[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H81-H88]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            BALANCED BUDGET AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. White). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Kingston]. I have a stopwatch on my wrist that counts 
down in 5 minutes, so what I would like to do is yield the gentleman 5 
minutes and he will control that 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Has that been CBO scored?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. It is my cheap little plastic watch.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on the discussion of 
the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Arizona. I think 
it is relevant.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Democrats are fond of saying, 
and, Mr. Lowey, I hear it said all the time, is that we are behind on 
the appropriation process. I would say that is accurate, but I would 
also say it is a lot more difficult when we are trying to reduce and 
consolidate government than when we are spending or renewing ``as is'' 
with a 10-percent increase.
  But let us say the Committee on Appropriations is very much guilty as 
charged. Why are you not as equally outraged then that the President of 
the United States is not guilty of not submitting a balanced budget 
when on June 4, 1992, he said, ``I will have a budget balanced in 4 
years''? And we had all kinds of speeches where he said: I am going to 
support a balanced budget, I am or not. But he has not.
  One thing about these freshmen who get kicked so much is that they 
came here with a contract, albeit not everyone may have liked it on the 
other side of the aisle. But they said what they were going to do and 
they did it. They made it clear they were going to balance the budget. 
When did we first pass it? October? Where is the President? Where is 
his budget.
  Mrs. LOWEY. If my good friend from Georgia would yield, I think we 
can go back, you and I are on the Committee on Appropriations and we 
can talk about the $7 billion increase in the military budget that the 
Pentagon did not ask for. We could talk about the cut in afterschool 
jobs and heating assistance for the elderly.
  Let us talk about where we are today. It seems to me from all 
accounts, from personal accounts and talking to my colleagues, from 
reading the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, and Democrats 
and Republicans both, I do not know that we all respect it but we 
certainly read it, the President is very engaged in the process, as my 
good colleague from New Jersey said.
  Mr. KINGSTON. But where is his budget?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Let me finish this. What we are saying is that there are 
real differences of opinion in how to resolve Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, and the environment, among other issues. There are real 
differences of opinion.
  So, why can we not continue this debate? And the President is 
involved. He is involved in the discussion. He has been there all day, 
I understand, working around the clock, and this has been going on for 
more than a week. Why can we not open the Government?
  My good friend from Georgia, one other point. I still cannot 
understand why we cannot continue this debate, talk about how we reform 
Medicare, and the gentleman mentioned welfare. I had a welfare reform 
bill that I worked on 2 years ago, because I understand welfare is not 
working. I want to shake up the system, but I do not want to close down 
the Government and put all these people out of work, hurt our economy 
irreparably.

  These businessmen who have contracts are not going to get these 
contracts back to make up for all the lost opportunities they have and 
the damages to their business. I hope they can stay in business. So why 
can we not open the government up, continue our discussion about 
welfare, Medicaid, education, and the environment?
  We may still differ, but that is the democratic way. Why should we 
have a constitutional crisis where some people are saying, ``If you 
cannot do it my way, it is no way''? That does not make sense to me, 
and I know my good friend and I could sit down and iron out our 
differences. Let us all do that together. Open up the government and 
let us continue this discussion.
  Mr. KINGSTON. If I could have 10 seconds, I want to say one thing, 
just to nitpick. The President was on a golfing junket over New Year's 
at Hilton Head. He was not negotiating.
  Mrs. LOWERY. President Dole was campaigning.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Reclaiming my time, I would say that is very optimistic 
thinking by the gentlewoman, and we welcome her to our side.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. The gentleman from Georgia still controls 1 minute.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both gentlemen for yielding. 
There were a couple of points that I think needs to be closed on and 
then we could move to what we could do if we were negotiating the 
budget ourselves to present to the American people potential consensus.
  But the first and most fundamental point is why can we not do this 
while the government continues? That would be under a continuing 
resolution, and there is nothing to prohibit a continuing resolution to 
last an entire year.
  If my colleagues remember, I do not know if they were here for that 
moment, but President Reagan brought to the table when he gave a State 
of the Union address a continuing resolution and he slammed it down and 
he said, ``Do not send me any more of these.''

                              {time}  2145

  That was after the Government had run for almost a year under 
continuing resolutions. So the flaw in the gentlewoman's argument is 
this: If we give a continuing resolution this week for another week, it 
could easily run to 52 weeks, and it is not made up because we have 
precedent from the Reagan Administration that it does run that long, 
and that means we postpone by 1 year, frankly, until the presidential 
election what needs to be done within 7. That is a substantial reason 
why the gentlewoman's suggestion is not, in my judgment, practicable.
  Mrs. LOWERY. If I could respond to the distinguished gentleman from 
California, what I perceive as a flaw in your argument, if we believe 
that there are serious differences in how to reform Medicare, how to 
reform Medicaid, how deep a cut there should be in environmental 
programs, what are EPA's responsibilities, what we should be doing with 
the Department of Education, these are serious issues which we have 
discussed in Appropriations. We have discussed in the authorizing 
committees.
  If we cannot resolve these differences within the next month or the 
next 2 months, and the President has made it very clear that he is 
determined to protect Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the 
environment, then we may have to continue this debate into the next 
election. I would hope that we can resolve it before, but it may not be 
possible to resolve it. Then the American people may have to decide.

  But I just do not understand the view of the gentleman from 
California that we should keep the Government closed and we will not 
use the word hostage, keep the government closed while we are having a 
very serious debate about our priorities.

