[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15137-H15155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H15137]]


   REVISED BUDGET RESOLUTION REFLECTING THE PRESIDENT'S MOST RECENT 
                                PROPOSAL

                              (Continued)

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to break this 
impasse and to balance this budget now. On Medicare and every other 
contentious issue, it is the coalition's budget that provides the 
framework to do just that. Let us get back to the table, Democrats and 
Republicans, and let us balance this budget for the American people.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne]. The problem is that only 60-some 
Democrats voted for his budget that did balance.
  Mr. Speaker, it is easy for the President and some Democrats to say 
they want a balanced budget, but it is hard for them to offer a 
proposal to show where those cuts are coming from. I believe one of two 
things is going to have to happen before we break this budget impasse. 
One, the President is going to have to stop playing politics and do 
what is right for the future of this country; or, Americans are going 
to have to spend some hard studying time realizing how serious this 
overspending problem is and what it does to their future.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not easy politically to reduce the growth in 
Government. The bottom line is if we fail this time in cutting the 
growth of Government and balancing the budget, we are not going to do 
it for many years. Vote against this budget for what it is. It is 
politics as usual, spending and taxing and borrowing as usual.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an exercise in fun and games, Republican-style. 
We are just given this budget. We do not know what is in it. It is just 
like yesterday's irrelevant resolution. We should be doing the work of 
the people. We should be passing a clean continuing resolution so the 
Government could open, but Republicans do not want to do it.
  Let us make one thing clear: It is the Republicans that have shut the 
Government down. There is no reason to link the continuing resolution 
to keep the Government open with a 7-year balanced budget. There is no 
reason to link it. The reason we have the Government shutdown is 
because the Republicans did not do their job and pass the 
appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year, September 30.
  Let us look at the Republican budget. Medicare decimated, Medicaid 
decimated, all to pay for tax cuts for the rich; education, our 
children's future, decimated; the environment, decimated; tax increases 
for working families. This is the Republican budget. It is mean-
spirited and it is extreme.
  Let us stop playing the phony Republican shell game. That is all it 
is. They talk about family values. What kind of values are we giving to 
our children under this Republican plan? This is a farce. We should be 
passing a continuing resolution to keep the Government open.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has abandoned his 
commitment to balance the budget in 7 years. Still, after four 
attempts, the Clinton budget maintains a $426 billion deficit over 7 
years. Just 30 days ago the President signed a promise to the American 
people, and I quote, ``The President and Congress shall enact 
legislation to achieve a balanced budget no later than fiscal year 
2002.'' The President has broken his word. Vote ``no'' on the 
President's massive $426 billion unbalanced budget.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the Democrat 
side of the aisle keep telling the American people that we are cutting, 
cutting, cutting, we are going to hurt everybody. Let me give some 
figures. We are increasing, increasing the earned income tax credit by 
$6 billion; school lunches we are increasing by $1.7 billion; student 
loans by $12 billion over the next 7 years; Medicaid we are increasing 
by $38 billion, and Medicare by $112 billion. Yet they continue to tell 
the American people and scare old people into believing we are cutting 
them.
  Yet, when we bring to the floor the President's budget, they do not 
want to vote on it. Do Members know why they do not want to vote on it? 
Because they know it is not a real budget. They know it is nothing but 
smoke and mirrors. They know the President is not sincere. They know it 
is a bad budget that is bad for America, and they know that even they 
will vote against it. They do not want to have to vote against it.
  Our budget is real. We balance the budget in 7 years. We still give a 
tax cut, and we increase spending for very important programs like 
Medicare. The Democrats should come clean.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, the goal we have here, all of us, Democrats 
and Republicans, as I see it, is to have a balanced budget, the first 
one in 27 years, but we are at an impasse. We have to overcome this 
impasse.

[[Page H15138]]

  If there were a plan to do it, would you be interested? Because I 
have a plan. Here is what we should do. The bill we have before us is 
not a balanced budget. Let us vote it down. Let us pass the Republican 
balanced budget for the first time in 27 years, but let us give 
President Clinton the benefit. Let us say it is his budget so we can 
both win here in the Capitol and at the White House.
  We had Edward Demming here before he passed away, the great 
strategist, who said, ``In the world today you have to have a win-win 
strategy.'' This would be a win-win strategy. The Democrats would win, 
the Republicans would win, but do you know who would be the biggest 
winners of all? It would be the American people, because for the first 
time in 27 years we would have a balanced budget.
  Let us do it. Let us get over this hurdle. Let us get around this 
impasse. This is the way of doing it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coalition 
budget, the best budget around here.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are on the floor with 
another meaningless bill. They had one yesterday when they tried to 
make the people believe that the President had not already agreed to 
the CBO numbers and a 7-year balanced budget. He had already done that, 
so that was meaningless. Today they are back again.
  Nobody knows what is in this bill. They do not know, we do not know. 
It has not been scored. It has not been analyzed. The real negotiations 
start at 3 o'clock. The President has a meeting with Senator Dole and 
with Newt Gingrich. They know it. They know that they are not 
accomplishing anything by being there.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the President has been to the 
table. He has told you he is not going to let you devastate old people. 
You cannot get any more money out of Medicare and Medicaid. You cannot 
do away with our priorities of education and environment that you 
agreed to. The real problem is you cannot count. You cannot save money 
and give away money at the same time. You have got to learn. If you 
want to save, you cannot have a tax cut of $245 billion.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, what we have in front of us is our best 
attempt to construct the President's budget. I want to spend a few 
minutes talking about the Medicare portions of the President's budget, 
because frankly, he has probably focused on this more than most of the 
other provisions in the budget.
  The gentlewoman from California just indicated that we cannot get any 
more money out of Medicare. Rather than listen to me, I would rather 
have Members listen to the words of a television program that ran 
December 12. It is called Nightline. Ted Koppel said, ``Tonight 
Mediscare, Rhetoric Versus Reality.''
  For one of the very few times on the national media, serious 
newspaper people focused on the rhetoric versus the reality in the 
Medicare discussion. What was said, I hope, will enlighten us. What was 
said on that program by an ABC reporter by the name of Chris Bury was 
that the Washington Post said:

       The Democrats, led by the President, have shamelessly used 
     the issue, demagogued on it, because they think that's where 
     the votes are.

  The Democrats are demagoguing on Medicare. To substantiate that 
point, Nightline then discussed the fact that you have to reduce 
Medicare to balance the budget. In fact, they used a clip from 1993 
when the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was in front of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. This is what the First Lady said in front 
of the Committee on Ways and Means in 1993. She said:

       We are talking about beginning to reduce the rate of 
     increase in Medicare from about 11 percent to about 6 or 7 
     percent annually.

  In fact, the Republican plan reduces it to 7.2 percent. What did the 
President say about the Republican plan? On October 19, on the program, 
a news clip of the President, he said:

       On Medicare, the House is voting on a $270 billion cut on 
     Medicare that will eviscerate the health care system for our 
     older Americans.

  That is plain and simple demagoguing, plain and simple demagoguing.
  More importantly, Mr. Speaker, what was said in the program later is 
what I want to focus on for a minute. Uwe Rhinehardt, who is a 
professor at Princeton University, in fact he helped the task force on 
an unassigned basis, said:

       The real problem is the current Medicare program cannot 
     accommodate the baby boom after the year 2010. We need to 
     reform Medicare.

  Ted Koppel asked Mr. Glassman, who is a columnist for the Post, ``Do 
you agree, Mr. Glassman, the problem is not the one between now and the 
year 2002 but the one beyond the year 2010?'' The answer, 
``Absolutely.'' What is it that is going on beyond the year 2010? Guy 
King, an actuary for HCFA for 24 years, for 17 years the chief actuary, 
has now given us a picture of the world beyond 2010.
  Let us take a worker who in 2010 is 22 years old. They are going to 
get an average wage for the time they work. In 2053 they retire at 65 
years of age. Under the current law for Medicare, part B this person 
would pay over their lifetime into the current law Medicare, in nominal 
dollars are $281,000. Under President Clinton's plan as determined by 
the actuary, $280,000. What is the GOP plan, the plan that reforms 
Medicare? One hundred and forty thousand dollars ($140,000) over the 
lifetime of that worker.
  This is what this debate is about. For those people who go to work at 
22 years of age in 2010 and work hard for an average wage, the 
President makes virtually no change from the current law, despite all 
of his handwringing. What Republicans do is reform Medicare. What was 
said on that program by all of the experts is if you do not reform 
Medicare, you cannot balance the budget. The President has a phony 
plan. He does not do what he needs to be done in the area of reforming 
Medicare. It is Mediscare, it is demagoguery.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this debate here this afternoon is in many 
ways a metaphor for what has been wrong with this session of the 
Congress. It is a lot of politics and very little substances. The 
gentleman that preceded me to the floor here just a few moments ago is 
alleging to convince us that he knows what is going to be going on with 
regard to the health care system 58 years from now, a preposterous 
notion.
  They are claiming to balance the budget. If they really wanted to 
balance the budget, they would follow the rule that was laid down 3 
year ago. The budget deficit today is half of what it was just 3 years 
ago. If they really wanted to balance the budget, the plan has been 
laid out. They know how to do it. We have set the pattern for them.
  What you want to do, really, is to destroy the health care system for 
older people and for people on Medicaid. We know that. We have it in 
your own words. Bob Dole was bragging that he voted against it when it 
was first brought to the floor here 35 years ago. Your own Speaker, 
speaking before the Blue Cross-Blue Shield group at your convention 
here in Washington just a few weeks ago, said that you did not have the 
nerve to attack Medicare directly, you were going to go about it 
circuitously, withdraw the funds and let it wither on the vine. We are 
wise to you. We know what you are all about.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 13 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer] and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?

[[Page H15139]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, for 26 years, Republicans wandered in the minority, 
crying out for a balanced budget. If only we were elected the majority, 
we said in our Contract With America, out first action would be to 
balance the budget, and last November it happened. We were elected to 
the majority and we did exactly what we said. We passed a balanced 
budget and we did it without increasing taxes.
  Conventional wisdom said, it cannot be done. But we knew that it was 
too important to our children's future not to balance the budget.
  The critics, however, said the budget could not be balanced because 
politicians were afraid to confront the problem of explosive 
entitlement spending, and they said that the budget could not be 
balanced without increasing taxes.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the new majority broke with that conventional 
wisdom and proved the skeptics wrong. We threw aside the politics of 
the past and made the tough decisions that have brought us to the brink 
of a balanced budget, our Nation's first since 1969.
  Make no mistake: We are here today talking about a balanced budget 
solely because the people elected a Republican Congress. If the 
Congress was still controlled by the Democrats, they would still be 
passing tax increases and President Clinton would still be signing 
them. They would still be dodging reforms of entitlement and President 
Clinton would be there with them.
  But fortunately we have another direction to choose. Republicans have 
defeated conventional wisdom and are bringing real change to 
Washington. We are now at the point where the only person standing in 
the way of real change and a real balanced budget today is President 
Clinton. This debate today tests the question of whether this President 
is truly committed to a balanced budget, and at this point, I can only 
conclude that he is not.
  Mr. Speaker, the President's budget strikes out on three pitches. It 
is not balanced, it spends more, and it taxes more. His fourth budget 
of the year, the one we vote on today, leaves the Nation with a deficit 
of $87 billion in the year 2002.
  If you like the politics of the past, if you support higher taxes, 
more Government spending and continued deficits for as far as the eye 
can see, then you will support this President's budget. If you want to 
break with the past, cut taxes, cut spending and bring our Nation's 
budget into balance for the first time in a generation, then you will 
vote against the President's budget and support our plan for welfare 
reform, cutting taxes on middle-income Americans, saving Medicare, and 
balancing the budget, using real numbers.
  Join with me, break with the past, and bring real change to 
Washington, defeat the President's budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are debating another smoke screen to keep the 
American people from knowing exactly what is in the Republican budget, 
what that budget really does. Exactly 1 month ago today, the President 
and the Congress adopted by resolution a continuing resolution that 
said quite clearly that we were going to have a balanced budget by the 
year 2002, and that that balanced budget must, and I quote, ``provide 
adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national 
defense, veterans, and the environment,'' and further, quote, ``will 
adopt tax policies to help working families.''
  Now, what does the budget do? Does it provide adequate funding for 
Medicaid? Absolutely not. It cuts Medicaid by $133 billion, by the most 
recently revised figures. That takes money from long-term care, which 
is what provides for elders in nursing homes, people who have used all 
of the resources that they have available, and takes away their 
capacity.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the balanced budget that we are 
looking at today is more than just a balanced budget; it is also about 
its contents. On the question of welfare reform, it is time for a 
compromise. The President can start by stopping his campaign to 
demonize the Republican plan. We have bargained in good faith and we 
have moved dramatically in the administration's direction by putting 
together a reasonable welfare reform bill that the President can and 
should sign.
  We recently sent to the President a lengthy response showing that our 
negotiations have produced an agreement that is complete or in 
substantial agreement with 85 percent of the 88 specific objections 
that the administration raised in October, 85 percent. How many 
negotiations do we enter into where the other side can win on 85 
percent of the issues, and they still are not satisfied?
  We provide more child care funds and more cash welfare funds than 
States would get under current law. These are not cuts; these are not 
even reductions in the rate of spending growth. The are absolute 
increases in Federal spending above the CBO line, and spending on all 
of these welfare programs covered in our bill rises over 4 percent each 
year. Yet, despite our willingness to compromise, the administration 
continues to claim that is not enough and that we are harming millions 
of children. That is baloney.
  This administration has shown no willingness to compromise, to put a 
credible alternative plan on the table, and the budget we have before 
us today is simply proof of that fact.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the President if he were here that the 
welfare reforms in your latest bill do not end welfare as we know it 
today, and the President knows that. He knows that the American people 
know that.
  Mr. President, in the next few days, you will receive a bill that 
will allow you to fulfill your pledge to end the current failed welfare 
system. We await you decision, and the American people are watching to 
see whether you can be counted on to keep your word and change welfare 
as we know it today.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are, a week before Christmas, and almost 3 
months past the beginning of the fiscal year, and we have a Government 
that is shut down. We are nowhere close to passing a 7-year balanced 
budget plan that protects Medicare, Medicaid, education, the 
environment, and poor children. How come? How come?
  Well, Speaker Gingrich and the new majority just does not seem to be 
able to do their job. For sure, they have not done their job when it 
comes to passing the spending bills. In fact, 75 percent of nonmilitary 
domestic spending for this year has yet to be approved, 75 percent. And 
the new majority certainly has not done their job when it comes to 
living up to their side of the budget negotiations. They have yet to 
deliver a plan that protects Medicare, Medicaid, education, our 
environment, and poor children.
  Instead, the new majority is down here on the floor today fiddling, 
fiddling as the Nation burns. That is right. The new majority is 
fiddling today as crucial services for the elderly, veterans, and our 
national parks are cut off, and the stock market is drooping.
  This Nation cannot afford another day of Newt's dangerous games. It 
is time for the majority to stop fiddling, to stop fiddling around and 
wasting time. It is time to stop the political grandstanding. Let us 
reopen the Government today.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, if this Congress does nothing, in 15 short years with 
the policies embodied in current law, every single dollar of tax 
revenue will go to entitlements or interest. If there is no serious 
reform of our budget and the policies that underlie it, in 15 years 
there will be no money for roads and bridges and airports, no money for 
education and Head Start, no money for 

