[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H217-H226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 AUTHORIZING SPEAKER TO DECLARE RECESSES FROM JANUARY 5, 1996, THROUGH 
 JANUARY 23, 1996, AND WAIVING REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE 4(b) OF RULE XI 
   WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY 
                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 330

       Resolved, That (a) the Speaker may declare recesses subject 
     to the call of the Chair on the calendar days of Friday, 
     January 5, 1996, through Tuesday, January 9, 1996. A recess 
     declared pursuant to this subsection may not extend beyond 
     the calendar day of Tuesday, January 9, 1996.
       (b) The Speaker may declare recesses subject to the call of 
     the Chair on the calendar days of Tuesday, January 9, 1996, 
     through Friday, January 12, 1996. A recess declared pursuant 
     to this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of 
     Friday, January 12, 1996.
       (c) The Speaker may declare recesses subject to the call of 
     the Chair on the calendar days of Friday, January 12, 1996, 
     through Tuesday, January 16, 1996. A recess declared pursuant 
     to this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of 
     Tuesday, January 16, 1996.
       (d) The Speaker may declare recesses subject to the call of 
     the Chair on the calendar days of Tuesday, January 16, 1996, 
     through Friday, January 19, 1996. A recess declared pursuant 
     to this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of 
     Friday, January 19, 1996.
       (e) The Speaker may declare recesses subject to the call of 
     the Chair on the calendar days of Friday, January 19, 1996, 
     through Tuesday, January 23, 1996. A recess declared pursuant 
     to this subsection may not extend beyond the calendar day of 
     Tuesday, January 23, 1996.
       Sec. 2. The requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from Committee on Rules 
     on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with 
     respect to any resolution reported from that committee before 
     the calendar day of Wednesday, January 24, 1996, and 
     providing for consideration or disposition of any of the 
     following measures:
       (1) A bill making general appropriations for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996, any amendment thereto, any 
     conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in 
     disagreement from a conference thereon.
       (2) A bill or joint resolution that includes provisions 
     making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
     1996, any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, 
     or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference 
     thereon.
       (3) A bill or joint resolution that includes provisions 
     increasing or waiving (for a temporary period or otherwise) 
     the public debt limit under section 3101(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, any amendment thereto, any conference 
     report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement 
     from a conference thereon.
       (4) A bill to provide for a balanced budget by 2002, any 
     amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any 
     amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Ms. PRYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 330 is a two-part 
resolution. First, it allows the Speaker of the House to declare 
recesses subject to the call of the Chair on the calendar days of 
Friday January 5, 1996, through Tuesday, January 9, 1996, and for 3-day 
periods thereafter until Tuesday, January 23, 1996.
  Second, this resolution waives clause 4(b) of rule XI, which requires 
a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same-day it is reported 
from the Rules Committee, against certain resolutions reported by the 
Committee on Rules before calendar day Wednesday, January 24, 1996.
  This resolution covers special rules that provide for the 
consideration or disposition of specific budget legislation, including 
fiscal year 1996 appropriations, continuing resolutions, public debt 
limit increases or waivers, and a 7-year balanced budget bill. The 
resolution also covers amendments, conference reports, or amendments 
reported in disagreement from a conference on such legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is primarily focused on moving toward a 
speedy solution to the budget dilemma that confronts this body, by 
facilitating the same-day consideration of urgent budget legislation 
that will reopen the entire Federal Government or provide a new 7-year 
balanced budget plan. When Congress and the administration come to 
agreement on these issues, the House will be able to act immediately to 
end the budget crisis.
  However, in the absence of legislative activity that moves us toward 
these goals, this resolution provides the Speaker the ability to 
declare recesses while the budget negotiations between our leadership 
and the White House continue.
  By recessing rather than adjourning, the House will effectively be on 
stand-by, ready to return should the White House come to meet its 
responsibility and submit legislation, as promised, that achieves a 
balanced budget and puts the Government back into full operation.
  Further, should the President do his duty and the House does return 
ready for action, these urgent budget measures can be considered under 
an expedited process.
  Mr. Speaker, with this resolution, the House is not abdicating its 
responsibilities. In fact, the House has 

[[Page H218]]
worked very hard, with a great deal of success, to fulfill its duties. 
As a result, about 75 percent of the Government is on the job, serving 
the taxpayers.
  Three other appropriations bills, which would have put a large number 
of the remaining Federal employees back to work, were passed by 
Congress, but vetoed by the President. Had the President signed these 
bills, 95 percent Federal employees would have been working and 
receiving their paycheck.