[[Page H82]]

  One of the gentlemen mentioned before that the President has vetoed 
some bills, and in fact the bill, Labor, Health, Human Services, has 
not even come to his desk. I am on that subcommittee, and that is the 
bill that funds the Department of Social Services, the National 
Institutes of Health, where critical research is being done, and the 
reason that bill has not come to his desk is because the Senate 
Republicans and Democrats would not support it as has come through the 
House. So we are having a serious discussion about priorities in this 
country. Let us continue that discussion.
  The President is engaged. But why do we have to close down 
Government?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate your 
yielding. I think the gentlewoman's comments are candid and, in that 
sense, extremely helpful. I do believe there is a significant 
sentiment, whether the gentlewoman is of that view or not, this matter 
ought to be put over until the November election. But I watched with 
care and listened with care to the words that the gentlewoman used. She 
pointed out if the budget crisis continues, then perhaps, I think it 
was correct, the gentlewoman said perhaps, the matter would have to be 
kicked over until the presidential election. Then the people could 
decide.
  I think, by the way, it is amusing, the Member of the other body 
characterized as the leading contender for the nomination on our side 
also proposed a continuing resolution under the theory it would be in 
his interest to have the matter put over until the presidential 
referendum. But in that candid concession by the gentlewoman, we have, 
I think, exactly why the proposal of a continuing resolution is not 
acceptable, and that is that it will postpone for 1 full year from 
October, when the budget was due, to November of next year when a 
presidential election take place, and we do not have a year to waste.
  Second and last, in response to the gentlewoman, I said that it might 
be useful to discuss what can be done. If this body were to put forward 
a budget, and I think there is potential, great potential, for give, 
just speaking for myself, I always thought the tax cut was the least 
part of a budget balance, and I also, with respect, believe that the 
Budget Director, Mr. Panetta, my former colleague from California, had 
it right 4 years ago when he said that the growth of the entitlement 
had to be restricted if we were ever going to balance the budget, and 
my former colleague from California proposed $400 billion to be taken 
out of the growth of Medicare over an 8-year period. It makes it 
difficult, it seems to me, for him to speak now that a $270 billion 
reduction from the growth of Medicare over 7 years is Draconian.
  So, suppose our side were to give something on the tax cut and the 
President's side and the minority side was to give something regarding 
the necessity to restrain the growth of the Medicare entitlement, I 
believe agreement is possible. And in that sense, we then would not 
need to have the Government shut down 1 day further.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. If I could respond, let me respond, I think this really 
has been very healthy. I think there are some of us on our side, and 
hopefully there is a realization for some of you on your side as well, 
that as hard as we work as individuals and collectively as a body, that 
at the end of the day there might not be an agreement, that although 
there are general areas of agreement, that disagreement in terms of 
Medicare, your proposals, and what most of us want to see happen are 
really totally different. We see the problem differently. We, many of 
us, see the problem the same way you do on welfare reform, but there 
are some areas where we do not, and I guess my question to you is that 
I think you as individuals and collectively need to come to a 
realization that there might not be a point, I mean, we are hoping and 
we are working, we are up late at night tonight, and hopefully they are 
still at the White House working to come to that agreement, but if 
those agreements, if those disagreements are such that there cannot be 
a compromise, I mean, I absolutely believe that the approach to try to 
leverage President Bill Clinton is just not going to work.
  I mean Bill Clinton, you know, whatever someone might think of him, 
is not someone who is going to be intimidated by pressure, by threats 
or by anything like that. I think a lot of people on your side think 
that he is going to be. I think you are totally misreading the man, and 
because of that there is a possibility that this might last not 12 
months, as the gentleman has said several times at this point, 10 
months, and I guess what I still do not understand is what is the big 
deal about the 1-month period, and then maybe at that point we have 9 
months.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  The big deal is we do not have the time left. The clock is way past 
midnight on the budget and the debt of the United States.
  The gentleman has been candid, as the gentlewoman was candid, about 
saying they expect the possibility, I am not trying to put unfair words 
in the gentleman's mouth, but expect the possibility, it might be that 
we do not have a resolution for 10 months. Well, dating it from 
October, when the budget was due, it is 13 months.
  The point is we cannot afford that amount of time when we have 7 
years to the halfway point before the baby-boomers start retiring.
  But it is a candid admission, and I believe that, Mr. Speaker, that 
large numbers of my good friends and colleagues on the minority side 
would be willing to live with that, would be willing to live with why 
do not we just cool it, postpone it, let a year run, let the people 
decide.
  But the problem is it will only be worse in 1 year, and we also have 
an obligation. The question was asked by the gentleman what harm from 
reopening the Government while the discussions continue? There is no 
harm in reopening the Government while the discussions continue. The 
harm is the expenditures under the continuing resolution that it would 
take to keep the Government open for a period of 12 months.
  Almost, although I am glad my comment caused such a response, I will 
be pleased to yield, and I will just finish my comment. The dimension 
of a continuing resolution of the nature to take us to the November 
elections, which has certainly been discussed by the gentleman from 
Florida and the gentlewoman from New York, would postpone for 1 year 
any structural reform. There is no dispute about that.