[[Page H15140]]
embassies abroad, no defense, no EPA enforcement.
  We cannot allow that to happen, and yet the President's budget does 
nothing but deal with dollar figures. Just cutting here and cutting 
there will not put this Nation on a sound financial basis. We must 
reform the way we use our dollars. We have to reform Medicare, we have 
to reform welfare. This is not a budget that creates a future for our 
Nation.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks).
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let us face it. The President and 
the Democrats want to save Medicare and Medicaid. Those are our 
priorities. The Republicans want to do that, but they want $245 billion 
in tax cuts. The two things cannot be done. My colleagues, we cannot 
have $245 billion in tax cuts and save Medicare and Medicaid. It is 
just that simple. That is what the American public needs to understand.
  Forget about all of this rhetoric, forget about all of this air. The 
bottom line is, we need to save this for the people of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about how this is President 
Clinton's budget. How can we vote for this when this is just like 
taking one of the old master's paintings, one of the old Dutch masters, 
and come up and reproduce it and say, this is a real Rembrandt or this 
is one of the real Dutch masters. It is not. We must know a phoney when 
we see it.
  So we cannot do that. The real Clinton budget saves older Americans, 
it saves education, it saves children. We need real, honest figures. 
These are not real, honest figures. The Congressional Budget Office has 
changed this by $135 billion, different from what it was in the 
beginning.
  Face it, America. Come through with the figures and then help the 
American public save Medicare and Medicaid. We have to do it.
  The resolution before us today is just like those phony paintings by 
the old masters that pop up every now and then. The sellers say that 
the painting is a Rembrandt, but the experts know that it is really 
just a fake. Let us face it President Clinton and the Democrats want a 
balanced budget in 7 years with our priorities--Medicare and Medicaid.
  Well, let us get real: This is not really President Clinton's budget; 
it is a Republican reproduction of President Clinton's budget.
  The real Clinton budget will provide Medicare and Medicaid for older 
Americans.
  The Republicans have taken something of value and made it worthless, 
because they are so desperate.
  They were elected to govern, but they have proven that they do not 
know how to govern. They can only stalemate.
  They do not know how to compromise; Republicans can not pass 
appropriations bills on time--three of them have not even gotten to the 
President yet.
  Charlie Stenholm and the coalition and President Clinton have proven 
that you can balance the budget in 7 years and still maintain our 
compassion for the poor, and the elderly, and people in nursing homes. 
Republicans talk about balancing the budget with real, honest 
Congressional Budget Office numbers. Let me remind you that 
Congressional Budget Office real numbers have changed by $135 billion. 
So the key is getting rid of that hallowed Republican $245 billion tax 
cut.
  But here we are, less than a week before Christmas, and we see this 
Republican reverse Robin Hood: ``Take from the poor and give to the 
rich.''
  Republicans, you can balance the budget in 7 years, but you cannot 
provide a $245 billion tax cut.
  Mr. Chairman, defeat this phony facsimile of the Presidents budget 
resolution; drop that quarter-trillion dollar tax cut; and let us write 
real budget.
  I will show you how.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. McCRERY].
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
   Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here today is the latest offering 
of the President in the budget negotiations, and that latest offering 
has been scored by Congressional Budget Office, and that latest 
offering has been found by Congressional Budget Office not to balance 
the budget in the year 2002. So for those of my colleagues who are 
saying that we are fiddling here today, that we are doing nothing, I 
want to point out that it is the President who is fiddling.
  The President has yet to put on the table a budget that will be in 
balance in the year 2002, and what we are doing here today, very 
frankly, is underscoring one more time that the legislative branch of 
this Government wants to produce, with the President's help and 
signature, a balanced budget in 7 years using Congressional Budget 
Office figures.
  If my colleagues vote for this budget today, they are saying they do 
not want a balanced budget in the year 2002. But I suspect they do, and 
I suspect they will vote against it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, the President, Democrats, and Republicans 
have all agreed to balance the budget in 7 years. That debate has been 
won. What are we talking about? The debate had been won that we would 
balance the budget in a time certain, 7 years. So why are we going 
through this?
  We should not be in a debate about whether we balance the budget; the 
debate is really about how we balance the budget, who will pay and who 
will lose? Will there be shared pain, shared sacrifice, as we go 
through this process? That is what the debate is about.
  This resolution that is on this floor is an insult to our 
intelligence and to the American people. This is not the President's 
budget. My Republican colleagues took his old submission and gave their 
interpretation of it. It really should be a clean continuing resolution 
to allow the Government to go on as we serve the citizens and the 
Nation. While we debate how we actually balance the budget, we should 
let the people of this country be served well by the citizens.
  This debate really is the wrong debate. We should defeat this bill 
not because it is the President's bill, we should defeat the bill 
because it is a phoney act on the part of the Republicans.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget we vote on today, and I 
would agree with the former speaker, is insulting. It is not only a 
broken promise, it is a broken law.
  Twenty-nine days ago the President signed into law a commitment to 
present a plan to balance the budget in 7 years using Congressional 
Budget Office numbers. Instead, he has sent us a budget that continues 
deficit-spending and fails to balance by at least $87 billion in the 
year 2002. It is out of balance by $87 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has said in speech after speech and press 
release after press release that he favors a balanced budget. Why does 
he refuse to submit one? We will negotiate a great many items in our 
balanced budget proposal but we cannot and will not compromise on our 
commitment to balance the Federal budget in 7 years with honest 
numbers.
  Vote against the President's budget and end the policy of spend now, 
pay later.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are here today is 
to talk about the comparisons between what the Republicans want to have 
in their budget and what the President wants.
  The President has agreed to a 7-year budget using CBO numbers, but 
the reason we cannot come to an agreement is because of the tax cuts 
that the Republicans want to have before they really get to the 7-year 
balanced budget.
  The Republican budget not only wants to provide tax cuts but they 
want to slow growth in, their terminology, Medicare by forcing seniors 
into managed care that they opposed last year in President Clinton's 
health care plan, raise the premiums, cut doctor and hospital 
reimbursements, and cut senior citizen health care.
  I have a letter I received today from a senior citizen in my district 
who may 

[[Page H15141]]
very well decide to use managed health care right now, but that is her 
choice. Under the Republican budget, she will be forced to do it 
because she cannot afford the $100 extra that it is going to cost her 
on her supplemental policy.
  The other difference is the education cuts. The Republican budget 
over the 7 years will cut Federal funding for education just like the 
rescissions bill earlier this year cut schools in my district. It is 
wrong to cut Medicare and education to provide tax cuts.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. English].
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Clinton budget. Not only is it bloated and unbalanced but it 
contains a dog's breakfast of job-killing tax changes dreamed up by 
green eyeshade types apparently in the bowels of the Treasury.
  For example, the Clinton budget would strike the so-called 2 percent 
de minimis rule which allows companies to invest up to 2 percent of 
their assets in tax-exempt bonds without any cumbersome recordkeeping. 
Eliminating this rule would severely impact the market for small issue 
industrial development bonds, a key local job creation instrument, and 
would raise interest costs for all State and local government 
borrowing. In short, eliminating this rule will eliminate jobs and 
raise local taxes.
  In addition, the President's plan contains a proposal to deny 
deductions to companies on certain securities they issue, 
discriminating against long-term debt financing.
  By limiting the financial options of American companies, the Clinton 
budget would limit their ability to invest in new equipment and 
technology. It would hurt the ability of American workers to compete in 
the world market. Vote against this budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the trend of 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina talking about where we are today. 
As she pointed out, yesterday we voted roughly 390 to 41 to have a 7-
year balanced budget. That is set up.
  Where we are now at this very moment hopefully, our leaders and our 
President are meeting and going to get back on the track and especially 
back to the table so that we can begin talking about a budget that we 
can all agree on and that we can pass and get the Government working 
again.
  There are differences and they are honest differences in this budget 
that we should be talking about at the negotiating table. One of these 
is the cuts in the earned income tax credit, because when we look at 
the amounts being suggested, this would roughly increase taxes by $508 
a year for roughly 3.3 million Americans, low-income-earning, working 
families. The coalition budget, which we are not even talking about 
here today, takes the 7-year balanced budget CBO scoring and does not 
do this.
  I am just saying, let us get back to the table, let us have a budget. 
That one is not even alive anymore.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal].
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the balanced budget is made up of 
many components, one of which is welfare reform, and I would like to 
talk about it very briefly. It is an issue that both sides have 
expressed their opinions about.
  In looking at that component of the President's package, I think we 
find that it falls short of both of our expectations. All of us 
recognize that if we are going to reform welfare, first of all we have 
to emphasize work. The conference committee report puts more people to 
work every year than does the President's plan.
  Second, we have to emphasize individual responsibility. Time limits. 
We are told in a recent survey that the average family now stays on 
welfare for 6\1/2\ years and that will rise to 13 years. The conference 
committee report puts a 2-year limit with an overall 5-year limit. The 
President's plan literally would allow people to remain in a subsidized 
program and never go into the private sector.
  Third is State flexibility. States are our partners in welfare 
reform. Under the Clinton proposal, they still have to go through a 
bureaucratic maze and beg the HHS for waivers in order to put their 
plans into place. The conference committee report gives them 
flexibility.
  Last of all, it should not serve as a magnet for those who are 
immigrants into our country. I would tell Members that the conference 
committee report is far superior in the area of welfare reform.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
proposal which does not balance the budget and with really great 
disappointment that we are not going to be allowed to consider the 
coalition plan today.
  Nobody here is more serious about deficit reduction than the 
coalition, but make no mistake, there is a right way and a wrong way to 
balance the budget. The coalition, the blue dog Democrats, proves that 
in 7 years you can balance the budget without undermining the American 
family farmer, you can balance the budget without limiting 
opportunities for our children and our grandchildren to better 
themselves through education, and you can balance the budget without 
jeopardizing the health care that our seniors have relied on for over 
30 years.
  The coalition substitute balances the budget with fairness, common 
sense and without gimmicks. Right from the start we have been motivated 
by a commitment to both fiscal responsibility and fairness. We are 
determined to meet our responsibility not to burden future generations 
with our debt but we are also determined to preserve what is working, 
the very best policies that enable our children to succeed, our farmers 
to compete and our seniors to feel secure that their health needs will 
be met.
  The coalition is willing to work with anyone who wants to balance the 
budget. We know that our colleagues may not agree with everything we 
want to do, but we want to stop wasting the time of the American people 
and start working on a solution. This is a great opportunity that must 
not be wasted. We must do the right thing by our children and our 
grandchildren. We must start working together. I hope we do it now.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United States came into this 
Chamber to make his first speech to a joint session of Congress, he 
observed that only by controlling the runaway growth of Medicare could 
we hope to ever balance the budget. We do that in our budget by 
transforming Medicare contrary to the misinformation and wrongful 
rhetoric for political purposes. We force no one off of the current 
program. They may elect to continue with the current program. But we 
offer them choices, choices that will give them more benefits at less 
cost and at the same time transform Medicare and save it, not just for 
the next election but for the next generation.
  For 15 years, CBO scores our plan to save Medicare so that it will 
not go bankrupt. That is what this balanced budget is about. But it is 
also about saving Medicare.
  Now the Democrats should not be able to have it both ways. They claim 
on the one hand that the President has submitted a balanced budget in 7 
years. Yet if in fact it is not specific enough to be scored by CBO, 
which they have argued today in the way that we present it, how can it 
be concluded to be in balance? It is not specific. If it could be, it 
would then certainly undermine their argument that what we present is 
not scored by CBO. They cannot have it both ways.
  Hopefully the President, who is meeting right now with our 
leadership, will finally come to the bargaining table and seriously 
present a CBO-scored 7-year balanced budget with real numbers. Let us 
find solutions for the next generation, not political fixes for the 
next election.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, and to my neighbor from Houston, that 
unfortunately what we are doing today is all 