  Two other appropriations bills are pending action in the other body, 
and the last spending bill is still in conference.
  Under this resolution, as soon as these appropriations bills are 
ready for consideration, the House may give them immediate attention 
under an expedited process.
  And, the House just voted to fund some of the most important 
Government functions, so that meals for seniors, child welfare 
programs, unemployment benefits, AFDC, passports, and veterans programs 
would not be denied. Further, we just voted to ensure that Federal 
employees are no longer held hostage by the President's inaction and 
receive their pay.
  The resolution now before us will allow the House to take the next 
step and reopen the entire Federal Government once the President 
produces his balanced budget, under a process that allows immediate 
action.
  Mr. Speaker, responsibility can also be demonstrated by keeping one's 
promises. The Republican Majority has worked diligently over the past 
year to keep its promise to the American people by crafting and passing 
a Balanced Budget Act which eliminates the deficit in 7 years. However, 
these efforts may mean little if a balanced budget is not enacted into 
law.
  The President has made a similar promise, numerous times, and most 
recently in writing. he signed into law a promise to Congress and the 
American people that he will enact a budget that reaches balance by the 
year 2002, using the Congressional Budget Office's numbers.
  Currently, Congress, Federal workers, and the American people are 
waiting for the President to keep his word and fulfill his end of the 
bargain. Frankly, his failure to do so is unacceptable.
  When the President finally gives us his budget from which to begin to 
negotiate, the terms of this resolution would permit the House to come 
back into session to respond quickly and appropriately.
  Mr. Speaker, the budget impasse facing this House and the Nation is 
serious, and clearly, the shutdown of the Government is undesirable, 
but the future of our country is at stake. My colleagues who are 
committed to a balanced budget are not trying to ignore the situation 
at hand. Instead, those of us who are truly committed to a balanced 
budget are taking bold steps to confront the real financial crisis that 
faces our Nation, because it is responsible and it is right and we are 
so close and this is our last best chance.
  This resolution will allow us to continue to work toward the goal of 
fiscal responsibility in a practical manner. House Resolution 330 is 
appropriate in light of these unique circumstances. It is a tool we 
need to keep the budget negotiations on line. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding 
me the customary half hour and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today is completely 
irresponsible.
  The United States Government has been closed for 21 days. Of 2 
million civilian Federal employees, 280,000 have been sent home and 
480,000 are working but not getting paid. A total of 38 percent of the 
Federal work force is not getting a paycheck.
  Thanks to the targeted appropriations bill we did earlier, those 
people will be able to go back to work and even get their paychecks, 
but, many of them will not be able to actually do their work because 
the Republican leadership won't let them.
  Many Federal programs are still not funded and thousands of Americans 
are still not getting the services they expect and the services they 
earned.
  Medicare contractors which employ 24,000 people will not get paid, 
States will run out of Medicaid matching funds to pay for poor 
children's health care, small businesses won't get loans; workplace 
safety and health complaints will not be inspected, and EPA is still 
unfunded which means superfund sites are not cleaned and environmental 
hazards are not investigated.
  And what's the response of the people who closed the Government in 
the first place?
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is responding by going home.
  For those who wonder why on earth anyone would do this, it's because 
Republicans want the President to do something he won't do. They want 
President Clinton to agree to their idea of cutting Medicare to pay for 
tax breaks for the rich. Until he does they are going to hold the 
entire country hostage.
  Mr. Speaker, this 21-day shutdown tantrum is the most arrogant abuse 
of power I have seen in a very long time and I do not understand it.
  I do not understand how Speaker Gingrich can send his Republicans 
home while so many people are suffering. And make no mistake about it, 
the responsibility for this shutdown lies squarely in the lap of 
Speaker Gingrich.
  Mr. Speaker, this shutdown is serious and it is hurting a lot of 
people this month, 49,000 families may be evicted from their homes 
because their housing vouchers are not getting renewed.
  Mr. Speaker, these people did nothing wrong. They expected Government 
services, they earned Government services, and under no circumstances 
should they have to pay the price for this political blackmail.
  And to make matters worse, a majority of House Members want to open 
the Government, but the Republican leadership won't let us.
  Some say this fight is about philosophy. They say that Republicans 
have closed the Government because they have philosophical differences 
with the President.
  I guess I do not know very much about philosophy because I can not 
look some of these people in the eye and tell them there is a good 
reason for their frustration.