  I put to you, from the experience of the Reagan years, it would not 
last for 10 months if it did not maintain present expenditure levels.
  Mr. PALLONE. If the gentleman would yield, I simply disagree with 
what you are saying about a continuing resolution.
  First of all, I would point out that when you talk about a 7-year 
budget or a 10-year budget or whatever, you are basically guessing, if 
you will, about what is going to happen beyond the first year. The 
bottom line is that you could, first of all, let us point out we are 
only talking about certain agencies of Government maybe about half of 
the appropriation bills or half of the agencies right now.
  If you were able to craft a continuing resolution either for a day or 
a month or right until October 1, that basically appropriated funds at 
the level that you anticipated in your, in the first year of your 7-
year budget, you would accomplish that goal, and there are many people 
who maintain, there are many people who maintain the only real part of 
a 7-year or even a 10-year budget is the first year because that is the 
only part that you really have specific control over.
  So I would maintain that if you craft the CR so that it is exactly 
like what you are proposing in the first year of your budget, then your 
concerns disappear, and we continue to operate and try come to an 
agreement.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I appreciate 
it, the observations of the gentleman from New Jersey elucidate exactly 
why the continuing resolution is so dangerous, because everyone knows 
the real money is in the out years, and that is true in the Coalition 
budget, it is true in the Republican budget, it is true in the 
President's budget, although the latter did not score under CBO 
numbers. So it would be the easiest thing in the world to say we will 
agree to the first year, because the first year has no 

[[Page H83]]
pain. If we have a budget agreement, we have a structure in place which 
gets us to zero. The easiest thing in the world is to make it.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will yield further, I think my friend 
from New Jersey would remark upon my restraint during the course of 
this. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  The question came, why do not we let this go, why do not we let the 
next election be the referendum on this, and I would respectfully 
suggest that again that is a postponement of what was decided in 
November of 1994, and we affirmed last month in a special election in 
California.

  We are certainly in this representative form of Government in this 
republic to make those decisions, not to go, to use the metaphor that I 
used in my previous life and have been in another walk of life, to go 
into a 4-corners offense and delay and delay and delay the work that 
should be done now.
  Mrs. LOWEY. If the gentleman will yield further, I just would like to 
respond to my good friend from Arizona. There are various 
interpretations of the last election. Some feel it was mandate. Some 
feel it was a mandate for a revolution.
  In my district, I think most of us feel we had one revolution in this 
country, that is enough. There was frustration, there was anger. People 
wanted change. Yes, they wanted welfare to be changed. Yes, they felt 
that there are too many people without health care.
  So I think this debate is very healthy, and we all have differences 
of opinion within our own party and also among parties. So what we are 
saying is let us have this healthy debate. Let us put in place a 
continuing resolution. Let us open the Government.
  But I still do not understand, and I know we have been debating for 
over an hour, why we have to deprive researchers at the National 
Institutes of Health from getting the resources that they need to fight 
breast cancer, to fight Alzheimer's disease. I do not understand why we 
have to say to someone who is turning 65 today, ``Happy birthday, but, 
sorry, you cannot sign on for Social Security.''
  Let us open the Government. Let us not stand in the corner and say 
unless you do it my way I am going to turn blue. Let us open the 
Government and continue this very serious debate.
  Many of us in this room have similar priorities, but there may be 
real differences in priorities among us, and the American people 
deserve to hear those differences, but not close down the Government.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I want to respond actually to a couple of things because 
I have been taking notes, and this really is a dialog, and I would 
really like to respond to a number of things.
  The gentleman from California, I think, made a good point in terms of 
saying that the out years really are more difficult than the just the 
first year. The first year is difficult as well in terms of cutbacks 
that are taking place, real dollars levels less than, not inflation-
adjusted or anything else, real dollars less than the previous year, I 
mean bottom-line reductions in a variety of programs.

  But I think what you obviously understand and what people need to 
understand is next year's Congress can change this budget. I mean, we 
can only obligate ourselves legally for the year, for while we are here 
for this year, we cannot obligate ourselves for next year. We are 
putting a framework in place, so I guess the reason why I bring that 
out is that your concern, and I am not arguing for a continuing 
resolution at all and I think you know, maybe it is a realization on 
our part, that we might not come to a resolution, and that is one of 
the reasons why, if we were under a balanced budget amendment, we would 
not be having this debate because that would be the sandbox that we 
were playing in. And by one vote, we are not having a balanced budget 
amendment in this country.
  This House overwhelmingly supported a balanced budget amendment.
  So, again, I guess, let me just really focus in on that point just a 
little bit more and to say to you that, you know, we are 10 months away 
from an election. You know, we are having this debate now, and we are 
not going in circles yet but we are getting close to the point of going 
in circles, that when we look at what is happening to the economy in 
this country today on a micro level, whether it is a small city next to 
Yosemite Park, whether it is a business that cannot get a EPA inspector 
to inspect a site in Houston, TX, and people get laid off because of 
that, whether it is a motel in Flamingo, FL, in my district, those are 
things that are adding up and happening.
  You keep saying, and we have heard it now, that you do not want to do 
the continuing resolution because it sort of frees things up.