[[Page H15142]]
about rhetoric. This is not about the budget process. We do not have 
the coalition budget on the table that is a 7-year CBO budget. This is 
about how absurd things get in this House the closer we seem to get to 
Christmas.
  Last week we passed a bill that was supposed to save Social Security 
from an impending default which would destroy our creditworthiness and 
in fact the bill would do the opposite. This week we are voting on a 
budget that is not even the real budget that the President submitted. 
This is just something to buy time so we can come down and talk on the 
floor. This is a Dale Carnegie course for the House of Representatives.
  The fact of the matter is that we ought to be sitting down 
negotiating at the table. We have a coalition budget that we could talk 
about. Your budget is not the only way to do things. You all are not 
the smartest people in the world as much as you would like to think.
  Let me say it is absurd. You all talk about interest rate cuts. You 
use your CBO and you say it is going to cut interest rates by 200 basis 
points, but when you look at what CBO says, it is going to cut them by 
35 basis points. The fact of the matter is we are not doing our work. 
Let us do our work and let us go home.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and ask 
unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, the members of the Commerce Committee were 
proud and privileged, earlier this year, when we were called upon to 
play a central role in the development of the first balanced budget for 
this Republic in a generation.
  We were called upon to make difficult choices, overdue choices, 
choices that are imperative if we and our children are to maintain this 
economy.
  With respect to Medicaid, as in so many other areas, those choices 
involved political risk. But that is the essence of leadership. And as 
we all know, leadership has been in short supply in this Capitol for 
far too long.
  We took the political risks. We made the difficult choices.
  We transformed Medicaid, with more money for more doctors and more 
medicines--and fewer bureaucrats, fewer rules, less paperwork.
  We brought Medicaid spending under control, and for the first time 
since the Great Depression, we moved power away from the Washington 
bureaucrats.
  We gave responsibility back to the people in their States and local 
communities, where Medicaid can be managed more fairly and with greater 
efficiency.
  And Bill Clinton sat in the bleachers.
  For years, when he was Governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton came to 
this Congress and asked us to give the States the power to manage their 
own Medicaid programs.
  Today, he gives those States an unfunded mandate instead. A mandate 
from Washington to the States, without the money to pay for it--a 
mandate of the sort we outlawed, earlier this Congress, and which the 
President himself has signed into law.
  This is not just another unfunded mandate.
  This is the ``Mother of All'' unfunded mandates--one with a pricetag 
for State and local taxpayers of $47 billion.
  If President Clinton were to succeed in this stalemate, if he were to 
get his way with the so-called per-capita cap on Medicaid, it would 
force the States to come up with an additional $47 billion.
  That is because the States would still have to comply with all the 
rules, all the requirements of the existing Medicaid system, but with a 
cap on the amount of Federal money to help them do so.
  Forty-seven billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, 47 billion hard-earned 
dollars. Money that could be used for schoolbooks, for teachers, for 
roads and bridges.
  As Bill Clinton himself told us in 1989, in a Resolution he wrote 
which was signed by 49 of the 50 Governors, ``the Medicaid mandates 
have put great stress on state budgets and undermined the states' 
ability to properly fund education and other important services.''
  As Governor after Governor has told us, the President's budget is a 
recipe for disaster--all the Washington rules, all the Washington 
mandates, just a cap on the amount of money that Washington is willing 
to contribute.
  The members of my committee are here, Mr. Speaker, to make the case--
loud and clear--that America can no longer afford the pricetag of 
Washington's bumbling good intentions, and that the States are ready, 
willing and able to deliver better health care for the poor and 
elderly, at lower cost, if only they are given the chance.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I think this rhetoric today and all of the 
things that have been said point up the need for an American solution.
  In the unlikely event there is anybody still watching these 
proceedings, I think they are tired of listening to blaming of the 
President, blaming of this, blaming of that. It is not getting us 
anywhere.
  I asked Coach Adolph Rupp one time years ago if it was true that it 
was not whether or not you won or lost but how you played the game. He 
said, ``Well, I guess that may have some truth to it. But if that is 
totally the truth, why do they have a scoreboard at either end?'' I 
would suggest there is a scoreboard up at this end and a scoreboard 
here. If you want to balance the budget, bring any budget, the 
President's, Republican, coalition, bring it in here on an open rule. 
Let us sit in here, start the voting on amendments. If you get more 
than 50 percent, you win. It goes on. If you do not, it does not.
  Let us sit down and work and balance the budget. That is what people 
want us to do in this country.
  This business the President did or did not do this or did or did not 
do that, people are tired of that. They want us to go to work.
  In a democracy, thank God in a democracy, when the other fellow is as 
intellectually honest and sincere in his beliefs as you or I may be, 
the way you do things is sit down and you try to reach a consensus and 
compromise. You do not have to do that if you live under a dictatorship 
or under communism. But in a free country, no one gets their way on 
everything.
  Republicans run the House now. We understand that. But let us come in 
here with an open rule, sit down and go through item by item, as long 
as people can stand it, and sooner or later we will have a balanced 
budget for the American solution.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and 
Environment.
  (Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, today's debate on the President's budget 
raises questions in the reminds of our people, and it is our 
responsibility to answer these questions truthfully.
  As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment, I 
will focus on the Medicaid Program. Everyone agrees that Medicaid 
cannot continue in its present state. Between 1990 and 1994, it was the 
fastest growing part of the Government. The programs' average annual 
growth rate was more than 19 percent. Over the years, the Nation's 
Governors have complained bitterly to Congress about the unfunded 
mandates that have been placed upon States.
  On August 1, 1989, the Nation's Governors' Association sent a letter 
to Congress urging us to ``adopt a 2-year freeze on the enactment of 
further Medicaid mandates.'' The letter was signed by 49 Governors, 
including then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

[[Page H15143]]

  In this Congress, we are listening to these Governors. The Medigrant 
plan approved by Congress shifts responsibility for the Medicaid 
Program to the States, where it will be closer to the people it serves. 
Washington bureaucrats would no longer make the decisions. However, a 
handful of Governors and at least one former Governor are now 
criticizing this effort, wishing to retain control in Washington.
  I might add that my home State of Florida received $13 million in 
Federal dollars over the last 7 years. During the next 7 years, under 
our plan, Florida will receive better than $33 billion. This is a cut?
  Ironically, the President's budget advocates a principle that is 
completely contrary to that in the 1989 letter he signed. His budget 
continues the current flawed and failing program. This means Washington 
micromanagement continues, and State flexibility, a top priority of 
Governors, would not be permitted.
  Plainly and simply, Mr. Speaker, the Medicaid program cannot survive 
unless the needed Medigrant reforms are made law, and this program must 
be saved. Accepting anything less would be breaking faith with those 
who depend upon it, and that would be the real injustice.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been through incredible political 
brinksmanship, Newt Gingrich has managed to shut down our Government, 
and by Christmas Day cost the American taxpayer a little over a billion 
dollars with these two shutdowns, paying Federal workers not to work. 
But now, with this resolution, in addition to brinksmanship, we have 
gamesmanship. It is as if we are going to consider a make-believe 
budget that they are presenting and planning to vote against instead of 
sitting down in good-faith negotiations to try to resolve this problem.
  It is as if they have been watching too much daytime television. You 
know, it is like ``Let's Make a Deal.'' ``Mr. And Mrs. America, behind 
door No. 1, we have got misery. We have got misery for those families 
who will be called on to pay for a senior who gets left in a nursing 
home when you raid the family's income. Behind door No. 2, you can 
choose indifference. Yes, if you are a young person concerned about an 
education, if you are concerned about clean air or clean water, go with 
door No. 2. And behind door No. 3, why, we have got tax breaks, yes, 
tax breaks.''
  And so you choose door No. 3, and what do our Republican friends say? 
Are you a corporation that made a lot of money and did not want to pay 
any taxes? No? Well, then you are not entitled to go to door No. 3. Are 
you a family sitting up there at the top of the economic ladder feeling 
really good and being asked to sacrifice by taking a little more income 
and a bigger tax break? Well, no. Well, then you are not entitled to go 
to door No. 3; you can only go to misery or to indifference, which is 
what this Republican budget is all about.
  You see, they have failed yet to present a balanced budget, a 
balanced budget that provides balance to the American people and 
fairness to the American people.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is simple: Should seniors 
be given the same choices in their health care that Members of Congress 
enjoy?
  Under the Republican plan to save Medicare, seniors get choices just 
like we do. They can choose from traditional Medicare, HMOs, PPOs, 
Provider Sponsored Organizations, Medical Savings Accounts, or other 
private insurance packages.
  Under the Republican plan, seniors' first choice is traditional 
Medicare. Seniors are automatically enrolled in traditional Medicare if 
they don't choose a different option.
  Under the President's plan, seniors do not get all of these choices. 
Isn't it time that we allow seniors to enroll in the same types of 
plans that Members of Congress can enroll in. Don't you think it's time 
we give seniors the same options that we give ourselves under our 
health plan.
  Mr. Speaker, the proposal before us today includes the President's 
plan to get money from Medicare. His plan does not include giving 
seniors all the choices that the Republican plan would provide.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the President's budget proposal. We 
have already proven that we can do better.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  (Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, it seems like the freshman Republican 
class thinks they are the only ones sent here to work for change. But 
as a second-term Member, I was sent to bring about commonsense change.
  But, instead, everyone is here today throwing stones, arguing 
political rhetoric. You know what that is, that is the status quo, 
exactly what I came here to change.
  No Member, no Member in this body, I do not think, would be willing 
not to stay here Christmas Day if they thought there was a true 
national crisis. But it is not fair. It is not fair to the Federal 
employees, to our families, to the American people, most of all, to 
fabricate a crisis for the sake of a campaign slogan.
  Because there is a commonsense budget out there that does balance the 
national budget by the year 2000, and it does it with good, honest CBO 
numbers. That is the coalition budget. If we are serious about doing 
the American people's business, we would have that budget up and we 
would be negotiating it now because it is good policy. It does not 
devastate agriculture. It does not devastate rural health, seniors, or 
our young people and education.
  So I encourage all Members to come to the table here to find a 
commonsense solution for the American people who sent us.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the Clinton budget 
plan, particularly with regard to health care rationing through 
micromanagement by HCFA.
  The President's Medicaid plan is a per capita cap plan which 
maintains all of the mandates, regulations, and obstacles to 
flexibility just as they are, while limiting the amount of money the 
States will receive. In a nutshell, the President is placing dollar 
figures on the value of health care for poor Americans, and forcing the 
States to use the cookie cutter method once again to classify who is 
Medicaid eligible. Poor children get the least and poor elderly get the 
most, regardless of their individual circumstances. Not only does this 
open the door to fraud and abuse via misclassification, it hog-ties the 
States and actually creates a much more difficult situation than the 
horrendous circumstances that States currently face.
  Worst of all, the President's plan will enable HCFA to create a 
virtual health care police state in every State in the country to track 
down those who would misclassify beneficiaries. HCFA will dispatch 
dozens of bureaucrats to detect such practices.
  This is the worst possible solution for a program which already faces 
way too many problems. The President's plan is unfair, unworkable, 
indefensible, and is doomed to failure. The Republican plan, on the 
other hand, frees States to enact innovative solutions to the difficult 
situations they face, utilizing the resources that are available. Mr. 
Speaker, we want to give States the ability to innovate with regard to 
providing health care for poor Americans, not place the States in a 
regulatory strait jacket with no room to move.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Speaker Newt Gingrich was named 
Time Magazine's ``Man of the Year''. Today, the man of the year brings 
us the scam of the year. That's what this resolution is, a colossal 
scam.
  Everybody knows that when you can't defend your position, you change 

[[Page H15144]]
  the subject. That's what this resolution is--a diversionary tactic. 
Republicans cannot defend cutting Medicare, Medicaid, education, and 
the environment to finance a tax break for the wealthy.
  The American people have rejected the GOP budget which will do harm 
to the people of this country. But, instead of working to come up with 
a budget that reflects the priorities of the American people, the 
Speaker shuts down the Government, throwing thousands of people out of 
work a week before Christmas.
  Mr. Speaker, stop playing games with people's lives. Stop playing 
games on the floor of the people's House. Give the American people an 
early Christmas present: a balanced budget that reflects America's 
priorities, not yours.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of 
Representatives, I rise in opposition to what we are calling the 
President's budget. It is, in the materials that I have, the Clinton 
administration December 7 budget option which we are referring to in 
some of our working papers as Clinton's budget option No. 4.
  I want to speak specifically on two specific items in this budget: 
the President's proposal for Medicare, which covers health care needs 
for senior citizens; and Medicaid, which covers health care for low-
income Americans.
  In Medicare, the balanced budget bill that we passed and the 
President vetoed would have resulted, according to CBO, in savings in 
waste, fraud, and abuse of $3.4 billion over 7 years. The President's 
option has Medicare savings in waste, fraud, and abuse of $2.4 billion, 
which is $1 billion less.
  In relationship to Medicaid, which is health care for low-income 
Americans, the budget bill that the President vetoed, we would have 
block-granted Medicaid, given more money to the States, given the 
Governors and the State legislatures the opportunity to actually run 
the programs as they saw fit. In the case of Texas, the State that I 
represent in the Congress, Texas would have received $55 billion over 7 
years, including half a billion dollars for legal alien health care 
costs.

                              {time}  1645

  The President's budget is silent on that. It maintains Medicaid as an 
entitlement and does not give the States the right to do anything. I 
hope we would reject the President's budget.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Minge.].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are engaged in a debate 
over a supposed presidential budget that does not actually represent 
the President's position. I think it is important for us to recognize 
that the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, last week came out with 
projections that are new, and that the President today is completing 
work on a new budget proposal.
  What is the point of having a debate and a vote on something that all 
of us know is already out of date? Instead, I suggest that we ought to 
be addressing the basic underlying conflict that plagues us here in the 
House of Representatives and in Congress in reaching an agreement with 
the President.
  There are two basic issues: The first is tax cuts, and the second is 
block-granting Medicaid. I think almost everybody in this body agrees 
that we ought to cut taxes. We disagree on whether that ought to be the 
top priority or whether balancing the budget ought to be the top 
priority. And if it is not the top priority to cut taxes, can we 
actually wait and cut taxes after we have balanced the budget?
  I submit that the top priority is balancing the budget, and we ought 
to wait with the tax cuts until we have accomplished that. I submit 
that if we made that fundamental decision, that we could reconcile with 
the President the issue of how we deal with block-granting Medicaid.
  The coalition has presented a budget which does exactly this. It is a 
midground budget between the extremes that are represented in the 
debate today.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
budget plan offered by the President. There are many reasons to vote 
``no'' today, particularly because the President's budget violates the 
pledge the Congress and the President made to enact 7-years balanced 
budgets using honest numbers.
  But there is another reason to object to the President's budget. The 
President's plan guts health care improvements for seniors in rural 
America contained in the bill passed by Congress. Under current law, 
the formula used to pay private health plans participating in Medicare 
varies widely and unreasonably. While plans in some areas of the 
country receive over $7,500 per year for each senior, an HMO or other 
plan in a Adair County, IA, would get less than $3,000. The Clinton 
budget continues this unfair reimbursement. It protects the status quo. 
Iowans pay just as much into the Medicare system as everyone else in 
the country does.
  The president of the Iowa health association has stated ``Iowa 
Medicare beneficiaries deserve to have the same kind of choices which 
are available already in New York City, Miami, and southern California. 
The Republican budget bill is a good first step in addressing Medicare 
health plan payment equity.''
  The balanced budget plan passed by the House and Senate addresses 
this issue. The President's budget plan is a slap in the face to rural 
health care. We worked too hard and made too much progress to let this 
issue die. We owe it to seniors in rural areas to defeat the Clinton 
budget.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my Republican colleagues get 
up time after time today and criticize their budget bill that is before 
us today. My answer is very simple: Why are they bringing the bill up? 
They are in the majority. If they think the bill is a bad bill, why are 
they debating it and why did they bring it to the floor?
  I think the Republican majority has forgotten it is their 
responsibility to govern. They should be bringing up a continuing 
resolution so the Government is not shut down. Friday passed, Monday 
passed, and now it Tuesday. No CR was brought up. The Government is 
shut down. They should bring up an appropriations bill so the 
Government would not be shut down and we can get on with the business 
of governing. No appropriations bill comes up.
  They made a commitment a few weeks ago with the CR they were going to 
protect Medicare, protect Medicaid, protect the environment. Once again 
we see no movement whatsoever on the budget to try to protect these 
important programs that the American people want protected and that 
have been a success.
  I do not understand the whole philosophy of what they are doing 
today. They are simply wasting our time. They know that this is a bill 
that will not pass. They are not even going to give it a single vote, I 
do not think, and yet they continue to debate it. It is not fair.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me, the gentleman from New 
Jersey, protests that the bill before us in fact does not fairly 
represent the President's positions and wonders why we bring this 
vehicle to the floor. The reason we do is because the President has 
never submitted a budget that actually reflects his positions. He has 
never done that.
  The story really begins in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for President. 
He made every promise anyone ever asked him to do in order for votes. 
He promised he could balance the budget in 5 years. He promised a 
middle-class tax cut. He promised to spend more money on virtually 
every program in the country.
  The fact of the matter is, and the President knows it and my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle know it, it is impossible to 
do that and balance 

