[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14966-H14972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 660) to amend the Fair 
Housing Act to modify the exemption from certain familial status 
discrimination prohibitions granted to housing for older persons.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Housing for Older Persons 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS.

       Section 807(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 
     3607(b)(2)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 
     years of age or older, and--
       ``(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are 
     occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or 
     older;
       ``(ii) the housing facility or community publishes and 
     adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the 
     intent required under this subparagraph; and
       ``(iii) the housing facility or community complies with 
     rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, 
     which shall--
       ``(I) provide for verification by reliable surveys and 
     affidavits; and
       ``(II) include examples of the types of policies and 
     procedures relevant to a determination of compliance with the 
     requirement of clause (ii). Such surveys and affidavits shall 
     be admissible in administrative and judicial proceedings for 
     the purposes of such verification.''.

     SEC. 3. GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT AT COMPLIANCE; DEFENSE AGAINST 
                   CIVIL MONEY DAMAGES.

       Section 807(b) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) A person shall not be held personally liable for 
     monetary damages for a violation of this title if such person 
     reasonably relied, in good faith, on the application of 

[[Page H14967]]
     the exemption under this subsection relating to housing for older 
     persons.
       ``(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person may only 
     show good faith reliance on the application of the exemption 
     by showing that--
       ``(i) such person has no actual knowledge that the facility 
     or community is not, or will not be, eligible for such 
     exemption; and
       ``(ii) the facility or community has stated formally, in 
     writing, that the facility or community complies with the 
     requirements for such exemption.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons Act amends the 
Fair Housing Act to remove the ``significant facilities and services 
requirement'' for seniors-only housing.
  In 1988, when Congress amended the Fair Housing Act to protect 
families with children from discrimination, it provided an exemption 
for ``housing for older persons.'' ``Housing for older persons'' is 
defined as housing that is occupied by persons 62 years of age or older 
or housing intended for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older 
where there are ``significant facilities and services specifically 
designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons.''
  The term ``significant facilities and services'' has been a source of 
confusion and litigation since the passage of the act. While the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development recently issued guidelines 
which may help to remove some of the confusion, the best and most 
certain way to solve this problem and give peace of mind to senior 
citizens is to pass H.R. 660.
  The Senate passed H.R. 660, as amended, on December 6, 1995 by a vote 
of 94 to 3.
  The Senate amendment makes some minor modifications to the House 
bill. Essentially, the heart of the legislation remains the same. In 
order to qualify as seniors-only housing, a facility must show that 80 
percent of its units have one or more occupants aged 55 or older and 
meet certain other requirements.
  The Senate amendment sets forth a good faith exception so that 
individuals who rely on the application of the seniors-only exemption 
will not have to pay money damages if the exemption is later found not 
to apply. In order to qualify for the good faith exception, the person 
must have no actual knowledge that the facility is ineligible for the 
exemption and the facility must have stated, in writing, that it 
complies with the requirements for the seniors-only exemption.
  H.R. 660 will establish a workable and fair exemption to protect 
senior citizens who wish to live in retirement communities. It fairly 
balances the rights of families with children and the rights of seniors 
to choose to live among other older adults in age-restricted 
communities.
  I want to thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Shaw, who has worked 
diligently for passage of this legislation and Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts, the ranking member of the subcommittee who is also a 
supporter of this legislation.
  In addition, to my colleagues in the Congress, I want to thank Bill 
Williams, president of the Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida 
and the Federation's General Counsel Lucy Warren. Thanks also go to 
Lori Van Arsdale, mayor of the city of Hemet, California who has 
tirelessly pursued this initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I support this legislation. I am pleased it has come back from the 
Senate in a form that is very close to what we sent them and we can 
accept it.
  This came to my attention, this issue, as a result of people in the 
town of Raynham, MA, and elsewhere. They were people who lived in 
manufactured housing and believed they were living in a community that 
was for older people only but were told that, because of the way the 
fair housing law had been originally drafted, they could not have that 
assurance.
  One of the problems was the fair housing law, in its understandable 
zeal to protect children against discrimination, and I think all of us 
want to reaffirm we are opposed to discrimination in housing against 
families with children, it would certainly ill behoove us to talk about 
families and children on one hand and then sanction discrimination 
against families with children. But what we are saying is that where 
you are dealing predominantly with older people, where there is a 
common interest in an atmosphere that may be acquired or wanted, et 
cetera, then it is reasonable to say no younger people, not just 
children; that is what we are talking about.
  The law originally, in fact, required or came close to requiring that 
to qualify for that exemption from the antidiscrimination laws to be 
for elderly only, you had to have special facilities for the elderly. 
There was in it an unintended but unfortunate implication if you had 
housing only for the elderly you would have to have therapeutic 
facilities; a notice older people might be able to live by themselves 
without special health care, respirators, et cetera, did not seem a 
reasonable one.
  What this legislation says is that if you are legitimately a 
community that has set itself aside for older people only, you can be 
certified for that purpose and not worry about discrimination, because 
you are trying to live up to that. On the other hand, it does not 
weaken, and should not weaken, the law which prevents discrimination 
against children. If you are housing open to anybody, if you are 
housing open for people in their 20's, 30's, 40's, you may not 
discriminate against children.
  You can, under this law, it was an exemption already in the law, it 
makes an exemption the law already intended more workable, less subject 
to obfuscation or confusion. It gives people more peace of mind so that 
communities that are aimed at older people only, and let us also be 
very clear, there are people in their 70's and 80's who want to lives 
with younger children, with younger people, there are people who are in 
their 70's and 80's who prefer to live mostly with other people of 
their own age. People's preferences for noise, for different levels of 
activity will differ.
  What we ought to be doing is offering people the right to choose. 
This legislation protects that right to choose for those older people 
who do prefer to live in communities of people primarily their own age. 
This law protects that right. It is, as I said, an example of 
improvement.
  I should add one other thing, and this is under former Assistant 
Secretary Achtenberg, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban 
Development did the most they could within the statute to protect that 
right.