                              {time}  2200

  I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Let me throw that question right back at you: If we 
cannot lock in forever and this whole thing is going to be reversed in 
10 months, then why can we not reopen the Government by you guys voting 
for the appropriations bills? It is that simple. You want to reopen the 
Government? Vote for the appropriations bills. We have already passed 
12 out of 13. The one we have not passed, we introduced the Washington, 
DC continuing resolution today, and it was objected to by one of your 
Members, and only because of the delicate scurrying around and our high 
regard on both sides of the aisle did we go back and reopen that we 
could do a CR for Washington, DC. I am just saying if you want to 
reopen the government, fine. Vote.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Reclaiming my time, that is also a very good question 
that needs to be responded to.
  Let me talk about the Constitution for a second, because I think the 
Speaker, speaks of the Constitution and he is a historian of the 
Constitution. He is a professor. He speaks as a professor quite often.
  The Constitution has a role in all this debate. We go back to that. 
What is our job? Our job is to appropriate. That is our power, going 
back to the Magna Carta. How many times have we heard the Speaker talk 
about the Magna Carta? That is our job. We are appropriating. There is 
a whole process set in place in the Constitution.
  The President has a role in our system of government. He has a role 
in the constitutional authority to veto appropriations bills that he 
finds objectionable and give to us those reasons. We have the 
constitutional option at that point, which is to override his veto or 
to send him another bill.
  But one of the questions which your side has not really answered, 
and, truthfully, it is disturbing, is that all of sudden you as the 
controlling part in this Chamber have now put into the Constitution a 
third option which really does not exist in the Constitution, which is 
what is going on now.
  What should be happening is going back and back, because I will tell 
you absolutely the truth, and I speak with absolute certainly this will 
happen: If you kept sending the President veto messages, eventually you 
will get a two-thirds veto override. I guarantee that will happen.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield briefly?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman for 5 minutes, when really 10 
seconds is needed. Just for the sake of pointing this out, when we talk 
about the extra-Constitutionality or the implication is that somehow 
these endeavors are unconstitutional, I would simply point out nowhere 
in this document do you see the phrase ``continuing resolution.'' 
Nowhere in this document is it explicitly delineated that above all 
costs, government will remain open through the process of continuing 
resolutions.
  Good people can disagree about the intent of the Constitution and the 
dynamism of it and how it can be stretched and pulled and turned or 
interpreted in different manners. But I think it is worth noting that 
this is not some sort of sanctified notion that is somehow noble that 
we go back simply to business as usual and not deal with this question 
at this juncture in our history, for now the time draws here.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If I might, to take up more on this point, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding and I think his point is very well taken. I wish 
to respond to the question of the structural change.
  The gentleman from Florida, if I could have his attention for a 
moment, 

[[Page H84]]
the gentleman from Florida in debate raised a very good question I 
think, Mr. Speaker, and that was since next Congress can change, why is 
it so critical that we put in train now a seven-year plan?
  The answer is in order to get to a balanced budget within seven 
years, we have to change the structures, everybody agrees on that, 
particularly the structures of the unconstrained growth of 
entitlements.
  Now, we can pass a bill today and it will become law with the 
President's signature that will begin to restructure those 
entitlements. It would then take affirmative law to undo it, which is a 
whole lot different than saying we are going to postpone it for 11 
months through a series of continuing resolutions.
  So just as a logical point, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the 
gentleman from Florida would agree that there is a huge difference 
between having to undo legislation which sets in process structural 
reforms, and working with essentially no change over the status quo, 
which is what the continuing resolution does.

  I have one last point in my never ending attempt to see if we can 
work out a budget agreement here on the floor tonight.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Truly historic it would be.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Indeed. I am given great hope by the gentleman from 
Florida's suggestion that sooner or later if the President keeps 
vetoing things, we will have two-thirds in this body. God speed the 
day.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Send him some more budgets.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I am game. I am game to stay here to do it. If the 
gentleman might espouse, I think some constructive debate could be had, 
and there is value in trying to analyze how we got here, so I am not 
saying what has been discussed heretofore does not have that value. It 
does. But if the gentleman from Florida believes that there might be 
two-thirds support for something that the President does not agree 
with, boy, am I anxious to hear it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted and yield whatever time I might 
have on this or future special orders to hear the dimensions of a 
budget understanding that would get two-thirds.
  I happen to believe that that is one increasingly likely option. I 
laid out at least in broad outline what the dimensions of such a deal 
might be, with give on our side and give on your side. Mr. Speaker, I 
would be very interested if the gentleman from Florida might at some 
point or his colleagues from New Jersey or New York, put to us some 
dimensions of a budget deal that would get two-thirds, the objection of 
the President notwithstanding?
  Mrs. LOWEY. If I could respond to the gentleman?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Before my friend from New York begins, my friend from 
Florida raised a point, he mentioned the balanced budget amendment. Did 
all three of you join with the majority to vote for the balanced budget 
amendment?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Two-thirds of us.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. You and the gentleman from New Jersey, and the 
gentlewoman from New York had problems with it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I want to respond to my good friend from Georgia and then 
California in talking about the appropriations process. I would hope 
all listening tonight would understand that if the appropriations bills 
had been completed by October 1, we would not be in this predicament 
now. I would assure my good friend, who is the Chair of the Foreign 
Operations Committee on Appropriations, who is totally frustrated 
because extraneous provisions are constantly being tacked on that 
cannot get through the Senate, and instead of the normal process where 
people could agree to drop it, they are standing firm, and that is why 
aid to Israel, aid to other critical parts of the world, again, I hate 
to use the word, are being held hostage to those who want to eliminate 
all family planning. That is just one example.