  The people who think this philosophical difference is worth the pain 
it is causing are in the minority. Wednesday, a Republican Member said, 
``GOP leaders know they would lose a vote on the floor.''
  Mr. Speaker, this 21-day shutdown is cruel and unnecessary. It would 
end if it were brought to a vote. I urge my colleagues to defeat this 
rule, Speaker Gingrich should keep Congress in town until the 
Government is completely open again.
  With respect to the two-thirds waiver, I would say to my colleagues 
that they have managed to bring up a rule meant for last minute, 
emergency bills on just the second day of the session, at least we 
waited until the end.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just turned in my prepared remarks. I was 
going to make an appeal to try to shorten the debate on not only this 
very important resolution but the one that is going to come up right 
after that. We have been working very closely with the other side of 
the aisle, we have been working very closely with the other body, with 
the leader of the Democratic Party in the other body, and we have had a 
lot of cooperation.
  Then I hear my good friend, Joe Moakley, the ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules, stand up here and go through a charade that we went 
through several weeks ago at Christmastime.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will be glad to yield to my good friend from North 
Carolina, a good Congressman.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be curious to know if the gentleman 

[[Page H219]]
  listened to the political statement that his party made prior to 
yielding to the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was a political 
statement made over here, so let us----
  Mr. SOLOMON. I have been listening very, very carefully, and what I 
am doing now is just trying to get us all to come to reason here, 
because this rule that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] 
has just asked you to vote against is an expedited procedure rule.
  What it does, it allows us anytime in the next 21 days, before the 
President's State of the Union Message, before we actually take up 
other legislation, it allows us to act in an expeditious manner on 
issues of terrible importance. It allows us to take up any amendments 
in disagreement that might come about from the other body through 
conference reports. It allows us to take up any of the vetoed bills for 
the Department of Veterans' Affairs and housing, the Environmental 
Protection Agency; it allows us to take up the Commerce-Justice-State 
bill; it allows us to take up the Interior bill that the President 
vetoed that is keeping the parks closed.
  That is really what this is all about. But more important than that, 
it allows Members to take up this afternoon, before going home for the 
weekend, a continuing resolution that members of the minority have been 
asking for. It is a clean resolution for another 21 days.
  What does that mean? That means that those of us who are going to 
stay around here for the next 21 days are going to be negotiating with 
the President, trying to bring about a compromise that will bring us a 
balanced budget in 7 years. That is really what this is all about.
  So to stand here and say well, let us defeat this rule and let us be 
around here next week, you know, many of us are going to be around here 
all next week, but it is time now for us to pass this. We have 
assurances from the other body that they are going to accept by 
unanimous consent the bill we just debated that puts all of the Federal 
workers back to work, that pays them for their past wages, that is 
going to pay them for their future wages if they continue to work. That 
is what that bill did.
  The next bill that will come up, if we pass this rule, is going to 
allow for a clean continuing resolution. That is what the President 
wanted.

  If he does that, and if he gives us his budget that balances the 
budget in 7 years, we are going to see what his cuts in Medicare are, 
and if he is cutting $100 billion and we are cutting the increase by 
$180 billion, then we have got something to work between, between $100 
and $180 billion. If he is calling for tax cuts and we are calling for 
tax cuts, let us see what the differences in the dollar amounts are.
  That is what this resolution does. It is an expedited procedure. 
Every one of you should vote for it. We ought to cut out this political 
dart-throwing, and let us get down and get the Government back working, 
and let us get the balanced budget. That is what the American people 
want.
  What do you think of that? Let us do it.
  Mr. Speaker and Members, the resolution before the House will provide 
us with the scheduling flexibility necessary to complete the ongoing 
budget negotiations in a timely and orderly fashion.
  It is important to note, as the gentlelady from Ohio explained, that 
this resolution not only authorizes additional recess authority to the 
Speaker but it provides expedited procedures for the consideration of a 
bill to balance the budget by 2002 or a bill including further 
continuing appropriations.
  This resolution is in fact a resolution to allow us to continue our 
work in an expeditious manner.
  As we are in the midst of only a partial government shutdown, let me 
take a moment to recap the status of the appropriations process. There 
is no need to assign blame for this partial shutdown. The facts will 
speak for themselves.
  To date, seven appropriations bills have been enacted into law. One 
conference report is pending in the Senate and one bill is still in 
conference.