                              {time}  1215

  It was called to their attention, they had hearings, and under 
Assistant Secretary Achtenberg and Secretary Cisneros, HUD did the best 
they could do. We did agree, however, looking at the statute, that they 
way to do this job of protecting the right of older people to live live 
among themselves, if they so chose, perfectly, it was not enough to 
deal with the regulatory improvements that had been made.
  HUD did the best they could, but there were changes that needed to be 
made in the statute. This statute does them. I hope, therefore, we pass 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, but that is not 
what I wanted to talk about. I did want to make a comment.
  Mr. Speaker, as the budget debate continues to rage, I want to take 
this time to state what we ought to be doing to bring to an end this 
harsh and unrelenting conflict.
  First of all, I believe most, if not all of us, are trying to create 
a better America. We just see these terribly important issues from a 
different perspective. Our destination is the same but we are choosing 
different roads to get there.

[[Page H14968]]

  I hope we do not lose sight of what is at stake here. And that is the 
fiscal solvency and the continued well being of all Americans. If we do 
not come up with a plan to balance the budget now, how will we ever? If 
we do not reach agreement now, where will we find the resolve to do it 
next year when it will be even harder? Or the year after that?
  Along the way though, we need to be fair. Shutting down part of the 
Government is not only unfair, it does not help either side. What is 
more, it is unnecessary and it hurts American taxpayers who rely on 
Government services and Federal employees who want to be on the job 
delivering those services.
  This is doubly unfortunate because it is not central to debate. It 
adds nothing, only detracts from the key issue of agreeing to do that 
which we have already agreed upon in principle: To reach a balanced 
budget by the year 2002.
  To that end, I ask the President and the Congress today, without 
another hour of delay, to pass whatever stopgap measure is necessary to 
keep the Government running. And then today, without another hour of 
delay, I ask the President to become personally involved in the 
negotiations with the Speaker and majority leader in the Senate. The 
two sides are closer than one might imagine from listening to harsh 
rhetoric, from both sides, I might add.
  It is time for both sides to make commitments rather than goals. Both 
sides have said they want a 7-year balanced budget. Today it is time to 
just do it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that I agree with the gentleman from 
Virginia. I believe we have an obligation to keep the Government 
running. What we ought to do is to pass a continuing resolution 
abstracting from all the other controversies. We will have legitimate 
differences of opinion over Medicare and Medicaid. But to shut down the 
Government, as Congress is now doing, because of those differences, is 
a very grave error. All we need to do is to pass a clean, that is, 
unencumbered, continuing resolution.
  The Government should not be held hostage while one side or the 
other's view of Medicare or Medicaid is put forward. But that is what 
Congress is doing. We could do it right away, simply get, I would hope 
by unanimous consent, a continuing resolution at the appropriations 
levels that the majority has set. They have the right to do that. But 
shutting down the Government, as the majority is doing, until the 
President agrees to the abolition of a Federal program, Medicaid, and 
to severe cuts in Medicare, that seems to me inappropriate.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would join in the gentleman from Virginia's plea 
that we move, but we should be clear. What is stopping us from moving 
now is the argument that the President should give in on Medicaid and 
Medicare or else the Government will be shut down. The Constitution 
gives the President a right to a veto. Congress has the right to pass 
legislation. If two-thirds agreed, they pass it over the veto. But to 
say because Congress cannot muster two-thirds to make drastic changes 
in Medicare and Medicaid the President should therefore cave in or else 
we shut down the Government is wholly in appropriate.