  There are other extreme provisions that have been tacked on, and I 
know many of us feel, although I am an abortion advocate, I do not want 
to have to debate this on the floor anymore. Abortion provisions are 
being tacked on to appropriations bills. So if you are saying that the 
President has to be held hostage and agree to some of those extreme 
provisions or we cannot open the Government, I would just say to my 
good friend, that is wrong.
  I would suggest that you perhaps go back to your caucus and say take 
off some of those extreme provisions, and then send the appropriations 
bill to the other body, who will not even deal with Labor-Health-Human 
Services, as you know, because they do not agree with what the 
leadership wants to do with it, and let us get some agreement and then 
send it to the President. That is my first point.
  The second point that I just wanted to make, I do not believe that 
our forefathers, if they were here today, would say ``Let's have a 
debate. But if we cannot agree, let us shut down the Government.'' I do 
not think that provision is anywhere in the Constitution either that 
provides for shutting down the Government if there is sincere 
differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats or between the 
administration and this body.
  We have to have a serious debate, we have to continue the discussion, 
but let us open the Government.
  One other point I would like to mention to my colleague from 
California, which follows up on what my colleague from Florida said: I 
was with a group of businessmen this week talking about the budget and 
talking about options, and I would like to say there are serious people 
on both sides trying to come to some kind of compromise. These were 
CEO's of major corporations that meet with me regularly and give me 
advice. They said, ``We can't be sure of economic conditions one year 
from now or two years from now.'' I think we could all agree on that. 
So we have to respect differences of opinion.

  Mr. KINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I am going to be really fair and assume that I took over 
that 5 minutes. Actually, let me take about 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from California's question. I think it is a very serious 
question and a very good question.
  I would tell you, I really believe there is a middle ground that 
unfortunately, I will be honest with you, I do not think either party 
represents. I think what the President said privately, I do not believe 
he said it publicly, he wants a budget that 100 Republicans and 100 
Democrats will vote for. But the truth is in this Chamber, the way this 
process works, we are never going to have an opportunity to vote for a 
budget that 107 Democrats and Republicans will vote for, but we might.
  Let me follow through on that thought, because something is going to 
give. What is going to give is either there is going to be a two-
thirds, or it might not, projecting the way this thing is going to play 
itself out.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman would yield for a moment, I wanted to 
respond to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.
  Please, to the extent you have the President's ear, and I believe you 
have more of it than I, let him offer exactly that deal that will get 
hopefully 109 and 109 on each side, and let him offer it through a 
Member of the minority. I would look at it with a very open mind. I 
really can call that an offer, and I know the gentleman from Florida is 
sincere in making it. If it gathers 109 votes on each side, let us put 
it on the table.
  It is not profitable I think to cast any more blame. Let us say from 
this point forward, what can we do. If the President will, however, say 
this proposal, let us say it becomes the one of the gentleman from 
Florida, is the one I will sign, it has got tremendous possibilities. 
The difficulty with the coalition budget and others, is we never knew 
and still do not know if the President would sign it.
  So I would urge the gentleman to the extent he has the President's 
ear to do exactly that. I for one will view that proposal with a very 
open mind.

  Mrs. LOWEY. If the gentleman will yield for 10 seconds, we have 
reinforcements here. I just want to say that if we are not looking back 
and we are looking forward, the President is working very hard with 
your leadership, working in a bipartisan way, to see if we can work out 
some of these difficulties. So I would just like to say in closing, let 
us in good faith continue the serious discussions, try and work out 

[[Page H85]]
our differences, but please, let us not have any more pain and 
suffering among taxpaying citizens. Let us open the government 
tomorrow, let us vote for the resolution that 198 Democrats support. 
All we need is 20 Republicans. Support that resolution, open the 
government, and I pledge, and I think we all pledge, to continue to 
work with the administration, with the Republicans, to work out our 
sincere differences.
  I respect the differences in opinion. I do not deny anyone their 
honesty, their sincerity. I respect those differences. So let us 
respect each other, continue to debate, but open the government 
tomorrow.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I did want to respond to two things. Number one, we 
only need about 30 Democrats to reopen the government, because we can 
get some of these vetoes overridden and we can pass some more 
appropriations bills. So we hope that we can pick up those votes so you 
all will allow us to reopen the government. Just as much as basically 
you want to do it your way, we want to do it our way. But I do think 
that reasonable people can prevail, reasonable thought can prevail.
  But I wanted to get back, you mentioned what would our forefathers 
do. I think, number one, they would pray, and I know that it is 
politically incorrect to say that, but if we look at the example of 
Benjamin Franklin and the Constitutional Convention, I think it was 
significant that authors in history wrote down his speech about let us 
pray, because we are obviously at a deadlock. We are not doing that as 
an institution. We know that.
  Number two, I think they would look at the example of their mother 
country, England, which was a country of revolutions and 
counterrevolutions for over 1,000 years, going back to the Roman 
Empire, and particularly 1650, right after the English civil war, where 
they beheaded King Charles and Oliver Cromwell and the military ran the 
government and kept dismissing parliament after parliament over and 
over again. I think if our forefathers were here, seeing those 
examples, knowing those examples, what they would do is they would say 
wait a minute, you are telling me you are $4.9 trillion in debt, you 
are telling me you pay $20 billion a month interest? You are telling me 
you have a man who serves in the White House who promised to balance 
the budget and since he has served, we have paid $480 billion in new 
interest on the debt? And you are quibbling about 1 more month? For 
crying out loud, let us go in there with a machete and start cutting 
and slashing. What is this crazy stuff about a 7-year balanced budget? 
Can you people not do it in 1 year or 2 years?