  The bill that funds the Departments of Labor and Health and Human 
Services has passed the House but is facing a filibuster in the other 
body by the Democrat minority.
  Three other bills, funding a huge percentage of the Federal 
Government, were vetoed by the President one week before Christmas. The 
President had an opportunity to open the bulk of the Cabinet 
departments and agencies now closed by signing those bills.
  Three days after this partial shutdown began, President Clinton 
vetoed the Veterans and HUD and independent agencies appropriations 
bill, citing excessive cuts to the EPA.
  Most accounts in that bill were cut to pay for an increase in the 
Veterans' hospital account. We have told the White House, in a good 
faith negotiation, to take money from any other parts of the bill 
except veterans, if the President insists on increasing funds for EPA, 
but he has refused to do so.
  If the President had signed this bill, all of the workers in VA 
hospitals, Department of Housing, EPA, and a host of other agencies 
would be back on the job and earning their salary.
  Also on December 18, the President had another opportunity to open 
many government offices for work. Instead, he chose to veto the 
Interior appropriations bill on the grounds that the cuts were too 
severe.
  We told the White House, in another honest negotiation, to shift the 
money around to reflect their priorities without increasing the total 
dollars, but they refused to do it.
  If the President signed this legislation, this bill, would have 
allowed countless Americans to enjoy our parks and museums.
  On December 19, four days into the partial Government shutdown, the 
President closed four Cabinet departments and several agencies by 
vetoing the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill.
  How could the President close the Justice and State departments, many 
Americans are wondering?
  As with other bills he vetoed, the President objected to cuts in the 
bill designed to balance the budget overall. We told the White House 
that add-backs would be acceptable, if--and only if--the President 
specified where the cuts should come from, elsewhere in the bill.
  Again, he refused. If the President had signed this bill, these 
Federal workers would be on the job earning their pay and the needless 
hassles in getting a passport would not exist.
  We sent the President a clean CR, on November 20, with a simple 
paragraph attached committing the President and the Congress to 
enacting a bill that would balance the budget by 2002 scored by the 
CBO.
  To this day, the White House has not presented such a document to the 
Congress.
  Over the last few days, I have noticed the Democrat rhetoric 
obscuring the precise nature of the President's commitment in November.
  Let me call Members' attention to House Joint Resolution 122, which 
passed the House on November 20, 1995 by an overwhelming vote of 421 to 
4.
  This legislation contained a temporary spending measure to keep the 
Government open and committed the President and the Congress to a 7-
year balanced budget scored by the CBO.
  The President signed this measure into law on November 20, 1995. So 
there is no confusion--this is Public Law 104-56.
  Mr. Speaker, we are a society of laws, and our adherence to the rule 
of law has set our Nation apart in history. I urge the President to 
comply with the law he helped enact.
  Over the last several days, we heard from some of our Democrat 
colleagues that we ought to resolve this partial Government shutdown 
immediately and deal with our philosophical differences over 
entitlement spending later.
  The unspoken implication in this Democrat argument is--balancing the 
budget in 7 years is not all that important. We can deal with that 
pesky deficit sometime later. Balancing the budget is a goal that can 
wait for an undefined, later date.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of logic that has created the fiscal 
mess we are in today. This crisis cannot wait any longer.
  The fact that public officials behaved irresponsibly in the past is 
not a compelling reason why we should do so today.
  Mr. Speaker, since we have already passed a targeted appropriations 
bill funding selective programs to demonstrate our good faith, we are 
prepared to pass a continuing resolution conditioned on the President 
delivering a 7-year balanced budget scored by the CBO and delivered to 
this Congress. He can do this in a matter of hours or just minutes if 
he accepts the proposal.
  I urge support for this resolution, so that we can continue this 
process of balancing the budget in 7 years.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution might as well be entitled the 
congressional R&R resolution of 1996. That is what it really is.
  The sad thing about this process is that an immense amount of energy 
on 

[[Page H220]]
both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol, have been 
invested in trying to restart the Government every 2 or 3 weeks rather 
than in trying to find real solutions to real problems that affect real 
people in each of our own districts back home. And now we are asked to 
do it again.
  What this resolution really says is that the Congress will be allowed 
to get out of town, until the 25th, and the Government will be reopened 
partially during that time period. Then the day after Congress gets 
back to town, the Government shuts down again, at least those portions 
that have been opened up by the resolution that just passed.