                         parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, ordinarily we would have 1-
minute speeches on a day like today. I am wondering, since we are here 
today, it is I assume Monday for the purposes of suspending the rules, 
otherwise we could not take these up, what is the intention of the 
Speaker with regard to 1-minute speeches today?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is within the Chair's discretion to 
decide if 1-minute speeches are to be recognized. At this juncture in 
the proceedings they are not.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, let me say I regret the fact 
that the majority leadership apparently decided not to have 1-minute 
speeches today.
  There is a fundamental issue before us now: Should we go forward and 
pass an unencumbered continuing resolution reflecting the 
appropriations levels that the majority chooses, but not seeking to use 
the very operation of the Government as a weapon to try and compel the 
President to agree with the abolition of the Medicaid Program or 
reductions that he thinks are too deep in Medicare. I am sorry we are 
not going to get a chance to discuss that. I think we ought to do that.
  Apparently, we will finish the suspensions, we will go into the 
infinite recess that the majority allowed themselves to call so it will 
not be embarrassed by trying to vote to adjourn the House. I think the 
time would be better spent discussing implications of the decisions to 
shut down the House and Senate and, more importantly, the whole 
Government, until the President agrees to the doing away with Medicaid.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I must respond to the gentleman's comment about the Government 
shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks made by the 
gentleman from Virginia. I believe we should get the Government up and 
running. I think it is important for us to understand that the issue 
here is not having the president relent in his desire to protect the 
Medicare and Medicaid Programs. The issue here is whether the President 
is going to fulfill his commitment to move forward with a plan to 
balance the budget within 7 years, using numbers approved by the 
Congressional Budget Office. The President has failed to do that.
  Now, I think that is an important failure, it is a failure that we 
cannot simply ignore while the President points the finger at the 
Congress.
  Now, I believe that mistakes have been made on both sides and that an 
effort should be made today to get the Government up and running. But 
the President must accept his share of the responsibility for failing 
to meet a commitment that he made as part of a law that he signed 
barely a month ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would say to the gentleman from Florida, and 
others, the President committed to a balanced budget which also 
protected the Medicaid and Medicare programs. So I do not think he is 
at all in default of his commitment.
  But even if you are mad at the President, and this is the nub of it, 
the gentleman from Florida said, the majority leader said last week, 
``We do not think the President lived up to his commitment, so 
therefore we will shut down the Government.'' But you are punishing the 
wrong party.
  Even if you believe that the President is wrong, and I do not, 
because I think the President has said yes, I want to balance the 
budget in 7 years, while I protect Medicaid, while I protect people in 
nursing homes and while I protect Medicare, but why, if you are mad at 
the President, do you shut down the Government? They have not shut off 
the lights in the White House. He is not being evicted. Everything is 
still functioning over there.
  That is your error. You are mad at the President, so you shut down 
the whole Government. He is not trying to go to the Grand Canyon 
tomorrow. He is not the one who is going to have to apply for a 
passport or worry about a Social Security check. There is a 
disconnection here. You are angry at the President because you think 
that he is being too stubborn with regard to Medicare and Medicaid. I 
think he is right.
  But let us fight that out. Let us fight about Medicare and Medicaid 
and the environment and educational levels of spending without refusing 
to let the Governments function. Let us pass a resolution which says 
those departments, and there are many departments which are not 
functioning now because this congressional majority has passed zero 
bills for them. It is not a case of vetoed bill. No bill has ever gone 
to him from the Department of 