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman would yield, and it is always 
interesting to speculate on what our Founding Fathers might have done. 
I think, in retrospect, they probably would have included language that 
would have offered the balanced budget amendment that we now need, 
because the gentleman outlined a severe problem of always wanting to 
expand, for oft-times noble purposes. I do not question anyone's 
sincerity. Indeed, Dwight Eisenhower said of our political adversaries, 
``Always presume they, too, want the best for this Nation.''
  But it has been so easy over the last half century to say worthwhile, 
you bet you. Some we need to do, absolutely. But we have expanded the 
role of this Government to the point that we have conferred upon it a 
status that is illegitimate to this extent. It seems to suggest the 
notion of infinity with reference to resources, and these resources are 
finite.
  There will be disagreements as to the emphasis, as to the direction, 
but if we agree on nothing else tonight, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, 
let us agree in a constructive way to acknowledge these resources are 
finite and the consequences are great for American people living today 
and those generations yet unborn, and let us move together to solve the 
problems, because that is the most important thing that we can do.
  I yield my time to my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. KINGSTON. The gentleman has been a true gentleman from Kentucky. 
He has not said a word in 20 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I want 
to also take a minute to respond to the gentlewoman from New York.
  The CEO's that said we cannot tell what the future is going to bring 
as far as the economy is concerned, that is true. But we know for a 
fact that if we continue spending the way we are spending, if we cannot 
slow the rate of growth in our spending to $12 trillion over the next 7 
years, if we fail to balance the budget, as the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Campbell] was talking about earlier, that we have to do 
it now, we have a window of opportunity to do it now, if we do not do 
that, I mentioned a while ago in the year 2012 every tax dollar will be 
consumed by interest on the debt in entitlements.
  In the year 2030, when my 13-year-old daughter is approaching my age 
now, the deficit for 1 year, we know, projected out there, the deficit 
for 1 year would be over $4 trillion. That is a deficit for 1 year 
approaching what our debt is now.

  The Lord only knows what the debt would be then. We will never reach 
that point. We will be facing economic destruction in this country if 
we do not get control of our spending. We have to do it.
  Now, what we have to do is say, here is $12 trillion over the next 7 
years, now what are our priorities? How are we going to divide the pie 
up? We need to get around the table and to make those decisions. We 
have to slow the rate of Medicare, because if we do not, we will lose 
Medicare in 7 years. We are going to have to control Medicaid or we are 
going to lose it.
  All of the programs that are so important to this Nation and to the 
people of this Nation we have to slow the rate of growth or we lose it. 
I have parents that are 78 years old. I want them to have Medicare in 7 
years from now. I hope they are still living then; I hope there is 
Medicare for them. I hope that for my sister and for my other 
relatives, and for Members of this House, myself, that there will be 
Medicare one day, but it is not going to be there if we do not act 
responsibly now. We do not have time to delay it. We have to make some 
tough decisions.
  It is about today. It is about the next generation also. But I am 
concerned that there are those who are looking at it as the next 
election. We cannot worry about that. We have to worry about it today, 
what is good for this Nation and for the people of this Nation.
  Mrs. LOWEY. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I am going to control the next 5 minutes and I would be 
happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Well, I will respond and say good night again, but since 
the gentleman referred his comments to me, I want to respond again to 
make it very clear that I support the efforts to balance the budget, 
and I think all of us in this debate do as well.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. My question is when, though.
  Mrs. LOWEY. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, with the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], we have been in meetings with 
the same people who talk fancy rhetoric about balancing the budget. We 
will give the Pentagon $7 billion more than they asked for. Now, it is 
a matter of priorities. I will fight for after-school programs for 
children, for Head Start, for the National Institutes of Health, for 
breast cancer research, where I think we can make cuts in other areas. 
I feel strongly we have to reform welfare. We have to reform Medicare 
and Medicaid. There are serious discussions going on with the President 
and leadership of both parties.

  All I am saying, in conclusion, is let us balance the budget, let us 
continue to work to reform these programs and see if we can get 
together on a methodology, be it in Medicare or Medicaid, that makes 
sense, and my colleagues and I know there are some people in the 
Republican Party that do not even want to see Medicare continue, so I 
am happy we agree on that.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. That is just not true.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I want to conclude by saying let us continue the 
discussion, but let us open the Government, and let us not have people 
suffer anymore, 

[[Page H86]]
because these are taxpayers. They work hard. They should not have to be 
suffering with the Government closing down. Let us continue this 
debate.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. May I respond?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I want to give the gentleman from Illinois a chance [Mr. 
Poshard], a fresh voice, who maybe will clear everything up.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Maybe we will continue tomorrow night. Thank you very 
much.
  Mr. POSHARD. I want to thank my colleague from Florida for the time, 
and I have been watching the debate here, and let me say how much I 
appreciate the people that are on this floor right now. The gentleman 
from California, Tom Campbell, has been one of my dear friends for 
many, many years; I have gotten to know the gentleman from Arizona, 
J.D. Hayworth, and the gentleman from Georgia, Jack Kingston, this 
year; and the gentleman from Kentucky, Ron Lewis, and I think they are 
all very positive contributing Members. But let me throw my 2 cents in 
on this.
  I appreciate the tenor of the debate here, also. I am not one to 
point fingers and to place blame. I voted for the coalition budget. I 
helped, to the extent that I could, the Members of that coalition put 
their budget together. I believe it is the best budget that is before 
us. But moderate Democrats that have supported that from the beginning 
and helped put it together would believe that way.
  I believe very strongly in the entitlement reform commission's report 
and the Medicare trust fund board in saying that, knowing that 
entitlements consume 48 percent of our budget today, that interest on 
the debt consumes another 20 percent, that that is 68 percent of our 
budget today that goes to entitlements and interest on the debt. I do 
not think anyone could look at our budget and not conclude that we have 
to do something with respect to slowing down the growth of entitlements 
if we truly want to get to a balanced budget in 7 years.
  I do. I want to use CBO figures, and the President has agreed to do 
that at this point in time, as have many Democrats on our side of the 
aisle. I also agree that we ought to push the Medicare trust fund 
balance from the current 6 years that it has slid to out to the 10 
years that we normally maintain the balance of that fund.
  So the end objective of what we are all about here, I find no 
disagreement. I, for one, have concluded a long time ago that we need 
to accomplish those two dual objectives, and so have, I think, most 
Democrats on our side. But let me tell my colleagues where we, where at 
least I differ with the way things are going.
  When I hear folks stand up and criticize the President for not being, 
or for maybe being disingenuous about his attempt to balance the 
budget, then what I want to do is just share this with them, and I am 
not here to place blame or argue or anything else, but here are where 
things kind of break down for me.
  I have been here 7 years now, and in 1992 we were running a $310 
billion deficit a year in this Government. That has gone down to $260 
billion, to $200 billion, to, this year, $161 billion. Under this 
President, in less than 3 years, we have decreased the deficit by $140 
billion.
  Now, when we look at the conference report, the Republican budget, 
the conference report, it goes down next year from $161 this year to 
$151 billion. It goes back up the second year to $158 billion, $158.8, 
and then it goes down to $126 billion at the end of the third year.
  So when I look at this and I say, well, we have accomplished $140 
billion deficit reduction plus in the last 3 years, and at the end of 
the second year of this budget we have only accomplished $2 billion of 
deficit reduction and we have accomplished less than $30 at the end of 
the third year, I do not believe that any of us can accuse the 
President of being disingenuous about wanting to balance the budget. We 
have accomplished significant deficit reduction here in the first 3 
years of the administration, much more so than what the Republican 
budget would accomplish, or even the coalition budget.