[[Page H15145]]
the budget in 7 years scored with honest numbers. It is impossible. 
That is why the President has to this date never walked into the room 
with a document that balances the budget in 7 years, scored by honest 
numbers. He has never done that to this date, and it is nearly 
Christmas.
  So my colleagues and I, out of a sense of frustration, to show the 
country that the President of the United States has not even submitted 
a budget that his party will support, bring it to the floor today to 
show that the President of the United States remains, this late in the 
year, bereft of a plan that lives up to the conflicting promises that 
he has made through his campaign in 1992 and the conflicting statements 
that he has made throughout his tenure as President.
  This is a bad bill. We are waiting for an honest bill from the 
President of the United States.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this dreadful Christmas budget standoff 
will only end when Members of the majority work with Members of the 
minority to bridge the differences that divide us. The scriptures say 
blessed are the peacemakers, and I congratulate each and every one who 
is working today to try to find a way to resolve these differences.
  Now, in contrast to that effort, the resolution before us is a 
shallow, obviously partisan effort, to preen and posture, rather than 
tend to substantive business. With portions of the Government shut down 
and with budget talks at impasse before they have even begun, the 
American people can expect much more of the House than this silly 
sideshow today.
  For those of us looking for a bipartisan agreement, I commend your 
attention to the coalition budget plan. It reaches a balanced budget, 
it does so in 7 years, it uses CBO numbers. It protects vital programs. 
The coalition plan restores $75 billion to the cuts the majority has 
proposed for Medicare. It adds back $68 billion to Medicaid, reducing 
by more than 50 percent the devastating cuts the vetoed budget would 
have imposed.
  When we finish wasting our time on this meaningless resolution, I 
look forward to working with one and all on arriving at a balanced 
budget plan. I suggest the coalition budget will be a very good way to 
get this difficult job done.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, for the 10th day this year, major sectors of the 
American Government are at a standstill, with the White House and 
Congress at an impasse.
  We have heard from our friends on the other side that this debate is 
an attempt to embarrass the President.
  No. With the Government in gridlock, this is an effort to give the 
President's plan its day in Court.
  As this debate has progressed, it has become apparent that what is at 
stake for the President is not an effort to balance the budget. What is 
at stake for him is the status quo--uncontrolled spending, bigger 
bureaucracies, higher taxes on the American people.
  It is hard to imagine a deficit more in need of fixing. It is hard to 
imagine a program in greater risk than Medicare.
  And it is hard to imagine a worse situation than the current Medicaid 
setup--Federal micromanagement, thousands of bureaucrats, volumes of 
rules.
  And yet nowhere in these rules do we see the word ``patient.''
  Nowhere do we see the words ``quality of care.''
  It is hard to imagine a structure more complex, more inefficient than 
Medicaid is today.
  But as the last 15 minutes of debate has shown, the President's 
proposal on Medicaid does just that--all the rules, all the mandates, 
all the bureaucrats, but a cap on the money available to the States to 
comply.
  It is the biggest unfunded mandate in history, with a pricetag to the 
States of $47 billion.
  Mr. President, I hope you are watching me now. I beg you, sir. Listen 
to this debate, watch the vote today, and realize that your plan fails 
on its own weight.
  Then come to the table, Mr. President, and work with us in good 
faith. Let us do what you asked as Governor--give the States the 
responsibility for better Medicaid, with better health care, at lower 
costs, for more elderly and poor Americans.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman], my good friend.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of all the rhetoric that I am 
hearing on the floor of this House. Everyone in America knows now that 
this shameful Government shutdown has nothing to do with reaching a 
balanced budget. It has to do with not passing the appropriations bill. 
Federal workers are sitting at home and our constituents are disgusted 
because this Congress has not completed its work. Unable to agree among 
themselves, the majority party is threatening the President to accept 
radical changes in policy or shut down the Government.
  Well, I've got news for you. People's problems do not recognize a 
shut down. For example, the Annie Johnson Senior Center in Dunellon, 
FL, can no longer accept senior citizens to its congregate dining table 
because the Labor-HHS bill has not been passed. For the past 15 years, 
this center has been funded by the Older Americans Act. It provides 
home delivered meals, transportation, and homemaking help for senior 
citizens in Dunnellon. However, because this Republican Congress has 
not done its job, the center could close down.
  It is time to get beyond this tiresome bickering and pass a 
continuing resolution that gets Americans back to work. Balancing the 
Federal Budget is everyone's objective but we do not need to ruin 
Christmas for Federal workers to achieve that goal. How we get to a 
balanced Federal budget can be debated after we put Americans back to 
work.
  Stop the games and open up the Government. Peoples problems do not 
recognize a shutdown. Seniors need their food. Veterans need their 
benefits. College students need their loans. This is Christmas. The 
majority should quit playing scrooge and approve a CR. That is the best 
present we could give the American people.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out to the 
gentlewoman that the reason that bill has not passed is because it is 
filibustered by the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman, was the center 
open when the House passed the continuing resolution?
  Mrs. THURMAN. Yes, it was.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed 
to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, while the President's overall approach to the 
budget is deplorable, he actually occupies the conservative high ground 
on the issue of student loans. Both guaranteed and direct student 
lending are Government programs, and both are run primarily by the 
private sector. The key difference is in the pricing of those private 
sector services.
  Under guaranteed lending, all the payments to the private sector are 
determined politically--by Congress in the Higher Education Act. Under 
direct lending, all private sector services are procured through 
competitively bid contracts. [Let me repeat: under guaranteed lending, 
every payment made to private parties is determined politically. Under 
direct lending, every payment to private parties is determined in a 
market process.] Conservatives should prefer a market process over a 
political process every time.
  It should come as no surprise that direct lending, as a market-
oriented program, also costs less. The CBO does not score the savings 
primarily because it scores direct loans as if they were fixed 

[[Page H15146]]
rate loans carrying interest rate risk for the Government, when in fact 
they are variable rate loans with no such risk. Conservatives should 
care more about the real cost than the CBO cost.
  Mr. Speaker, politically set payments for private services are a 
classic recipe for corporate welfare, and guaranteed student loans 
demonstrate it. I deeply regret that many Members of my party have been 
led to support home State special interests rather than true 
conservative principles on this issue. I believe it undermines all our 
other efforts at Government reform, and therefore I urge all my 
colleagues to examine this issue much more closely.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, in 1776, our Founding Fathers fought it out 
at the Continental Congress trying to work out their differences, and 
they were able to work it out and form what we know of as the United 
States of America. I do not know why we cannot work out our differences 
now.
  Harry Truman once said if you want a friend in Washington, DC, buy 
yourself a dog. Maybe that is what is wrong with us. Maybe we need to 
buy a dog, because it is obvious a lot of us do not know how to talk to 
one another. It is obvious we do not know how to work with one another, 
and it is surely obvious that we do not know how to solve any problems.
  The American people are sick and tired of this gridlock that we have 
now. I blame some of it on the freshman Republicans, because some of 
them believe if you compromise, that you lose your principles.

                              {time}  1600

  Well, I do not think that is true at all. I think and believe very 
strongly that we can have a difference of opinion without having a 
difference of principle. That is what it is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, the question I have is why are we voting on this budget 
today. This get's us no closer to breaking the impasse which currently 
exists today and, in fact, acts as a wedge between the President and 
the Republican Congress preventing a budget agreement from ever being 
reached.
  It has been said that a House divided against itself will not stand. 
It could also be said that a Government divided against itself will not 
stand. Before our foundation begins to crumble even more, it is time 
for the President and the Republican leaders in Congress to agree to 
compromise to end the current Federal Government shutdown.
  Compromise is a word that has been thrown around in Washington quite 
a bit lately, but the time has come to stop talking the talk and start 
walking the walk: Congress needs to pass a temporary--very temporary--
spending bill without any superfluous additions; we need to pass the 
six remaining appropriations bills; and, most importantly, we need to 
sit at the table together and agree to a 7-year balanced budget. But 
everyone needs to give a little. We all need to compromise.
  The current budget impasse has been without a doubt the most 
frustrating situation I have endured as a Member of Congress. I am a 
strong proponent of balancing our budget, just as I am strongly 
committed to protecting our environment; enhancing education for our 
young people; and guaranteeing necessary health care for our seniors. 
There is a way to protect these vital interests and still crack the 
current budget gridlock, and that is through honest compromise and 
negotiation.
  I have been meeting regularly with a bipartisan group of Members of 
Congress who are committed to solving this crisis, and who are willing 
to give a little to get a little. We support a balanced budget using 
numbers from the Congressional Budget Office that minimize the tax cuts 
proposed by the GOP while increasing funding for Medicare and Medicaid. 
The time has come for this spirit of optimism and compromise to find 
its way to the upper echelon of Government so that we can all move 
toward the middle and find an acceptable resolution to this budget 
fiasco.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  There has been a lot of talk about the Republicans killing student 
loans in the last few months, and today, I want to set the record 
straight. The Balanced Budget Act that the President vetoed actually 
enhanced the postsecondary student's ability to get a loan. Under our 
plan, every student will be able to receive a student loan. The student 
loan provisions in the Balanced Budget Act achieve our goal of 
protecting student loans for every student and saving taxpayer dollars.
  Student loan dollars increase by 50 percent over the next 7 years. 
Every student who applies will be able to receive a student loan. No 
parent or student pays more for a loan under our budget than they do 
under the current law or under the President's budget, for that matter. 
More importantly, our budget spends money to give students more 
flexible repayment terms.
  The President's budget fails to include such a provisions, making one 
wonder why the President does not feel that all students should have 
the same opportunity to select from various repayment terms.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin], my good friend.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding me this 
time.
  People listening to this debate have to be wondering what we are 
debating about and why we are debating this. It is certainly not 
advancing a bipartisan solution of our budget crisis in this country, 
and it is certainly not about deficit reduction, because the budget 
resolution before us is not being seriously considered. Those who 
brought it forward indicate they will vote against it.
  Democrats would welcome a new budget resolution. We know that the 
Republican budget resolution is not going to become law. We welcome 
bringing a new budget resolution to the floor. Many of us have 
suggested the coalition budget, a budget that has much more deficit 
reduction, realistic spending targets, and protects Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, and the environment. It does that by putting tax breaks 
after we balance the budget.
  If we want to reduce the deficit, we can do that today. Let us pass a 
clean CR and stop wasting $40 million a day of the taxpayers' money by 
closing Government when it should be open and we should be negotiating 
a new budget.
  These are childish games to be debating this type of an issue while 
Government is closed. We need serious negotiations without 
preconditions. That is what the Democrats are asking for.
  Yes, the Majority asked about a 7-year balanced budget and CBO 
numbers. We are prepared for that. But what my constituents are saying 
is, where is the change in the budget that protects Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, and the environment?
  The continuing resolution that we passed last month contained those 
promises as well, but the Republicans have not, in good faith, brought 
forth changes in their budget in order to protect Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, and the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, let us stop these games, let us sit down and negotiate a 
budget that we can all agree with so that we can pass a new budget 
resolution on the floor of this House that, yes, brings us to a 
balanced budget but also protects the priorities that are important to 
the American people. That is what we should be doing here today and not 
playing the games on this resolution.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to read a letter I recently received from a young 
man named Aaron from my district.
  He writes, ``When I turned 16 I did two things right away. I went out 
and obtained my driver's license, and I got a job. I am now almost 17 
and have been working at various jobs for the past year. I have learned 
a lot from working, such as the value of money, the responsibility of 
having a job and how important it is to get a good education. One big 
thing I learned is that taxes will affect me for the rest of my life.''
  ``Before I started working I had no idea how much the government 
really took out of your paycheck for taxes. I have discovered that it 
is a lot of money. Actually, I don't really mind paying the money, as 
long as it is not too outrageous, and if I know for sure that one day I 
will benefit. For example, I want to be sure that when I am old enough 
to receive Social Security and Medicare, it will still be around.''
  ``I want to thank you for all your efforts toward decreasing taxes, 
and in 