[[Page H14969]]
Health and Human Services or the Department of Education or the 
Department of Labor. Pass legislation that allows them to function, 
does not try to gain advantage one way or another, and then let us 
argue about the other things.
  So even if the gentleman was correct in his unhappiness with the 
President, and I do not think the gentleman is, why does the gentleman 
think we are punishing the President by shutting down the whole 
Government? That seems to me to be a very grave error.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a couple of points in response. The President has three 
bills sitting on his desk which he could sign, which would solve a 
large part of the shutdown. With respect to the bill covering health 
and education, that bill has been held up in the Senate by the 
Democrats in the Senate, who have been unhappy with certain aspects of 
it and kept that from moving forward. So there is responsibility here 
that must be accepted by the President and the Democrats in the Senate.
  But furthermore, I go back to the President's commitment. The 
President made the commitment to move forward with a plan to balance 
the budget in 7 years using CBO numbers. Is the President now claiming 
that the President cannot do that, that that is an impossible task? Why 
would he have accepted that commitment and made that commitment if he 
believed it was impossible to accomplish?
  There is no answer to this question. We simply have an attempt here 
to play politics with the budgetary process.
  I do not understand it. I will tell you, I fully believed that the 
President would come forward with a plan to balance the budget. I 
believed that there would be substantial differences between what we 
had submitted and what the President came up with, but he has totally 
failed to carry out that commitment. I think that that is something 
that needs to be understood. The President needs to come forward, he 
needs to acknowledge that that was a commitment that was made, and he 
needs to put a plan on the table.
  If we are going to get this job done, which he said he wanted to do, 
he needs to tell us how he thinks it can be done. If he had a different 
idea about how to deal with Medicare, a different idea about how to 
deal with Medicaid, that should come in and be put on the table. But 
the plan should balance. If he thinks that savings can be made in other 
areas, he should make the savings in other areas. But this effort to 
stop the Government, to thwart the effort to balance the budget, I 
think is not responsible, and the President is going to be held 
accountable for it.
  Let me say this: I agree that we should be talking with the 
President. We are willing to talk to the President. But the President 
has to show a willingness to work with us to accomplish what needs to 
be accomplished. But, in the meantime, I also believe that we should 
get the Government up and running today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has been clear. My friend says well, if he 
has a different view about Medicaid and Medicare, tell us. Gee, I 
thought the problem the Republicans had was that he was telling people. 
I heard the Senate majority leader complain that the President was 
talking about Medicare and Medicaid.
  The President does not think we should wipe out the law that was 
passed 30 years ago, over Republican objections by and large, that says 
if you are sick and old and in a nursing home, we are going to have a 
Federal guarantee that you will not be cut off. I think that is worth 
keeping.
  If people do not, they are entitled to. But holding the Government 
hostage, shutting the Government down until the President agrees with a 
particular position on Medicare and Medicaid, is an unconstitutional 
way to do it. If one thinks there should be changes in Medicare and 
Medicaid, the Constitution says pass it through both Houses. If the 
President vetoes it, you override the veto. There is nothing in the 
Constitution that says kidnap the Government and shut it down.
  You keep saying you are angry or disappointed in the President or 
unhappy with the President's position, and then you shut down the whole 
Government and punish a lot of other people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems here is we do not 
know who we are negotiating with. We have Republicans in the Senate 
basically saying that they take their governing responsibilities 
seriously. I think they have demonstrated that. But as soon as things 
come to the House with our colleagues here in this body, things fall 
apart. It seems that House leaders are adamant about shutting the 
Government down, and when push came to shove, Senate Republicans kept 
up their habit of basically going along with the Republican leadership 
here.
  For the second time in a month, the Republicans irresponsibly have 
shut the Government down. We cannot govern by blackmail. This time the 
Republicans were angry because President Clinton was actually trying to 
negotiate a balanced budget instead of agreeing to their every demand. 
Rather than negotiate a fair budget, the Republicans again tried to 
blackmail the President into accepting the unfair budget that the 
American people and Democrats have already rejected.
  Specifically, Republicans are demanding deeper cuts in Medicare. We 
are trying to negotiate. Democrats are trying to negotiate. The 
President has tried several times to jump-start the budget negotiations 
with new proposals. Meanwhile, the other side wasted time issuing 
demands about accounting rules. For the Republicans, their technical 
assumptions, not their impact, on people were the only thing worth 
talking about.
  What is it that the Republicans really want? Regardless of their 
rhetoric, what the Republicans really want is to force deeper cuts in 
Medicare and other programs to finance tax breaks for those that do not 
need it, cuts that merely balance the budget and are not deep enough to 
satisfy the other side.