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield the gentleman 5 minutes that he is not going to 
control.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I welcome my good friend from Illinois, and I 
appreciate, almost, the technique of Cicero in not assessing blame or 
bestowing credit.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleague from Illinois, a couple of points. First 
of all, as we know, history does not occur in a vacuum. Many factors 
entered into this temporary valley in deficit reduction. Indeed, if we 
looked at the projections for the President under the former majority, 
we also noted an exponential rise in deficits following a few years.
  It is this point. To achieve the goal that is laudatory in the 
abstract, this President decided to levy the largest tax increase in 
American history on the people of this country. Again, good people can 
disagree, and the gentleman does correctly point out, I think, an 
opportunity for improvement in the plan offered by the new majority. 
And, indeed, that is why I was pleased to join with 70 mostly newcomers 
in voting for a budget plan offered by my friend from Wisconsin that 
would have balanced this budget in 5 years and paid off the debt in 30, 
because I believe we owe future generations that much.
  The point is, and this perhaps is a difference of philosophy that may 
exist among us here, I do not believe we solve anything, I do not 
believe we are more and more responsible by adding more burden to the 
hard working people of America; indeed, the same people that this 
President said he wanted to offer tax relief as a candidate in 1992.
  I yield to my friend from Illinois.
  Mr. POSHARD. And I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
  I voted for that budget 3 years ago. It had $247 billion of tax 
increases in it, 4-percent increase basically on the highest income 
levels in this country, 1 percent corporate income tax, and a $4.5-
cent-a-gallon gasoline tax, half of which went to deficit reduction and 
half of which went to our transportation system in this country.

  So it did have those tax increases in it, and it hit the upper income 
bracket with the 4 percent increase mainly because that bracket had 
seen a decrease in their taxes, and an unconscious taxation rate of up 
to 78 percent at one time, which I certainly never agreed with, and I 
do not see how anybody could ever agree with that, but they had seen a 
tremendous decrease down to 28 percent, then up to 31 percent of that 
bracket.

                              {time}  2230

  So, yes, there was a tax increase in that budget. But it also had 
$253 billion of Government spending decreases in that budget, which no 
one ever wants to talk about.
  Here is the other thing: In my district, as I am sure it was true in 
almost all districts throughout this country, I had thousands of people 
under that budget that became eligible for the first time in their life 
for the earned income tax credit, which when I was a member Education 
and Labor that was Tom Petri's bill. Tom, you were here. That was Tom's 
bill. Tom was the one that brought the earned income tax credit to this 
Chamber.
  I still say for the working, and I will yield in 1 second to the 
gentleman from Georgia, but I still say that was one of the best 
measures to help the working class people in this country or low-income 
people, to keep them off of welfare.
  So, yes, that did help reduce the deficit, the combination of those 
two things, but I think over the long haul, my friend from California, 
they were appropriate. In any case, I have to believe that my President 
and your President is not being disingenuous here. I believe the 
President wants to balance the budget. I believe we have real 
differences about the process in getting to the end goal of achieving 
those two objectives, but we can get there.
  Now, back to the other issue with respect to my friend from 
California, I will say, because, Tom, I listened to your testimony 
earlier, this is the most confusing thing to me as to why we cannot 
pass a continuing resolution here and continue to resolve the 
procedural differences in getting to that balanced budget. I understand 
what you folks are saying. I understand where you are coming from. But 
it seems to me that the Federal workers should be separate and apart 
from our differences on how to achieve this balanced budget.

[[Page H87]]

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. DEUTSCH. There are 8 minutes left, and if we just give ourselves 
4 minutes each side to sort of close and J.D. wants to use a minute.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Florida and Illinois for 
being involved. I yield 1 minute to my friend from California in 
response.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I appreciate it. To my good friend from Illinois, the 
reduction of the deficit under President Clinton is a point in his 
favor. It is also responsive to the economic recovery. I would have to 
say it is at least as much the latter as the former. Therefore, we must 
plan for the economic downturn. It is insufficient to say we are OK as 
we are going now.