[[Page H15147]]
making sure that the things my taxes pay for, such as Medicare and 
Social Security, will still be around in the future.''
  Mr. President, when you promised to present a balanced budget, you 
promised it to young men and women like this. Keep your promise, help 
us pass a balanced budget and keep faith with America.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana 
[Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I expect that there will be some 
embarrassment today among some of my Democratic colleagues who will 
find themselves voting against President Clinton's budget. I remember 
in the 1980's the humiliation that Republicans experienced when they 
voted against several budgets of our beloved former President, Ronald 
Reagan.
  There have been votes against the Bush budget, votes against the 
Carter budget. In fact, I have been here 17 years, and I remember only 
2 budgets that truly were the budgets of the President that passed this 
Congress in those 17 years. Three years ago, by one vote. In fact, I 
tied the vote and Congresswoman Margolies-Mezvinsky cast the deciding 
vote, and President Clinton got the budget he wanted.
  Early in President Reagan's term, in his first year, he got the 
budget he wanted. All other Presidents, all other budgets since I have 
been here, have been turned down by this House, regardless of who was 
President.
  This House has passed only budgets when the President would 
compromise with us. So today's vote, which I expect will come down 
against President Clinton, will be nothing new.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I realize and I empathize with those on 
the other side of the aisle who do not want to vote on the President's 
budget. My colleague put me through that exercise many, many times 
during the last, I do not know how many years. It is painful for a 
little while, but it goes away very quickly. So have no fear.
  I want to thank the minority leader for indicating that he has a 
concern about school lunch. I hope he will join with me. I have a 
tremendous concern about school lunch. Fifty percent of all of the 
children who are eligible for free and reduced-priced meals do not 
participate. Do not participate. That means they are in school all day 
long, I suppose, without any food. I suppose they have no breakfast 
when they come to school.
  So we should not do the status quo that the gentlewoman from Arkansas 
talked about. We should make changes. So I am happy that the gentleman 
is ready to deal with that.
  Another person from the other side talked about decimating education. 
Well, education is 6 percent of the budget from the national level. 
That is all we spend, 6 percent. But let me tell my colleagues, in the 
7 years that we are talking about, we are willing to spend $340 
billion. The minority, in the last 7 years, spent $315 billion. We are 
ready to spend $25 billion more than they spent in the last 7 years.
  Over the next school year, national spending on elementary and 
secondary education under our budget will increase by 4.1 percent. 
Again, let us talk about access to excellence and not mediocrity. Going 
back to the gentlewoman from Arkansas again, let us talk about 
something other than the status quo.
  The gentleman from Maryland, who is going to speak later, has joined 
with me the last couple of years, but prior to that, I was the only one 
who kept talking about what we are getting in terms of quality from 
chapter 1. What we are getting as far as quality is concerned in Head 
Start.
  Well, chapter 1, title I, we have spent $90 billion since 1967, and 
this is the report we get from the Department of Education. Comparison 
of similar cohorts by grade and poverty show that program participation 
does not reduce, not reduce, the test score gap for disadvantaged 
students. Indeed, chapter 1 students scored in all poverty cohorts 
declined between the third and fourth grade.
  Going to Head Start, we have spent $31.2 billion on the Head Start 
program, and this is, again, what they say. Unchecked growth over the 
last 5 years has brought about sloppy program management. Of course, 
every President and every Congress has said we will put more into the 
program. And so the program has increased in 5 years' time 186 percent. 
Do my colleagues know what it increased as far as participation is 
concerned? It increased participation 39 percent.
  The expenditure increases 186 percent, the participation 39 percent. 
And as the Secretary of HHS said, we do not say that improving quality 
will cost more money. So, again, let us not have the status quo. Let us 
insist on excellence in education, not just access.
  Mr. Speaker, one other area, let me talk about very quickly, and that 
is the whole area of higher education. The President says that in his 
proposal he saves $3 billion in higher education by slashing the income 
earned by the banks and the State guarantee agencies. Folks, that 
cannot be. How can that happen? Because he is going to direct lending 
100 percent in 2 years' time, so he cannot get $3 billion from the rest 
of the lending programs. He has eliminated them all in a 2-year budget. 
So he cannot say he will get $3 billion there.
  Mr. Speaker, we got $5 billion from those same agencies, but we also 
allow the competition, and that is what we are talking about when we 
set up the program. We want to see in a 7-year period what is better. 
We cannot, if he goes directly, and he cannot save that kind of money.
  So, again, look carefully at these budgets and let us talk about 
excellence rather than just access to mediocrity.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton].
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be honest with the public about what is going on 
and what is not going on. What is supposed to be going on right now is 
a negotiation between the President and the leadership of the House and 
Senate. In that negotiation each comes to the table with a position. 
During the negotiation each makes different offers about where they 
could move and where they could change.
  The President made such an offer of movement during a previous 
negotiation last week. That was not the President's budget. It was an 
offer of movement in a negotiation. What this resolution we are 
debating today represents is the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget attempting to identify, with a large variety of assumptions, 
what that would look like in the form of a budget, and then bring it 
here and say we are voting on the President's budget.
  That is not the truth. What we are doing is putting up a straw man to 
then take shots at so that we can attack the President as part of this 
negotiating posture. I would suggest it would be far more beneficial if 
rather than standing outside the room lobbing grenades into the 
negotiation room, that we actually find ways to find agreement between 
the two of us.
  Now, if we want to negotiate with the President and the leadership, 
let them go into the room and we ought to stop throwing grenades in the 
room. If we want to do it here, if we do not want the President and the 
leadership to negotiate it, if we want to negotiate it here on the 
floor of the House, there is a way to do that.
  We have suggested bring the majority resolution, the minority 
resolution, the President's, bring any resolution anyone wants to this 
floor under an open rule, without time limitations; put all of the 
Members in here, lock the doors, and do not even give any bathroom 
breaks, if the majority does not want to, but keep us here debating and 
using our voting card and doing what this Congress is supposed to do, 
what the people of the United States expect us to do, and let us vote 
and the winning vote passes. That is what we ought to be doing.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations, my leader.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Ohio 
for yielding time to me.

[[Page H15148]]

  Mr. Speaker, the President really has not come to the table, and that 
is what brings us here today. He promised in his campaign to balance 
the budget in 5 years, and then the next year he raised taxes on the 
American people by a greater amount than ever before.

                              {time}  1615

  And then February, February 1995, he says, ``Well, I do not want to 
balance the budget. I just want to give the American people a deficit 
of about $200 billion a year, sometimes $300 billion a year, as far as 
the eye can see.''
  Then he came up with a second budget, a 10-year balanced budget, 
because he got a lot of criticism for the first one. Still, when the 
Congressional Budget Office scored that budget, it was $200 billion in 
imbalance by the year 2005. Then he came up with a 7-year balanced 
budget, his third budget, and it was $115 billion in imbalance. Now, we 
have the fourth budget, given to us only a few weeks ago; $87 billion 
imbalance by the year 2002.
  The President has said he is committed to a balanced budget within 7 
years, but not now.
  He says he is for tax cuts, or at least he has from time to time, but 
not now.
  He says he is for Medicare reform and Medicaid reform, but not now.
  He says he is for welfare reform, but not now.
  He says he is even for discretionary cuts, but he criticizes the 
Congress for making those cuts in the appropriations process now.
  Mr. Speaker, oh, he did say that he wanted to cut defense by $7 
billion, but he sent the troops off to Bosnia, so he said not now.
  Otherwise, the President is in an awkward position. He really does 
want to protect the bureaucracy now; duplication of programs, waste, 
inefficiency of government, high regulation, yes, high taxes, 
centralized government. He is the champion of those issues now.
  My colleagues might call him the stalwart of the status quo. But he 
says he wants a balanced budget within 7 years. Now, these conflict. 
How does he do it? Well, we ask him to present his budget, but he still 
has not gotten there.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if the President wanted to balance the 
budget and save our economy and bring down interest rates and preserve 
the American dream for our children and our grandchildren, then he 
would come forward and put his package on the table, as we have done. 
But, unfortunately, there is no ``there'' there in the President's 
package. Ours is on the table. Where is his?
  Our reforms in welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid, our cuts in taxes are 
all in the package that he has vetoed. Our attempts in the 
appropriations process to cut $22 billion in this year's discretionary 
spending for fiscal year 1996 have, in part, been adopted and signed 
into law or accepted into law by the President. Seven bills have 
passed, and I will offer for the Record the status of those. But three 
bills have been vetoed in the last 2 days. That is despite the fact 
that overall, our appropriations process has eliminated 260-plus 
programs and substantially cut hundreds of others. But the President 
says, ``Not now.''
  He says, ``No, we will veto those bills, and we will take up those 
bills later.''
  Mr. Speaker, Christmas is coming and we have not taken them up. We 
have got an impasse, a constitutional impasse. It is our prerogative 
under the Constitution to pass the laws and send them to him. It is his 
prerogative to veto them.
  Where do we end up? I am not sure anybody knows, unless the President 
comes to the table now. His budget is a fig leaf. If he really wants to 
put America back on the right track, he should accept our budget and 
our appropriation bills. But maybe that is just not good politics. Mr. 
Speaker, I hope he comes to the table.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:

            Status of Appropriations Bills Fiscal Year 1996

                      [As of December 19--3 p.m.]

       7-Enacted into law.--Military Construction (P.L. 104-32); 
     Agriculture (P.L. 104-37); Energy & Water (P.L. 104-46); 
     Transportation (P.L. 104-50); Treasury-Postal Service (P.L. 
     104-52); Legislative Branch (P.L. 104-53); and National 
     Security (P.L. 104-61).
       3-Vetoed by the President.--Commerce-Justice-State; 
     Interior; and VA-HUD.
       1-Conference reports pending in Senate.--Foreign Operations 
     (Amendment No. 115--Abortion).
       1-Bill in conference.--District of Columbia.
       1-Passed the House and pending Senate floor action.--Labor-
     HHS.


                          program eliminations

       Transportation.--Highway demonstration projects ($352 
     million); Local rail freight assistance ($17 million); Penn 
     Station Redevelopment ($40 million); Interstate Commerce 
     Commission (after Jan. 1) ($15.4 million); Coast Guard buoy 
     replacement project ($8.5 million); Coast Guard 82-foot WPB 
     capability replacement ($4 million); Coast Guard HH-65 
     helicopter gearbox upgrade ($2.5 million); Coast Guard GPS 
     2nd District ($2.4 million); FAA ``Quality through 
     partnership'' program ($1.79 million); and FAA NAS management 
     automation program ($2 million).
       FAA traffic management system ($10.8 million); FAA Digital 
     BRITE display ($5.5 million); FAA remote maintenance 
     monitoring system upgrade ($3 million); FAA Integrated 
     network management system ($300,000); FAA precision runway 
     monitors ($1.2 million); FAA future airway facilities 
     technologies (R&D) ($3.4 million); FAA general aviation 
     renaissance ($1 million); Federal Hwy. Admin. OJT/supportive 
     svcs. ($5 million); FHWA ITS advanced technology applications 
     ($10 million); and FHWA ITS priority corridors ($10 million).
       Agriculture.--Cattle Tick Eradication Program, Food Stamp 
     Program ($12.5 million); Closed 3 Agriculture Research Svc. 
     laboratories ($1 million); Eliminated 26 research grants 
     ($4.7 million); and Nutrition Education Initiative, Extension 
     activities ($4.3 million).
       Treasury-Postal Service.--Advisory Commission on Intergovt. 
     Relations ($216,000); Administrative Conference of the U.S. 
     ($1.2 million); Treasury Special Forfeiture Fund ($45 
     million); IRS Tax Compliance ($405 million); OPM Federal 
     Quality Institute ($800,000); OPM International Affairs 
     Office ($140,000); OPM Research Office ($2.2 million); OPM 
     Job Information ($2.5 million); and OPM Occupational Testing 
     ($14.4 million).
       Legislative Branch.--Office of Technology Assessment ($18.4 
     million); U.S. Code subscriptions for Members ($420,000); 
     House Parking Lot 6 ($238,000); Warehouse at 120 Canal St., 
     SE ($181,000); Historical Society calendars for Members 
     ($850,000); Folding Room (privatized) ($6.1 million); Barber 
     Shop (privatized) ($148,000); and Ended taxpayer-subsidized 
     flag office ($324,000).
       Energy and Water.--Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor 
     ($20.7 million); Russian replacement program ($5 million); 
     Technology Partnership program ($3 million); In House Energy 
     Mgmt. ($31.3 million); Water Conservation Challenge 
     Partnerships ($9 million); Energy/Water Product Efficiency 
     Standards ($450,000); Construction Prod. Advancement Research 
     Program ($6 million); and Nat'l Assessment of Water Supply 
     Demand & Avail. ($3 million).
       Nat'l Spacial Data Infrastructure ($2 million); Dredging 
     Oper. and Environmental Research ($3 million); Water 
     Operations Tech. Support Program ($1.5 million); River 
     Confluence Ice Research ($1 million); Natural Resources 
     Technical Support ($1.6 million); Environmental Review Guide 
     for Operations ($1.5 million); Reinvested User Fees for 
     Recreation Improvements ($5 million); and Real Time Water 
     Control Research Program ($850,000).
       Interior.--Bureau of Mines ($30 million); Emergency 
     Preparedness (DOE) ($8 million); Pennsylvania Avenue 
     Development Corp. ($7 million); Urban park and recreation 
     fund ($6 million); State grants/land and water conservation 
     fund ($25 million); Business enterprise development grants 
     ($2 million); Indian direct loan program ($1 million); Navajo 
     rehabilitation trust fund ($2 million); Rural abandoned mine 
     program (RAMP) ($8 million); Advanced computational 
     technology initiative ($10 million); and Coalbed methane 
     program ($2 million).
       Planar solid oxide fuel cells program ($3 million); Mild 
     gasification process development unit ($4 million); Gasifier 
     improvement facility ($4 million); Advanced absorption fluids 
     ($1 million); Microcogeneration ($2 million); Lighting 
     collaboratives ($1 million); Federal energy efficiency 
     fund ($7 million); Cool communities ($2 million); Training 
     for commercial building operators ($2 million); Pressure 
     calciner project ($2 million); and Aluminum spray forming 
     ($3 million).
       Advanced fluid catalytic cracker ($2 million); Food, 
     textiles and agriculture program ($1 million); Grants to 
     industrial associations ($1 million); Industrial assessments 
     ($1 million); CNG absorbent systems and tank design ($1 
     million); Federal fleet vehicle acquisition (elim. central 
     DOE fund) ($20 million); Collaborative effort with DOT on 
     crash behavior ($1 million); Automotive piston technologies 
     ($5 million); Locomotive fuel cell program ($1 million); Fuel 
     cells for buses ($3 million); and Integrated resource 
     planning (utility sector programs) ($9 million).
       VA-HUD, Indep. Agencies.--National Community Service/
     Americorps ($577 million); Community Development Financial 
     Institutions ($125 million); Chemical Safety and Hazards 
     Investigation Board ($500,000); Office of Consumer Affairs 
     ($2.2 million); Public Housing Development ($598 million); 
     Enterprise Zone Homes ($50 million); Pension Fund 
     Partnerships ($350 million); Flexible Subsidy Fund ($50 
     million); Neighborhood Development ($5 million); and 
     Community Adjustment Planning ($2 million).
       National Homeownership Trust Demonstration ($50 million); 
     Congregate Housing 

[[Page H15149]]
     ($25 million); Project Based Service Coordinators ($22 million); 
     Economic Development Initiative ($350 million); Joint 
     Community Development ($6 million); Lease Adjustments ($22 
     million); Loan Management ($150 million); Public Housing 
     Coordinators ($30 million); and Service Coordinators ($30 
     million).
       Commerce, Justice, State.--Advanced Technology Program 
     ($340 million); U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration ($14 
     million; $2 million left for closeout costs); Non-point 
     Pollution Source Control grants ($5 million); Endowment for 
     Children's Educational Television ($2.5 million); 
     Contributions to U.N. Industrial Dev. Organization ($28 
     million); Competitive Policy Council ($1 million); and Ounce 
     of Prevention Council ($1.5 million).
       Labor, HHS (House eliminations).--Summer Youth ($871 
     million); Low Income Home Energy Assistance ($1 billion); 
     Goals 2000 ($372 million); Library Constitution & 
     Categoricals ($37 million); Corporation for National and 
     Community Service/Americorps ($577 million); Community 
     Development Financial Institutions ($125 million); Council on 
     Environmental Quality ($1.19 million); Chemical Safety and 
     Hazards Investigation Board ($500,000); Severely 
     Distressed Public Housing ($500 million); Flexible Subsidy 
     Fund--HUD ($50 million); Congregate Services--HUD ($25 
     million); HOPE grants ($50 million); Youthbuild Program--
     HUD ($50 million); and National Homeownership Trust 
     Demonstration Program ($50 million).