                              {time}  1230

  This shutdown is manufactured, it is pointless, and it is wrong. The 
Republicans are using their own failure to pass appropriations bills to 
create a false crisis in hopes of forcing passage of an extreme 
misguided budget. Leaders in the House, Republican leaders in the 
House, have been saying all day that they would do this. Instead of 
playing this game designed to pass tax breaks and other favors for 
special interests, Senate Republicans should talk their House 
counterparts into moderation to get down to real negotiating with 
Democrats and the President to produce a fair and balanced budget.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans are shutting down the Government to force 
deep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. There 
is no reason to shut the Government down. It is wasteful, it is 
unnecessary, and Democrats and the American people will not be 
blackmailed into abandoning our priorities. Negotiating a budget deal 
and continuing Government operations are in no way linked.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard about cuts in a variety of programs. Let 
me give you one example about the cuts that are being discussed here. 
Reference was made to cuts in Medicare. The truth of the matter is 
under the Republican budget plan, spending on Medicare will increase 
every single year during the 7-year plan. It will go up by about 6 
percent a year.
  Per capita spending on Medicare, per beneficiary spending on Medicare 
will go up from $4,800 this year to $7,100 in the year 2002. That is 
not a cut.
  The President calls that a cut, others have called that a cut, 
anybody who can understand simple arithmetic will see that is not a 
cut. So the American people understand that an increase from $4,800 a 
year to $7,100 a year per 