  Second, the gentlewoman from New York said that some members of our 
party are opposed to Social Security in concept. Mr. Speaker, I 
consider that inaccurate, and I would challenge the gentlewoman on the 
next opportunity to state for the Record what Members of the majority 
party wish to abolish Social Security or are opposed to it in 
principle.
  Last, to the gentleman from Illinois, it is a privilege to serve with 
you, and I commend to the readership of this country a very fine 
article in Washington Monthly that describes your personal religious 
commitment and how that affects your role in public policy. I think we 
share that, and from that I hope that people as reasonable as you might 
prevail upon the President to respond to compromise constructively.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Our dear friend from New York truly did take a parting 
shot. We could go back and play historical revisionism and infinitum. 
The question is not who created a program, but who is willing to save 
and sustain it. I know no one in this majority who is willing to 
abandon Medicare or willing to abandon Social Security. I know no one 
in this new majority willing to abandon Medicaid as a goal, but of 
course we have offered alternatives, and upon that good people may 
disagree.
  To my colleagues from the minority, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues 
from the majority and those who have joined us this evening nationwide 
on C-SPAN, I think it is important to note that we may engage in 
constructive dialog. Indeed, it is our hope that that constructive 
dialog that occurs in this Chamber, where so many great debates have 
gone on through the years, is also occurring at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Ave., and let us work together to save this Nation by 
making it economically sound. With that I yield to my friends from 
Kentucky and Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying I 
appreciated the remarks from my friend from Illinois. But I think we 
have to look a lot at what the President presented as a budget 
this year, the first budget, the second budget, the third budget, and 
the fourth budget. None of those balanced. I think what we have to look 
at is where those budgets take us into the future, where we are going 
to be 10 years from now, 7 years from now, 5 years from now. Those 
deficits start to return and start taking us toward more debt and 
increasing debt.

  So, it is great that the deficits have gone down. That is a little 
help toward looking at the future. But we have to get serious about 
what we are going to do in the next 7 years, and that is the President 
needs to give us a balanced budget now, one that will preserve and 
protect the future generations. That is all we are asking for, and I 
hope that the President will be forthcoming, be very serious about a 
balanced budget and just cut the rhetoric, just do the job.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the President has 
been in office over 2 years now and he has not submitted a balanced 
budget. To the gentleman from Illinois, I was here when the President 
passed his budget in 1993 with much fanfare about seriously attacking 
the deficit, but since then he has not been back in the debate.
  We need a balanced budget. If he will submit a balanced budget, I 
believe we can resolve this. But more importantly, if we can get some 
Members on your side to join us in passing some of these appropriations 
bills, we can reopen the Government. I am not a hard-liner about let us 
keep the Government closed, let us hold these folks as hostages. But it 
disappoints me when I hear you all need to reopen the Government. It 
was your President who vetoed the bills.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard] to close, and then I will take the last 4 
minutes.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would like to say 
that with respect to Presidential budgets, I was here for the 4 years 
under President Bush, and I do not think that even the Republican Party 
ever voted for one of his budgets, and most of the time they were not 
presented. That is the normal around here. We usually iron this thing 
out over here anyway.
  The other thing is with respect to my friend from Kentucky, the 
deficit goes up in whatever budget we pass here on the table at the end 
of the 7 years anyway. We are going to have to go through this again, 
or whatever Congress is in session then is going to have to do this all 
over again at the end of our budgets if we want to continue to work on 
the debt at that point in time.
  The other thing is, I guess, again to my good friend from Georgia, on 
the appropriation bills, the appropriation bills flow from the budget 
itself. And the President is saying ``I disagree with the overall 
budget that you folks have presented here. And so, therefore, I cannot 
really sign appropriation bills that conform themselves to that budget, 
if I disagree with the budget overall.''
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, let me take the last minute. This is just a 
little bit----
  Mr. HAYWORTH. That about HCFA, not about Medicare. That is about the 
Health Care Financing Administration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. White). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Deutsch] controls the time.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. The gentleman does not control the time, so regular 
order. This is what the Speaker of the House said, and people can read 
it themselves.

       We don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think 
     that is politically smart and we don't think that's the right 
     way to go through a transition period, but we believe it's 
     going to wither on the vine because we think people are 
     voluntarily going to leave it.

  That is not historical revisionism. And some of the statements by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] in his book and other quotes, that is 
not historical revisionism.
  I will respond quickly regarding saving Medicare. Twelve of the 30 
years the Medicare Program had left less of an actuarial life than it 
does today. Some of the tough votes we talked about when I was in 
Congress the first year, we did one of those adjustments. We cut 
Medicare $68 billion that I voted for and that my colleagues over there 
did not choose to do.
  We do not save Medicare by destroying it. And it is so disingenuous 
that the $270 billion cuts would not stay in the trust fund. There is 
no reason not to do a CR in an hour and a half


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, is not it true that the Republicans would 
have the next hour, should we want to do that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is up to the majority leader to make that 
determination.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes; 1 
minute for the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] and 1 minute for 
our side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot recognize a unanimous-
consent request in the special orders period.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary, inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, just so I understand, is there any process 
now for us to proceed or are you suggesting that we do not have one?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair can only recognize at the present 
time speakers pursuant to a list provided by the majority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Does that mean, therefore, that we cannot continue?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Absent a request by the majority leader.
  
[[Page H88]]

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, if I could just ask for some time to thank 
everyone.

                          ____________________