                          Department of Labor

       Employment and Training Administration.--Youth Fair Chance 
     ($24 million); Rural Concentrated Employment ($3.8 million); 
     JTPA Concentrated Employment ($6 million); National 
     Commission for Employment Policy ($2.2 million); American 
     Samoans (Training & Employment Services) ($5 million); 
     Microenterprise Grants ($2.25 million); National Occupational 
     Information Committee ($6 million); National Center for the 
     Workplace ($1.1 million); Office of the American Workplace 
     Departmental Management ($7.4 million); National Veteran's 
     Training Institute ($2.9 million).

                Department of Health and Human Services

       Public Health Services.--Trauma Care--Public Health Service 
     ($4.7 million); Black Lung Clinics ($4.1 million); Payments 
     to Hawaii-Hansen's Disease ($2.9 million); Pacific Basin 
     Initiative--Public Health Service ($2.8 million); Native 
     Hawaiian Health Care ($4.5 million); and National Institute 
     Occupational Safety & Health Training ($12.8 million).
       Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
     Administration.--Community Support Demonstrations--Substance 
     Abuse & Mental Health Services Admin. ($24 million); 
     Treatment Grants to Crisis Areas--Substance Abuse Services 
     ($35 million); Comprehensive Comm. Treatment Program--
     Substance Abuse Services ($27 million); Training--Training 
     Improvement Demos. ($5.5 million); High Risk Youth--
     Prevention Demonstrations ($65 million); Other Programs--
     Prevention Demonstration ($6.6 million); Community 
     Partnerships ($114 million); and Prevention Education/
     Dissemination ($13.4 million).
       Assistant Secretary for Health.--Office of Disease 
     Prevention & Health Promotion ($4.6 million); Emergency 
     Preparedness ($2.1 million); and Health Care Reform Data 
     Analysis ($2.7 million).
       Health Care Financing Administration.--Counseling Program 
     ($4.5 million); and New Rural Health Grants ($1.7 million).
       Administration for Children and Families.--Civics & English 
     Education Grants ($6 million); Child Development Associate 
     Scholarships ($1.3 million); ABCAN ($288,000); Child Welfare 
     Research ($6.3 million); Social Services Research ($14.9 
     million); Family Support Centers ($7 million); Community 
     Based Resource Centers ($31.3 million); Rural Housing ($2.9 
     million); Farmworker Assistance ($3 million); and 
     Demonstration Partnerships ($7.9 million).
       Administration on Aging.--Ombudsman Services ($4.4 
     million); Pension Counseling ($1.9 million); Preventive 
     Health ($16.9 million); Aging Research & Special Project 
     ($26.5 million); Federal Council on Aging ($176,000); and 
     White House Conference on Aging ($3 million).

                        Department of Education

       State School Improvement ($27 million); and Impact Aid-
     Payments for Federal Property ($16 million).
       School Improvement Programs.--Safe & Drug Free Schools-
     National Programs ($25 million); Education Infrastructure 
     ($35 million); Law Related Education ($5.8 million); Christa 
     McAuliffe Scholarship ($1.9 million); Women's Educational 
     Equity ($3.9 million); Training and Advisory Services ($21.4 
     million); Dropout Prevention Demonstrations ($28 million); 
     and Ellender Fellowships (Close-Up).
       Education for Native Hawaiians ($12 million); Foreign 
     Language Assistance ($10 million); Training in Early 
     Childhood ($13 million); Comp. Regional Assistance Centers 
     ($44 million); and Family and Community Endeavor Schools ($11 
     million).
       Bilingual and Immigrant Education.--Support Services ($14 
     million); and Professional Development ($25 million).
       Special Education.--Innovation and Development ($20 
     million); Technology Applications ($10 million); Special 
     Studies ($4 million); Personnel Development ($91 million); 
     Parent Training ($13 million); Clearinghouses ($2 million); 
     Regional Resources Centers ($7 million); Endowment Grants-
     National Tech. Institute for the Deaf ($336,000); 
     Construction-National Tech. Institute for the Deaf 
     ($150,000); and Endowment Grants-Gallaudet University ($1 
     million).
       Vocational and Adult Education.--Community Based 
     Organizations ($9 million); Consumer and Homemaker Education 
     ($34 million); State Councils ($8.8 million); Demonstrations-
     National Program ($20 million); National Occupational Info. 
     Coord. Committee ($6 million); Evaluation & Technical 
     Assistance-Adult Education ($3.9 million); National Institute 
     for Literacy ($4.8 million); and Workplace Literacy 
     Partnerships ($18 million).
       Student Financial Assistance.--Federal Perkins Loans-
     Capital Contributions ($158 million); State Student Incentive 
     Grants ($63 million); and State Post-Secondary Review Program 
     ($20 million).
       Higher Education.--Endowment Grants ($6 million); HBCU Set-
     aside ($2 million); Evaluation ($1 million); Native Hawaiian 
     & Alaska Native Cultural Arts ($1 million); Eisenhower 
     Leadership Program ($4 million); Innovation Projects in 
     Community Service ($1.4 million); Institute for 
     International Public Policy ($1 million); Cooperative 
     Education ($6.9 million); Law School Clinical Experience 
     ($14.9 million); Urban Community Service ($13 million); 
     Student Financial Aid Database ($496,000); and Mary McLeod 
     Bethune Memorial Fine Arts Center ($4 million).
       National Early Intervention Scholarship & Partnerships 
     ($3.1 million); Byrd Scholarships ($29 million); National 
     Science Scholarships ($4.4 million); National Academy of 
     Science, Space & Technology ($2 million); Douglas Teacher 
     Scholarships ($14.5 million); Olympic Scholarships ($1 
     million); Teacher Corps ($1.8 million); Harris Scholarships 
     ($20 million); Javits Fellowships ($7 million); Faculty 
     Development Fellowships ($3.7 million); School, College and 
     University Partnerships ($3.8 million); and Legal Training 
     for the Disadvantaged ($2.9 million).
       Howard University.--Regular Program-Endowment Program ($3.5 
     million); Clinical Law Center-Endowment Program ($5.5 
     million); Research ($4.6 million); Construction ($5 million); 
     and College housing & Acad. Facilities Loans ($1 million).
       Education Research, Statistics & Improvements.--21st 
     Century Learning ($750,000); Eisenhower Prof. Development-
     Nat. Programs ($21 million); Eisenhower Math/Science 
     Education Consortia ($15 million); National Writing Project 
     ($3.2 million); National Diffusion Network ($14 million); 
     Star Schools ($30 million); Ready to Learn TV ($7 million); 
     and Telecommunications Demo for Math ($2 million).
       Libraries.--Construction ($17 million); Library Literacy 
     Programs ($8 million); Library Education and Training ($4.9 
     million) and Research and Demonstrations ($6.5 million).
       Department Management.--National Board of the Fund for the 
     Improv. of Post Secondary Ed. ($128,000); President's Ad. 
     Comm. on Ed. Excellence for Hispanic Am. ($286,000); and 
     President's Bd. of Advisors on Hist. Black Colleges & Univ. 
     ($128,000).
       Related Agencies.--Vista Literacy Corps-Domestic ($5 
     million); Senior Demonstration Program ($1 million); National 
     Education Goals Panel ($3 million); and National Ed. 
     Standards & Improvement Council ($2 million).


                         major cuts in programs

       Agriculture.--Congressional Affairs activities ($1.1 
     million or 25%); USDA advisory committees ($278,000 or 30%); 
     Rural Housing Preservation Grants ($11 million or 50%); Sect. 
     515 rental housing program ($40 million or 21%); and Title 
     III--commodity grants and P.L. 480 ($67 million or 57%).
       Transportation.--Essential Air Service ($10.8 million); 
     Transit formula grants ($457 million); Transit operating 
     assistance ($310 million); Northeast corridor improvement 
     program ($85 million); and Amtrak operating subsidies ($198 
     million).
       Legislative Branch.--One-third Committee reduction ($45 
     million); Eliminated 6,000 daily copies of The Congressional 
     Record ($1.5 million); Recording studio and photographers 
     ($1.2 million); Closed captioning ($800,000); Joint 
     committees ($2.6 million or 22.8%); Architect of the Capitol 
     ($16.7 million); Govt. Accounting Office ($75 million or 
     15%); Congressional Printing and Binding ($6 million); and 
     GPO Superintendent of Documents ($1.9 million).
       Energy and Water.--Army Corps of Engineers ($138 million); 
     Bureau of Reclamation ($31 million); Dept. of Energy ($173 
     million); Appalachian Regional Commission ($102 million); 
     Tennessee Valley Authority ($29 million); and Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission ($52 million).
       Interior.--Territories ($31 million); Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs ($160 million); Department of Energy ($87 million); 
     National Endowment on the Arts ($52 million); National 
     Endowment on Humanities ($51.5 million); Institute of Museum 
     Services ($8.8 million); Natural Resources Research ($25 
     million); Office of Surface Mining ($24 million); and Natural 
     Resource Agencies ($200 million) (non-essential construction, 
     land acquisition and grants).
       VA-HUD, Indep. Agencies.--NASA ($556 million); HUD ($6.1 
     billion); Superfund ($267 million); Environmental Protection 
     Agency ($1.5 billion); Academic Research Infrastructure ($150 
     million); and Property Disposition ($289 million).
       National Security.--Technology Reinvestment Program ($305 
     million); Consultants/research centers ($90 million); 
     Environmental 

[[Page H15150]]
     restoration ($200 million); Cooperative Threat Reduction ($71 million); 
     Energy management programs ($199 million); Defense 
     acquisition/management ($164 million); UN peacekeeping 
     assessment ($65 million); and Travel/support aircraft 
     operations ($129 million).
       Commerce, Justice, State.--Department of Commerce ($578 
     million); Asia Foundation ($10 million); Contributions to 
     Inter'l Organizations ($172 million); Contributions to 
     Inter'l Peacekeeping ($293 million); Arms Control and 
     Disarmament Agency ($14.7 million); U.S. Information Agency 
     ($310 million); East-West Center ($13 million); Federal 
     Communications Commission ($9.5 million); Legal Services 
     Corporation ($122 million); and State Justice Institute ($8.3 
     million).

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ minutes is insufficient time to 
correct all the misstatements, I am sure, that the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] made just now, so I will not endeavor to do 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to understand what we are doing. We are 
continuing to play games. The Committee on Rules has reported out this 
resolution, which they purport to be the President's provision in 
response to their reconciliation. Everybody honestly knows that is not 
the case.
  This is the Republican reconciliation bill. Does anybody in this 
House believe this is an analogous document? Does anybody believe this 
is an analogous, fair, alternative proposal that the Republicans are 
putting on the floor? Does anybody? I do not believe it.
  Mr. Speaker, these are six bills, smaller than the bill that I just 
raised. They are the appropriation bills that would run Government if 
we could pass them. The gentleman from Louisiana just got on the floor 
recently and said, ``Where is the Labor-Health bill? It is being 
filibustered in the Senate.'' Why? Not on the money issue, but because 
they put an extraneous provision on that bill called strikebreaker so 
that people can be fired without notice.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand that is their position. We do not agree 
with it. But it should not be on that bill and it should not be on any 
one of these six. We ought to make them law.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing resolution. It is simple and it 
says we will continue to operate Government. While we debate the 
differences we have in this bill, we will pass this simple bill and say 
America is paying for its Government, and we are going to deliver it.
  Mr. Speaker, we could pass this simple little resolution in 5 
minutes. We have already passed one twice. We will take the figures 
that our Republican colleagues put in their resolution last time and 
simply say, Let us go to January 3 or 17 or 29, and then let us try to 
figure out, as adults, as responsible Americans sent here to represent 
our fellow citizens, how do we resolve the differences in this bill? 
But it is the failure to pass this one that has shut down parts of 
Government. That brings no credit to us or to this institution.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I realize there is a great deal of concern 
on the part of my Democrat colleagues regarding this debate and vote. 
They say the President' budget is not really a budget, it is more like 
a plan or a proposal or an internal working document. In any case, they 
say that we should not be voting on it, whatever it is.
  Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the agriculture title of the 
President's budget is very real. There are 187 pages of specific policy 
recommendations from the Office of Management and Budget. Just for the 
record, when specific and real budgets were presented by Republican 
Presidents in the past years, the Democratic majority made it a regular 
ritual to call for a vote and to put everybody on the record, so today 
it is no different.
  Mr. Speaker, despite all of the welcome and helpful efforts of 
various Democrats, those who call themselves the Blue Dogs, those who 
are part of the coalition group, this document right here really 
contains the only current and specific policy recommendations on 
agriculture by this administration.
  What are the proposals for farm country? Well, farmers are not freed 
from massive USDA regulation. The Secretary of Agriculture is given 
broad authority to arbitrarily establish mandatory land set-asides. The 
budget that the President vetoed deregulates all of that practice.
  The President revives the off-farm income means test for farm 
programs that calls for farmers and ranchers to surrender their income 
tax return to the Department. That is the very reason the House 
overwhelmingly rejected this idea earlier this year.
  Marketing loans and other programs that farmers file for all year are 
wrecked by the President's plan for cotton, rice, and peanuts.
  Sugar farmers do not have that problem. The President simply 
eliminates their program after 2 years, with no mechanism to ease the 
transition.
  There are new taxes in the form of user fees and assessments. They 
are levied on producers to finance marketing orders and the peanut 
program. There is a new tax levied on the crop protection industry.
  Assessments on dairy farmers are retained and the scheduled decrease 
is canceled. All Republican dairy proposals are premised on eliminating 
the assessments entirely.
  The bulk of the agriculture savings in the President's budget comes 
from increasing the acres for which no payments will be made. That is a 
straight cut in income support. There is no protection against any 
future budget cuts though deregulation; no effort to help farmers make 
an assisted transition to market-oriented farming. The President offers 
farmers cuts in income, more cuts to come, and the status quo.
  The President has stressed how important it is to protect farmers in 
this budget process; that cuts in ag should be limited to $5 billion 
instead of the $12 billion in the balanced budget that he vetoed. But 
the crucial issue is how much help farmers will get, not about how much 
is cut.
  The budget he vetoed contained $44 billion as an investment in farm 
program reform over 7 years. The President's budget contains only $37 
billion. I want to make it very clear to those who care about the 
future of American agriculture what is at stake in this debate. If we 
can bring the Federal budget into balance, interest rates will fall, 
and farmers who are among the heaviest users of credit in this country 
will save $15 billion in borrowing costs.
  If we fail in this task, if we fail, if we delay, the Federal Reserve 
Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has warned that interest rates will sharply 
rise, heavily impacting farmers. The longer we delay, the worse 
agriculture will fare in this budget process as we struggle with a 
collapsing baseline.
  My colleagues, America needs a balanced budget bill that will really 
balance the budget. The President has vetoed one serious budget effort. 
We need to send a strong signal to the President that a status quo ag 
policy that does not preserve an adequate investment in agriculture is 
a nonstarter. Let us renew our efforts for a budget plan that truly 
balances the budget and treats our farmers fairly.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the time on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hobson] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, over the last 30 days or so, 
I have really started to worry about whether I am in the right place. I 
am worried about whether we are following somebody who has any sense of 
responsibility to the American people.
  A Speaker who would close down the Government because he had to get 
off the back of a plane; a Speaker who would lead us to default on the 
obligations that the U.S. Government has to people that it owes money 
to; a Speaker that would close down the Government 2 or 3 days before 
the Christmas holiday.
  Yet, we spend our time dealing with trivia that has no meaning, like 
this bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about what is happening here 
today. I am afraid that our government has been taken hostage by a 