[[Page H14970]]
beneficiary is an increase. The President may not think it is enough of 
an increase; that is a subject that can be debated, but it should be 
debated in terms that are sensitive to the reality of this real 
increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  There are some inescapable facts that no matter how we jockey around 
are confronting us. One is that we face a $4.9 trillion national debt, 
and the debt service on that every year is $325 billion and rising. 
That has to be dealt with. The people voted for change last time, not 
the status quo. We look to the President to help us be a partner in 
this quest for a balanced budget.
  The President challenged us in his first State of the Union message 
to be specific. We have had a budget. It is specific. It balances the 
budget by the year 2002, and we have asked the White House for their 
budget, their figures. Now, the President agreed to follow the numbers, 
the data given by the Congressional Budget Office, but he evidently had 
his fingers crossed because he has yet to do that. He produces a budget 
status quo. It will not balance in 5 years, and it uses the Office of 
Management and Budget figures, not the Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post, no friend of the Republican party, 
said that President Clinton wants to balance the budget wearing a Santa 
Claus suit.
  Now, let us talk about the present shutdown, which we all deplore. I 
think it is very bad and we should try to move out of it and get the 
Government functioning, while, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has said, we argue about these issues. But the Labor, Health and 
Human Services bill is languishing in the Senate because the 
President's political party does not like its terms and conditions.
  According to the Congressional Monitor this morning, the measure has 
been blocked by Democratic objections to conservative policy riders, 
but its enactment would keep two-thirds of the furloughed workers on 
the job. So who is to blame if we are going to assign blame? It seems 
to me a failure on the part of the Democratic Party to understand that 
the Republicans have the majority and they ought to send this bill to 
the President, and two-thirds of the furloughed workers could be on the 
job.
  Other bills, about $93 billion in fiscal 1996 spending on natural 
resources, environmental, veterans housing, and space programs, would 
protect workers in those agencies from being sent home during a 
shutdown. The President is going to veto those.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather unfair, if not disingenuous to 
lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans. We promised the people a 
balanced budget. We are trying to get there. The President has yet, in 
my judgment, to negotiate in good faith and that is lamentable, but 
that is the reality, and all of us ought to agree to try to get the 
Government back in gear and try to function while these intractable 
policy issues get as resolved as we can resolve them in the coming 
weeks. But this impasse cannot be laid at our feet. The President 
should live up to his commitment and submit a budget that is balanced 
and using Congressional Budget Office figures.
  Now, we hear that, yes, but he also agreed to protect Medicare and 
Medicaid and the environment and school loans and that sort of thing. 
That is fine. Let us protect those. We need to protect them. But 
Medicare is going broke. The trustees, on April 5, issued a report, 
three of whom are in the Cabinet of the President, that it will be 
bankrupt in the year 2002. So it certainly behooves us to protect 
Medicare, which is the flag behind which the Democrats are marching, by 
doing something about it.
  We have a plan, Mr. Speaker. We have a proposal. Restrain the rate of 
increase from 10 percent to 7 percent. That is our plan. What is the 
President's? What is the President's plan to save Medicare? If he wants 
to protect it, he cannot protect it using words. Come up with a 
proposal. But the President has not done that. The Democrats have not 
done that yet because they do not really want to change. They want to 
redistribute the wealth. They want to continue business as usual, and 
that is the big impasse.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Illinois is busy being 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, so it may have overlooked 
his attention that the President has submitted a plan about Medicare. 
Yes, there are competing views about how much we have to cut from what 
existing law would allow under Medicare; and we believe that the 
Republican Party, led by Senator Dole, who boasts, let us remember, of 
having voted against Medicare when it was first begun. Senator Dole 
said, I knew it was a mistake and he is proud he voted against it to 
try to kill it, as did most of the Republicans then in the Congress. 
Well, it is not surprising these are people not sympathetic. The point 
is we can fight about who is right or wrong about Medicare without 
holding the Government hostage.
  Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear every Republican who gets up 
today say we agree the Government should function. Well, why do they 
not then listen to themselves? Pass a continuing resolution, 
unencumbered by greater debates, which will keep the Government going? 
We can then debate among ourselves about Medicare, about restrictions 
on the Environmental Protection Administration, about abortion and 
other issues.
  The majority has the power and is using it to keep from the floor 
such a resolution. I believe if they would agree and relent in their 
powers of recognition, we would pass in the House a clean continuing 
resolution. What we have are Republican after Republican saying, yes, I 
think the Government should stay open, but we will not vote to allow 
that because we cannot win. We do not have enough votes to override 
objections to these very drastic policy changes we want to make, and 
until our colleagues agree to these drastic policy changes that cut 
back in Medicaid and cut back in Medicare, while we are building the B-
2 bomber, while we are subsidizing NATO, while we are spending tens of 
billions unnecessarily in that area, we will make some cuts in these 
other areas.
  What we are seeing here is Republicans saying how much they want to 
have the Government function but refusing to do it because they have 
said they will not do it until the President gives in to their 
proposals, which they do not have the votes for otherwise.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a phenomenon known as the Reverse Houdini. 
Harry Houdini became famous because he would have people tie him in 
knots, and his trick was to get himself out of the knots. The 
Republican Party is now perfecting the Reverse Houdini. They tell us 
how much they want to open the Government, but they will not do it. 
Why? Because they have tied themselves in knots.
  Houdini had other people chain him up. The Republican Party says we 
will tie ourselves up in knots. We will not make the Government 
function until the President gives in to Medicaid. Then they will come 
to the floor and talk about how much they wish they could get out of 
the knots into which they have tied themselves. That is the reverse 
Houdini. Tying ourselves up and then talking about how much we would 
love to help people if we were not tied up.
  If the Republicans want to have the Government function, pass a 
continuing resolution that does not hold other people hostage. Again, 
this notion that we are somehow punishing the President by shutting 
down the Federal Government in other areas does not make any sense. So 
let us come forward with a unencumbered continuing resolution. Let us 
pass that and then continue the Democratic debate over Medicare, 
Medicaid, the environment, and education.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I originally came over to say I was in favor of H.R. 660, and I want to 
state that for the record and hope we pass that.

