[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15090-H15091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE BUDGET IMPASSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I have a different view of why we have 
reached this impasse today. I acknowledge that in the past, during the 
discussions about reaching a balanced budget, that both sides bear some 
responsibility for putting some unnecessary obstacles in the way of 
reaching that goal. I think that the Republicans, at the very 
beginning, tried to put in unnecessary non-budget-related issues that 
have since been removed.
  I think the President tried to avoid agreeing to a 7-year timeframe 
even though when he was campaigning for President of the United States 
3 years ago, he said he would propose a balanced budget in 5 years.
  But even though the past responsibility falls on both political 
parties, I believe the current impasse we are in today falls squarely 
on the Clinton administration, and that is simply because the President 
of the United States is attempting to back out of the agreement he 
entered into less than a month ago with the Congress of the United 
States. We resolved the last partial Government shutdown by coming to 
an agreement. There were several major terms in that agreement, and one 
of those terms was that we would use common economic projections to put 
together a balanced budget.
  I know this sounds very technical, but economic projections are the 
building blocks of any budget. They are the forecasts, in this case 
over 7 years, of how much Government revenue will be received, how much 
there will be an inflationary impact on Government programs and so 
forth.
  The agreement by the President of the United States and the Congress 
of the United States was that we would use the figures of the 
Congressional Budget Office. Now, there was an additional provision, 
that the Congressional Budget Office was expected to consult with 
outside sources, which, to the best of my knowledge, they have done. 
But the bottom line, without any doubt, is that a budget would be put 
together using only the economic projections of the Congressional 
Budget Office. The President of the United States now is attempting to 
avoid living up to an agreement with the Congress of the United States, 
and the President has stated, first of all, that the Congress is 
demanding that the President put some cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and 
other programs up before negotiations can continue. This is not 
correct.
  The Congress is saying the President should put forward a budget 
based upon CBO, Congressional Budget Office, projections, and that is 
all. Within those budget projections, the President is free, the 
administration is free, to put together any budget they want. They can 
have tax cuts or not have tax cuts. They can have tax increases if they 
want to propose it. They can have more funding for any program, less 
funding for any other program. So there is absolutely nothing in 
putting together a budget based upon the Congressional Budget Office 
economic projections of revenue, inflation and so forth, that dictates 
in advance what a budget has to look like.
  I heard one of my Democratic colleagues this morning on television 
say, ``Well, the agreement was we will use the Congressional Budget 
Office as a baseline, but then we could look at other figures.'' That 
is not correct. The agreement was that we would use the Congressional 
Budget Office figures.
  Now, the point is, Mr. Speaker, that that is exactly what the 
Congress of the United States has done. The Congress of the United 
States passed a budget. I do not agree with all of its individual 
terms. But the Congress of the United States passed a budget and sent 
to the President a budget that was balanced in 7 years, which was part 
of our 

[[Page H15091]]
agreement and that used Congressional Budget Office figures as the 
building blocks, as the revenue projections, the inflationary effect 
and so forth.
  The President vetoed this bill. That is the President's prerogative, 
not only constitutionally, under the Constitution of the United States, 
of course, but under the agreement which also said there would be 
adequate funding for certain programs and if the President felt that 
the increases that that budget included for Medicare and medicaid were 
not sufficient, then the President could go ahead and veto.
  But the Congress has then made a very reasonable requests: ``Mr. 
President, if you feel that our budget does not adequately protect 
certain priorities, show us your budget under the exact same framework. 
Put forward a budget under the exact same framework. Put forward a 
budget that is balanced in 7 years and uses the Congressional Budget 
Office economic projections and is shown to be balanced in 7 years 
under the CBO numbers, and show us how exactly you would protect your 
priorities.''

                              {time}  0915

  If you want to spend more on one program, what do you propose to 
spend differently, or how do you propose to have a different tax 
structure in order to pay for it? The point is that if the President of 
the United States is going to veto the congressional budget, which 
again is his privilege, he should then put out his budget on the same 
framework.
  Further negotiations I think are impossible unless we are dealing 
with budgets that are put together under the same measuring yardstick, 
apples to apples if you will. Unless the President puts forward a 
budget under the same yardstick, there is no way we can compare, well, 
this is how we funded a certain program and this is how the President 
would fund the same program.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to comply with our agreement 
and come forth with a budget.

                          ____________________