[[Page H15151]]
stubborn gang of right-wingers, left-wingers, and campaign consultants.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that this budget disagreement is a serious debate 
about real issues and the future of our country. This fight is about 
principles. But sooner or later, the public interest requires that even 
principled fighters settle on something.
  I have done a little research back in my office. I first consulted my 
Bible, and I learned that Moses went up on that mountain and came down 
with the Ten Commandments 40 days later. I consulted the Bicentennial 
edition of the U.S. Constitution and I learned that the Founders wrote 
the Constitution of the United States of America in less than 4 months.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been in session since January. That is 350 days. 
That is 12 months. That is a year. Now we have shut down the Government 
twice, and still have not finished our work.
  Mr. Speaker, I say the President and the Republican leadership ought 
to put their plans on the table and come to a compromise. If they 
cannot agree on how to run the Government, then they ought to put the 
coalition budget on the table and go from there. The coalition plan is 
not perfect, but I think that if Moses or the Founders or the American 
people could have their say, they would give them the same advice.
  Mr. Speaker, if some politicians think it is in their interest to 
continue this posturing and carry this debate into the 1996 elections, 
then I hope the electorate will send us some good old-fashioned, 
practical Americans.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity on the eve of 
those people that are able to celebrate the birth of Christ and their 
own religious holidays to realize that what we are doing today has 
nothing to do with balancing the budget. All of the things that my 
Republican friends are talking about can and should be done. As a 
matter of fact, it should have been done a long time ago.
  It is one thing to hold the President of the United States hostage, 
to force him to do what you would want him to do by closing down the 
Government. It is another thing to take the American people who have 
nothing to do with the dilemma we find ourselves in and to say, you are 
not going to vote for a continuing resolution until you make them 
suffer the pain, until you make certain that those that have a 
responsibility to take care of their family are now just going to be 
angry with government in general.
  If my colleagues really believe that these mean-spirited tactics are 
going to make their party and their Speaker popular, then why do they 
not talk with the people that have the responsibility of providing the 
care to the poor and to the sick, talk with the Catholic bishops who 
say that these programs make no sense, the nuns and the women and the 
teachers and the doctors that provide for those people that even our 
Lord said are the lesser among us, that we would have their budgets 
cut, for what? To balance the budget?
  Do we balance a budget really by starting off saying that we are 
going to give $245 billion to the richest Americans? My colleagues, do 
not do it. So play around with Democrats and Republicans. Do what we 
have to do for the Presidential election. But as we go into the 
celebration of the birth of Christ, do not take these holidays and play 
politics with the American people.
  People cannot even go to the Statue of Liberty, a place that is 
symbolic for what this country stands for, and we are down here just 
playing politics without allowing Government to continue.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the first budget the President 
submitted this year and stated so in the Committee on the Budget 
because it did not do what I want done, and that is balance the budget 
in 7 years.
  I opposed his second budget but applauded him for moving into the 10-
year balanced budget frame. I applauded the President when he moved 
again a week ago, not as far as I would like to see, and I certainly 
will vote against this so-called budget today, which really is not a 
budget. It is an opportunity to talk about whatever it is we have been 
talking about.
  But I also voted against the Republican budget. We hear a lot about 
the deficit. And I have a lot of agreements with the Republican budget. 
I think we will find whenever we can start negotiating that we will 
have some agreements. I have a lot of strong disagreements. The biggest 
one is I do not believe it makes sense to borrow 53 billion more 
dollars over the next 3 years in order to give ourselves a tax cut.
  If my colleagues are concerned about deficits, it seems to me that 
the good-faith first effort ought to be reduce the deficit, not cut 
taxes.
  We talk about negotiations. I have not seen any movement on this as 
yet. Does it really make sense to borrow 53 billion more dollars when 
we are talking about reducing the deficit? I ask my colleagues to 
justify that one.
  We have heard a lot about honest numbers. Again let me repeat, honest 
numbers, real numbers, CBO, all of this that I support, but CBO 
adjusted their real, honest numbers 135 billion since we started the 
fussing.
  I am on the nonnegotiating team. I hope today as our leaders have 
met, I hope that later today we will hear that the negotiators can sit 
down and start working out the differences between the various ideas 
and that we come to an agreement, and that budget agreement will be 
signed by the President because he has said, I will sign a 7-year CBO-
scored budget. But we will not get there with what we are doing this 
afternoon.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to President 
Clinton's unbalanced budget and in support of the balanced budget that 
has already passed this Congress.
  The President has now had four tries at sending the Congress a 
balanced budget. And, he still has not gotten close to honoring the 
commitment he made to the American people and the law he signed 29 days 
ago agreeing to a balanced budget in 7 years using real numbers, not 
smoke and mirrors. President Clinton's latest budget keeps piling on 
the debt--an estimated $265 billion in the red.
  While the President cannot send us a budget that actually balances, 
he can stand over at the White House and scare our seniors, scare our 
families, and scare our veterans with dire rhetoric and self-serving 
political posturing that lacks one essential element--the truth.
  The President has his seasons mixed up. It is Christmas, not 
Halloween. So maybe he should put away the ``senior-scare'' tactics and 
``bogey-man'' budgets and join the Congress in actually helping our 
Nation by balancing the budget.
  Today, each and every member of Congress faces a crystal clear 
decision. Members can vote for President Clinton's fourth budget and 
with their vote they will say to their folks back home, ``I agree with 
President Clinton. We simply don't want to balance the budget so let's 
not even try. Let's just keep piling on the debt that our children and 
grandchildren will be stuck with anyway. And, we'll keep playing the 
tried and true Washington political game of saying one thing and doing 
another. Saying we want a balanced budget, but voting to keep up the 
outrageous spend-a-thon.'' That's what some wrongheaded members might 
say.
  Or, Members of Congress can vote ``no'' on President Clinton's 
budget. By voting ``no,'' a Member of Congress is saying, ``President 
Clinton, it really is time to finally balance the budget. No more 
Washington, DC gimmicks. No more political games. No more divisive 
grandstanding. Let's do the right thing. Let's balance the budget. 
Let's put our government back to work.''
  I urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to vote ``no'' and 
send a bipartisan message to President Clinton that we are ready to 
move forward to balance the budget and it is about time that he joined 
us.
  The American people are waiting and watching.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H15152]]

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly comment on the significant 
differences between the administration's recent unbalanced budget 
proposal and the Republican balanced budget plan.
  The Republican plan stops a decade-long hemorrhage in defense 
spending, in the President's 5-year defense plan. We do not know how 
much further the President might be cutting the defense budget because 
his latest proposal does not provide specific budget function numbers. 
While the Republican defense plan is far from a cure-all, it does begin 
to restore quality of life for our personnel and their families. It 
does sustain readiness. It does begin the long and expensive process of 
reinvigorating a faltering modernization program, and it does initiate 
long overdue Pentagon reforms.
  Mr. Speaker, let me cite just one important example where the 
President's recent proposal is not only inconsistent with the 
bipartisan congressional priorities but breaks faith with our military 
personnel.
  Two years ago the President signed into law reconciliation 
legislation that disproportionately delayed the payment of military 
retiree COLA's relative to their Federal civilian counterparts. 
Realizing the error of his ways, the President finally requested the 
restoral of COLA equity in his budget submission earlier this year. The 
Republican balanced budget plan endorsed COLA equity. Just last Friday 
the House passed a fiscal year 1966 defense authorization conference 
report containing the statutory changes necessary to implement COLA 
equity.
  Yet it appears that the President has had a change of heart. His most 
recent unbalanced budget proposal would once again unfairly penalize 
our military retirees by delaying payments of their COLA's to October 
while endorsing the payment of Federal civilian retiree COLA's to 
April. To use another's famous words, it is deja vu all over again.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, the last gentleman described the Republican 
reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, the country moves on. In fact today Alan 
Greenspan reduced interest rates by a quarter of a percent so the 
country can grow at a quicker rate. Only the Government shuts down. 
Only we in Congress can open it. Yet while Rome burns, the leadership 
of the Republican Party fiddles.
  Thanks to the Speaker, the Federal Government is shut down again, 
250,000 employees are out of work because the Speaker's nose is out of 
joint. Happy holidays. Instead of passing a continuing resolution, 
putting people back to work and going back to the negotiating table, we 
are voting on a poorly plagiarized budget document.
  I support a balanced budget. I support the President's commitment to 
do so while protecting Medicare and Medicaid and education and the 
environment. But this is not the President's budget. This is a gimmick.
  Mr. Speaker, stop wasting our time. Go back to the negotiating table 
and stop holding Federal employees hostage, just because the Gingrich-
Kasich budget is a loser to the American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson] has 5 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman form Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, what we are engaging in here 
tonight is in fact a charade. This is certainly a family unfriendly 
Congress. There is a legitimate budget on the table, that is the 
coalition's budget. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Browder], for having the courage to set forth earlier in this year a 
very detailed, a very difficult budget that makes very difficult 
choices. That is what we ought to be negotiating here today, not this 
mindless game that we are playing here, where we are not really getting 
anywhere.
  We are in fact holding Federal employees hostage. They are sitting 
out there wondering if this is in fact the way Government should work. 
No, it is not. Let us get serious. Let us look at the coalition budget 
and let us do the job that the American people sent us here to do.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the honorable ranking 
member for his leadership on these budget issues.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we need to take this budget 
misrepresentation off of the congressional agenda. This is not a 
budget. This has not been offered by the President. We need to get rid 
of the $270 billion tax cut, talk seriously about reducing the deficit, 
stop eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, hurting the hospitals in 
Houston and in Texas, stop eliminating summer jobs for our youth, stop 
a welfare reform plan that does not allow people to become independent, 
and stop the foolish ego fight that the Republican majority is engaged 
in. This Congress, in a bipartisian manner, should put forward an 
American budget that all Americans can support. This is not a time for 
an unneeded tax cut. It is time for a reasonable approach to get a 
balanced budget. This is not a time to not accept an unnamed, unscared, 
and unacceptable proposal that the Republicans have without reason 
placed on this House floor for a vote.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, this country is at war. Everyone in this 
Congress and people throughout America recognize that this country is 
at war. Mr. Speaker, this country it is at war with an issue that has 
the potential of wreaking more destruction on this great Nation and 
more hurt on the American people than any war in our history. This 
issue, of course, Mr. Speaker, is the budget deficit, a fact of life 
for every American over the last quarter century that has made products 
more expensive, created higher interest rates, and depressed an economy 
and a nation that is poised for economic boom.
  Last November, the American people elected a new leadership in 
Washington. In doing so the American people sent to battle the troops 
they believed would carry the flag of responsibility and reason. The 
war over our economic future is a fight we cannot afford to lose--the 
stakes are too high.
  Mr. Speaker, there are very close parallels between this Nation's 
national security and this budget war. Just as Americans have asked our 
brave sons and daughters to spend the holidays in a cold and distant 
land in Europe, now is the time to ask our Nation's political leaders 
to join the battle and balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been said before that ``It is Morning in 
America.'' And I firmly believe that this week we are on the threshold 
of greatness once again. There will be no brighter dawn than the hopes 
and dreams made possible by a sound economy. We have an opportunity at 
this time to balance the budget for the first time in a quarter century 
and preserve the future for every American--a new dawn, indeed.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the President's call to arms. Now is the time 
for the President to join the overwhelming majority of the Members of 
this body who are willing to do all it takes to balance the budget of 
this great Nation.
  Certainly, it will require sacrifice. Certainly, it will require 
tough decisions. But Mr. Speaker we must win this very important battle 
today if we are to balance the people's books tomorrow. Oppose the 
latest Clinton unbalanced budget plan and support a serious plan to 
reach a balanced budget by 2002.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], distinguished 
minority whip and my good friend.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Minnesota for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to balance the Federal 
Budget. 