[[Page H14971]]

  However, since the debate appears to have moved, I want to join in 
where the debate has gone. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of 
reaching a balanced budget over the last several months, I have seen 
both sides put up some obstacles that I think should not have been 
done. But the impasse we have reached today is, without question in my 
mind, with the administration and with President of the United States, 
for this reason:
  The President is attempting to back out of the agreement he entered 
into with Congress several weeks ago that we would reach a 7-year 
balanced budget using the same economic forecasts that deal with 
government revenue and the inflationary effect on government programs 
from the Congressional Budget Office. It should be obvious to everyone 
that there is nothing upon which to negotiate unless we are using the 
same figures, whatever those are. And both sides 3 weeks ago agreed to 
use those figures.
  Now, the Congress passed a budget that was balanced under those 
figures and the President vetoed that budget. The President said that 
there was not enough funding in the congressional proposal for several 
important programs. Now, I think that is the President's prerogative, 
both as a matter of the constitutional law, since he is President of 
the United States, and under our agreement. However, the Congress then 
made a very reasonable request. Mr. President, if you feel that our 
budget does not adequately fund programs, even though we increase 
Medicare funding substantially, in fact along the same lines that you 
proposed a year ago, if you feel that Medicare or any other program 
should have more funding, show us from where we will get that funding. 
Show us your proposal for a balanced budget in 7 years using 
Congressional Budget Office figures. Then we can see how it is possible 
to reach your priorities and still arrive at a balanced budget as we 
all agreed 3 weeks ago that we were going to do.
  That is what the President of the United States refuses to do. There 
is no congressional request to the President that the President agree 
to any particular program spending limit, much less cuts in programs. 
The President's proposed budget could have tax cuts or not have tax 
cuts, or have any spending limit he likes as long as he uses the 
figures from the Congressional Budget Office that we agreed to use 3 
weeks ago.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, the President is relying upon the ultimate 
cynicism that the public will not understand what a Congressional 
Budget Office is so it does not make any difference. But is does, and 
the public will understand that.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hayworth). The Chair would inform both 
sides that they each have 4 minutes, respectively.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Canady] intend to use the 4 minutes for the closing?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yes. I do not have any additional 
speakers.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I listen with great interest as the other side 
talks about why the Government shut down. Well, the fact of the matter 
is that it is shut down and it ought not be. It is absolutely 
unnecessary, and I concur with my colleague who coined a new phrase, 
the ``Reverse Houdini.''
  Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a linkage of two unrelated issues. 
On the one hand is a legitimate budget debate. A balanced budget in 7 
years. Actually, I would support that. On the other hand we have the 
operation of Government. That ought to continue.
  Why then have the Republicans decided that they want to link the two 
and say if we cannot have our balanced budget our way, we will shut 
down the Government? Who is being punished?
  First of all, the American taxpayer is being punished because the 
American taxpayer is paying for this, whether Federal Employees come to 
work or not. Second, Federal employees are being punished because their 
lives are being disrupted as they may get a delayed check, but the 
bills are now due.
  Mr. Speaker, it is Christmas time. It should be a season of charity 
and a season of giving. Instead, it is a season in which Federal 
employees have been imposed upon yet a second time, unnecessarily so. 
We could actually compromise and reach a deal, but there is a group on 
the other side, a crowd that says, basically, ``Our way or no way.'' 
they want to have $245 billion in tax breaks or it is no deal.
  Mr. Speaker, we could have a balanced budget in 7 years with CBO 
numbers if they would be willing to compromise on the size of the tax 
breaks, but they are unwilling to do it. Because of that unwillingness, 
they are saying, ``We are not going to give anyone the votes to pass a 
continuing resolution that would keep the government open, because you 
guys will not accept our big tax break.''
  That is bad for our country. That is bad for our Federal workers. 
This is not just: We will shut the Government down; this is to say to 
Federal workers, ``We do not respect what you do. We do not appreciate 
what you do. We take it lightly, but when we put you back to work we 
want you to work with all the vigor and enthusiasm and commitment you 
can muster on behalf of the country.''
  Mr. Speaker, it does not work that way. I hope we can reach a 
compromise in fairness to our employees, the Federal employees.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I respond to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle that 4 weeks ago today the President signed a law, a 
law that said he would work with the Congress of the United States to 
enact a balanced budget over the next 7 years using the CBO. For 4 
weeks the President of the United States and his minions at the White 
House, have done nothing, nothing to meet the commitment that they made 
to the American people and the commitment they made to this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, how long are we going to wait? for 30 years when things 
got tough in this town, we did the same thing. We blinked and we sold 
out the American people and our children and our grandchildren are 
going to get the opportunity to pay for the fact that this Congress, 
over the last 30 years, refused to meet its fiscal responsibility, its 
fiduciary responsibility to the American people by balancing the 
budget.
  What we are saying in this Congress this year is that we are not 
going to do it again. We are going to keep our word to the American 
people who elected us last November on a commitment that we, for the 
first time in 30 years, would do our job and balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, we have laid our plan on the table. All the specifics 
are there. All the numbers are there. All the policy is there to 
balance the budget over the next 7 years. When is the President going 
to tell us what he would like to do? When is the President going to 
tell us what he does not like about our bill?
  The fact is the President wants to spend more money, but he will not 
tell us how much more he wants to spend over the next 7 years. The 
President, unfortunately, has gone back to his roots, back to his roots 
of being a liberal. He wants Government as it is. He is considering the 
next election and, frankly, we are sitting up here thinking about the 
next generation.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a crisis, I will admit, and no one wants to put 
Federal employees through what they are going through. It is unfair to 
them. But quite frankly, what has gone on here for 30 years is unfair 
to our children and our grandchildren and it has to stop.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio just said this is unfair to the 
Federal workers, and he and his colleagues are determined to continue 
to inflict the unfairness to the American workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the gentleman say that the 
President has not told the Republicans what he 

