 
committed to staying the course for the sake of our children and for 
America's future.
  During the next few weeks, we will negotiate in good faith with the 
administration in an effort to balance the budget.
  The challenge before us is monumental, but I am confident that we 
will overcome the obstacles and produce a responsible fiscal agreement.
  For the past year, I have worked hard to restore an attitude of 
fiscal fitness in the Congress.
  I am pleased that our resolve to have a judicious balanced budget 
time-line with specific CBO numbers has finally brought everyone under 
the same tent.
  I am looking forward to the negotiations and urge my colleagues to 
support the resolution.

                              {time}  1615

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). All time has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Livingston].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object on the ground that a quorum is not 
present and make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________