[[Page H15153]]
They would like us to do it in 7 years. That is a true fact. But it is 
also a true fact that 75 percent of the American people reject the 
Republican plan. they reject cuts in Medicare. They reject cuts in 
Medicaid. They reject cuts in education and the environment. They 
reject tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in 
America that are in the Republican proposal.
  My colleagues have put their budget before the American people, and 
the American people have said no, that budget goes too far. But instead 
of sitting down and negotiating, instead of coming up with a balanced 
budget that protects Medicare and Medicaid, the environment, education, 
things that we said in the last CR we were going to protect, for the 
second time in less than a month, Speaker Gingrich has closed down the 
government, has manufactured a crisis in an attempt to ram through the 
Republican budget plan.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. Speaker, it is not going to work. Blackmail did not work the 
first time, and it is not going to work the second time. We are not 
going to be forced to accept a budget that devastates seniors, the 
disabled, children, students, and working families all over this 
country.
  My colleagues want to talk about priorities? Well, let us talk about 
the Republican tax breaks. Eighty percent, 80 percent of America, has 
not seen a raise in wages in the last 20 years. That is a fact. Yet 
over 50 percent of the tax breaks in their budget go to people making 
over $100,000 a year or more. No wonder all those corporate CEO's, and 
the Washington Post, and the New York Times today took out a full-page 
ad, a full-page ad. Under the Republican plan wealthy corporations, 
they are going to be the biggest winners of all, and if everything is 
going to be on the table in this debate, then corporate welfare and 
corporate tax breaks have to be on the table, too.
  And I say to these gentlemen here they want a balanced budget? Come 
on down and participate, participate. It is not fair to ask our seniors 
to pay more, to ask working families throughout this country to pay 
more, if they are not willing to ask the wealthiest corporations in 
America to at least do something in the way of tax expenditures and 
corporate welfare.
  They want to talk about keeping their promises? Well, let us talk 
about what the Republican Medicare and Medicaid proposals do to 
seniors. Let us listen to what Consumer Reports has to say. Everybody 
knows Consumer Reports. My colleagues want to buy a TV, want to buy a 
cart, they go to Consumer Reports, they try to get a rundown on what is 
a good deal. They came out with a report, and this is what they said, 
and I quote:
  ``What Congress isn't telling you: Families of nursing home residents 
may face financial ruin under Federal Medicaid bill.''
  That is what they say they do to Medicaid in their budget proposal. 
This report says that if the Republican budget passes, and I quote, 36 
million Americans will lose Medicaid protection they have now, and an 
estimated 395,000 long-term care patients are likely to reduce Medicaid 
payments for their nursing home care next year.
  Do my colleagues want to talk about keeping promises? What about all 
the promises we have made to our parents and to our grandparents? Their 
budget abandons them.
  Do my colleagues want to talk about accounting gimmicks? Let us talk 
about years 8, 9, and 10 under their budget. Just look at what the tax 
breaks do, the Republican tax breaks do. They dip down in year 7, in 
the year 2002. What happens in years 8, 9, and 10? They explode, they 
go through the ceiling.
  Now how are we going to pay for this? More cuts in Medicare, more 
cuts in Medicaid, more cuts in education.
  Mr. Speaker, we all want a balanced budget, but, if we want to get to 
a balanced budget in 7 years, we have got to make sure that it stays 
balanced, and we have got to guarantee our children's future, not 
guarantee the future of the wealthy through these exploding tax breaks.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the President's 
budget proposal. It does not balance the budget.
  By contrast, the Congress has repeatedly demonstrated its 
determination to balance the budget with real deficit reduction, not 
phoney numbers.
  As a member of the Budget Committee and the Resources and Agriculture 
Committees, I know first hand that all of the Committees have worked 
hard to carry out their mandate for deficit reduction.
  The Resources Committee has worked on the difficult task of ensuring 
the wise use and protection of our nation's natural resources.
  Strong environmental protections are critical. There is no question 
here. Those of us who represent the West know first hand how important 
it is to protect our nation's resources. We have grown up amidst those 
resources and we understand the principle of ``wise use.''
  The goal of the Resources Committee has been to restore some balance 
to the equation. In many of our states, the federal government owns 
over a third or more of the land. We are simply asking that our 
citizens have some say over the manner in which those lands and 
resources are maintained and protected.
  We are also working to protect the interests of the working families 
whose wise use of our resources is critical to their livelihood and to 
our nation's future.
  The Resources Committee has produced over $2.3 billion in savings 
through 2002. This will help us balance the budget and ensure a better 
future for our children.
  All our opponents have done is complain about our plan. My question 
is, where is their plan? The President's budget never gets to balance.
  Mr. Speaker, if we do not balance the budget, our children will pay 
the price. Already, a child born today will pay $187,000 in taxes just 
to pay for their share of interest on the debt.
  The Congress has not balanced the budget since 1969. We cannot wait 
any longer. Our children are depending on us to finally do the 
responsible thing, and end these endless deficits.
  This is not easy work, it involves tough choices and tough votes. 
Unfortunately, the President has declined to join with us in the heavy 
lifting.
  Last month, the President gave the Congress and the American people 
his word that he would submit a budget that achieves balance in seven 
years with real numbers. So far, he has not fulfilled his commitment.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason there is conflict this week in our government 
is because this Congress is different. We promised the American people 
a balanced budget, and we are going to deliver.
  The easy course would be to postpone the tough choices to a future 
Congress. After all, Congress has been doing this since 1969.
  Mr. Speaker, this time we are not going to pass the buck. We are 
here, we are ready to negotiate, and we are ready to work with the 
President to produce the balanced budget he has promised.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Budget 
Committee's majority members and staff has taken it upon themselves to 
speak for the President of the United States and his staff by 
introducing House Concurrent Resolution 122. It is wrong and misleading 
to the public and to this body to present before this House a phoney 
budget which has not been issued by the President. I am distressed by 
this not only because it is wrong to mislead the House and the public 
as to the authorship of a document but also because it detracts from 
the real issues of this debate.
  We need to address the real proposals in front of us. We do not have 
time to play around when 260,000 dedicated Federal workers are sitting 
at home, unsure if they will be paid, 6 days before Christmas. We do 
not have time to play around when Members are trying to get home to 
their families and their districts in time for the holidays. We do not 
have time to play around while the future of this Nation hangs in the 
balance.
  I urge my colleagues to stop playing politics and start paying 
attention to the real issues here--the people--the senior citizens, 
veterans, students, and children who will be hurt by the current 
Republican budget proposals. It is time to get down to business, it is 
time to end this second Government shutdown and to pass a balanced 
budget that is good for the people of this country.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Monday the President vetoed and VA-HUD 
appropriations 

[[Page H15154]]
bill. No doubt one of the reasons behind this veto was the elimination 
of funding for his pet program, AmeriCorps.
  Most of us have served as volunteers in our local communities and 
never thought of being paid in the process. The AmeriCorps National 
Service Program is the Democrat initiative for paying people to 
volunteer. During the 1993 debate on the program, a senior Democrat 
Senator declared ``Congress will not, and should not fund a program if 
it is unsuccessful. I do not believe it will happen but if it does I 
would favor cutting the program.'' I, and many others, question the 
success of AmeriCorps. After 3 years, the program has developed an 
average cost per volunteer between $26,000 and $31,000. And, one-fourth 
of AmeriCorps so-called volunteers don't work in their communities--
they work in Government or Government funded agencies. In my opinion, 
this program runs contrary to the idea of selflessly giving of ones 
time and talents for the betterment of the greater community.
  We agree with the Senior Democrat Senator who said that if a 
program's unsuccessful to its original goal, eliminate it. 
Unfortunately, it seems that President Clinton prefers to continue 
supporting this wasteful program.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the tactics of my 
Republican colleagues. Rather than trying to score political points, we 
should be working to balance the budget and to restore Government 
services to our constituents. The current shutdown is costing the 
American people more than $100 million a day. It is also creating 
problems such as delaying benefits for our veterans and seniors.
  We must protect future generations from being saddled with debt. 
However, the balanced budget we enact must meet several fundamental 
principles which have been stated by the President many times.
  It must protect Medicare, Medicaid, education, veterans medical care 
and benefits, nutrition programs for children and the elderly, and the 
environment.
  My Republican colleagues agreed to these same principles last month. 
Yet, they refuse to talk. And, they are unwilling to negotiate any 
significant changes to their extreme budget proposal which targets our 
most vulnerable citizens to give the rich a generous tax cut. They 
would rather see the Government close and risk default.
  The President's budget, which this bill represents in name only, does 
not take that mean-spirited, reckless approach. It protects health care 
for the elderly and the disabled persons of this Nation. It also makes 
sure that our children receive a decent meal and a quality education in 
a safe environment.
  The Republicans claim that the President's budget will not reach 
balance in 7 years. However, it may. The fact of the matter is we don't 
know. Seven years is a long time, and there is no way to predict with 
certainty what our economic growth will be over that period.
  Furthermore, history teaches us that every time Republicans put their 
stamp on a budget deal, the deficit has ballooned. The 1990 Budget deal 
that President Bush signed was supposed to bring the budget to balance. 
It ultimately led to the highest annual deficits on record--well above 
$300 billion.
  The first Reagan budget also was supposed to balance the budget. It 
too failed miserably. In 1981, when President Reagan took office, the 
national debt stood at $1 trillion. After 12 years of Republican 
administrations pushing their failed economic policies, the debt 
skyrocketed to more than $4 trillion.
  My Republican colleagues are fond of claiming that the escalation of 
the national debt is the fault of the Democrats. I would remind them 
that Congress cut every budget request that Presidents Reagan and Bush 
submitted except one.
  The record of President Clinton on deficit reduction is quite 
different. Rather than merely talking about deficit reduction, 
President Clinton set out on day one to address a problem he did not 
create but inherited from his predecessors. He did so in a fair and 
responsible manner, and with great success.
  President Clinton's 1993 budget cut the deficit by $700 billion. 
During his Presidency, the deficit has fallen 3 years in a row--that 
has not happened since President Harry S. Truman was in office. It now 
stands at the lowest level in 12 years.
  We can and must build upon this progress. We should not, however, 
shut down the Government, break off negotiations, and bring up 
proposals that are invented to represent the President's budget. Sadly, 
this is just what the Republicans have done. Why? Because the President 
is unwilling to accept their extreme budget plan, or should I say their 
tax cut.
  When it comes time to vote, I will stand with the President who has 
shown the American people he knows how to reduce the deficit. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same, and I call upon the leadership to put aside 
this political charade and begin the work of the people.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the fourth Clinton budget is 
before us.
  Once again, it continues to rob our children and grandchildren 
because it doesn't balance.
  Once again, it does not abide by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office projections.
  Once again, it breaks Clinton's promise to use CBO numbers--because 
they're more accurate than those cooked up by White House appointees.
  And once again, Mr. Speaker, a Clinton budget will lose badly on the 
House floor.
  Bill Clinton has not told the truth about our effort to balance the 
budget.
  The fact is, the only condition we are holding him to during the 
current stalemate is that he use real, honest, nonpartisan CBO numbers. 
That's all. He already promised to do that, both in his first State of 
the Union Address and in the last continuing resolution.
  Those on the far left side of the aisle use the word ``extremists'' 
almost daily.
  Mr. Speaker, it's not extremism to care more about the next 
generation than the next election.
  And it's not extremism to follow through on promises like balancing 
the budget and saving Medicare.
  The only extremism I see comes from people who don't keep their word 
and demagogue honest efforts to do the right thing.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight concerns I have regarding 
the administration's budget and its impact on agriculture. At first 
glance it appears the President is reducing agriculture spending much 
less than the Republican budget. Below, I list reasons why the 
Republican budget does more for agriculture than the administration's 
bill.
  Although the administration proposes reductions in agriculture 
spending of $5 billion over 7 years, as compared to $12.3 as proposed 
by the Republicans, the President's proposal will spend $37 billion 
over the next 7 years. This compares to $44 billion that Republicans 
have budgeted over the same period. As you can see, Republicans are 
doing more for the American family farmer.
  President Clinton wants to continue the same 60 year antiquated farm 
program that restricts farmers in what they plant. The Republican plan 
allows farmers to respond to market conditions to determine what they 
plant.
  Also eliminated by the Republicans are land set-asides. This market 
distorting practice pays farmers not to plant crops in demand in the 
world marketplace.
  The President's plan stresses high commodity prices as the only 
barometer of farm profitability. Surely, our self-proclaimed 
agriculture expert President understands that yield and other factors 
contribute to the farmers' bottom line. Just ask those farmers who 
experienced a crop failure this year, how well they like Mr. Clinton's 
proposal.
  The sugar program is not even mentioned in the administration's 
budget. Under this scenario, authority to even have a sugar program 
would expire in 2 years.
  Farmers will be freed from massive USDA regulation. No more signing 
up for an annual program and then returning to the local office to 
certify that what was planted was what he or she said they would plant. 
Also eliminated would be restrictions on how many acres of a particular 
crop could be planted.
  Every congressional proposal regarding dairy eliminates farmer 
assessments; the administration's does not.
  The President proposes means testing those with more than $100,000 
off-farm income from receiving farm payments. This may sound good, but 
in my Illinois district, some 75 percent of all land is owned by 
someone who does not farm the land. Means testing would shift farm land 
rents to a cash rent system where small family farmers will assume all 
the risk.
  The President's budget will leave farmers exposed to future budget 
reductions, while the Republican budget will preserve agricultural 
spending.
  In closing, the Republicans left Washington and went to rural America 
for input on the 1995 farm bill. Nineteen field hearings were held and 
four common issues consistently mentioned: First, no more land set-
asides; second, give us planting flexibility; third, make the programs 
``user friendly''; fourth, provide certainty in payments.
  In the interest of farmers, agribusiness, and rural America, I 
support the Republican budget proposal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). All time expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 309, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 0, nays 
412, answered ``present'' 5, not voting 16, as follows: 

[[Page H15155]]


                             [Roll No. 869]

                               NAYS--412

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--5

     Clyburn
     Engel
     Filner
     Mink
     Williams

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Berman
     Chapman
     Coleman
     Edwards
     Gephardt
     Kaptur
     Lantos
     Murtha
     Pryce
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rush
     Scarborough
     White
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1711

  Messrs. HILLIARD, DURBIN, BEREUTER, RIGGS, and Mrs. CHENOWETH changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the concurrent resolution was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________