[[Page H14972]]
does not like about their plan. I thought he had told that to the point 
where they were unhappy. He thinks they are endangering the ability of 
Medicare to continue to fully fund what older people need. He believes 
that abolishing the Federal law that says Medicaid will be there and if 
Americans are sick and old and poor or badly disabled, their medical 
care will be protected, that that is a mistake.
  He thinks that the extent to which they are undercutting 
environmental enforcement is a mistake. He thinks cutting out funds 
that now go to help middle-income and working-class students go to 
college is a mistake.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have a right to disagree. But 
they why do they insist on shutting down the Federal Government? In 
fact, we have the Republican Party, with a majority in both Houses, 
complaining that the majority apparently is insufficient for them to 
accomplish what the Constitution says to do when we want to change 
policy. They have, therefore, decided that they will shut down much of 
the Government. They will refuse.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Within hours we could pass a 
continuing resolution that simply said the Government will function at 
whatever level of appropriation my colleagues on the other side decide, 
until we agree on other things. Mr. Speaker, they are the majority.
  In his last State of the Union, Ronald Reagan denounced the practice 
of withholding basic funding for the Government as a means of exerting 
leverage over other policy issues. For the first time in a long time, I 
wish the Republican Party were true to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Go 
back to his last State of the Union. He said we do not have Government 
by extortion, and that is what we have.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues' quarrel, they say, is with the President. 
They think he wants to be too profligate. He is going to spend too much 
money on those sick, old people. Fine. We can fight about that. They do 
not think he is going to cut enough taxes for wealthy people. But do 
not shut the Government down to punish him.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of things in this discussion today, 
but we have not heard an explanation for why the President has not come 
forward with a plan to balance the budget in 7 years using the CBO 
numbers as he committed to do. There is no explanation for that.
  It has simply not been forthcoming. The President has failed to keep 
his commitment. The President's position on this is inexplicable to me. 
We hear that the President is opposed to draconian cuts in medicare. 
Well, the draconian cut is an increase of around 7 percent a year over 
the next 7 years, and the President himself, or the President's wife up 
on Capitol Hill in the last Congress said that we should slow down the 
growth of spending in Medicare to a rate of 7 percent. That is what 
they proposed. Now they say that is a draconian cut and something that 
is unacceptable and it is keeping them from presenting a balanced 
budget plan.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not understand it. The President says he is against 
our tax cuts for families. He says that a $500 tax credit for families 
with children is too much. But when he was serving on the National 
Commission on Children, he endorsed a $1,000 tax credit per child.
  What has happened? What is the difference? I do not understand it. I 
think the President should go back and take a look at the commitment 
that he made less than a month ago, and he should follow through on 
what he said he would do.
  I am hopeful today that all the parties will get together and we will 
have the Government up and running tomorrow, but I also hope that the 
President will get serious about his commitment to the American people, 
because this is something that affects the future of this country. It 
is time we got the job done.
  Mr. Speaker, I will now say a little bit about this bill. I am very 
pleased that we have had the bipartisan support for the bill that we 
have seen. I will note that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] that the House suspend the rules 
and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 660.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was 
concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________