  That is clearly not a process designed to relieve the problems faced 
by taxpayers, or to relieve the problems faced by consumers of 
Government services. That is simply a process designed to relieve the 
pressure on Members of Congress to stay here and do their duty and seek 
resolution of these major issues. That is the problem.
  I would respectfully suggest to the House that we ought to vote 
``no'' on this resolution, and I believe that the congressional 
leadership and all of the rest of us ought to remain in town, working 
on these problems, until they are resolved, and the Government should 
be maintained in an open rather than closed status while we are going 
through that process.
  All this is simply a device by which Members can either go to their 
districts or take a little vacation. Someone even said the Speaker is 
planning a fundraising trip. This simply lets him get out of town while 
the Government is temporarily opened for the convenience not of the 
public we are supposed to serve but of the Members of Congress. That is 
a lousy standard and I think we ought to turn this resolution down.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Columbus, OH, 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was managing the last rule that we brought up, I 
closed by referring to an editorial that was written by Charles 
Krauthammer. I went upstairs and I actually got a copy of that 
editorial.
  Mr. Speaker, it was on New Year's Day, and Mr. Krauthammer wrote 
that:

       The grossest misperception about the great budget deadlock 
     is the widespread notion, fed by the media, that this is just 
     business as usual. In fact, it is the opposite. If this were 
     business as usual, the Republicans would have found a nice, 
     cozy compromise using phony numbers and meaningless 
     projections, claimed victory and gone home happy.

  Not only is this not business as usual, we left business as usual 
behind months ago. We are well into uncharted territory in this budget 
confrontation.
  In the past, when there were budget disagreements, it would take a 
weekend of keeping tourists out of the Washington Monument to convince 
Congress and the President that they should find a way to get the 
Government going again. Unfortunately, this business-as-usual get-it-
done-tomorrow attitude has left this country crippled by a massive $5 
trillion Federal debt.
  This debt is an anchor around our economy, stifling living standards, 
reducing our economic competitiveness, and making interest payments the 
second largest budget item for the Federal Government.
  Congress is now run by a breed of elected officials that are 
committed, above all, to do what they said they would do when they ran 
for office. I must admit, this is a very new concept, especially in 
Washington. I can understand how many Americans could be confused by a 
Congress run by people who insist on meeting the commitments they made 
to the voters.
  Americans, unfortunately, have come to expect politicans that promise 
a balanced budget when they run for office, and offer more debt once in 
office. They have seen Presidential candidates promise a middle-class 
tax cut while running for office, only to offer a tax increase once in 
office. It is understandable that people want to see Congress deliver 
on promises. They want ``promises made, promises kept.''
  This Congress, Mr. Speaker, will do just that. Balancing the budget 
in 7 years is our promise. We will not settle for the business as usual 
of phony balanced budgets which have been offered by the President, he 
is 4-for-4, the most recent one has an $87 billion deficit in the last, 
the 7th year, 2002. We will use every tool that we possibly can to 
achieve a balanced budget. We must do this for our Nation's children.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and move ahead 
so that we will, in fact, be able to bring about the kind of resolution 
that can keep the Government going and at the same time keep our eye on 
the ball, and, that is, balancing the Federal budget.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I would take issue with the gentleman from 
California who said that the people that are now running this House are 
doing what the American people were told. The American people were not 
told that we were going to have a balanced budget at the expense of our 
elderly, our most vulnerable people in the country. You did not tell 
the American people we were going to cut Medicare and Medicaid. You did 
not tell the American people you were going to cut all the agencies 
that supervise our clean drinking water, the food we eat. That is not 
what you told the American people.
  You talked about line-item veto, which you have yet to give the 
President of the United States, which you passed in this House.
  You blame all the problems for this impasse on the President of the 
United States, and every Republican since I was here since Richard 
Nixon, and Richard Nixon was the last Republican to offer a balanced 
budget on the floor of the House of Representatives. So I take issue 
with the gentleman from California.
  The group running this place now did not promise the American people 
that, ``If you will elect us, we are going to cut your Medicare, we are 
going to cut the Medicaid, and we are going to give a big tax cut to 
the wealthiest people in this country.'' That is not what you promised 
the American people, and the American people know it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, and Members, I cannot believe what I am 
hearing. My mother would say to the Republicans this morning, ``You 
have the nerves of the brass monkey.''
  How dare you come here at a time when we are in a crisis, when 
Federal workers have been furloughed for 21 days, when Americans are 
being denied services, they cannot get passports, when the parks are 
closed down, when small business contractors cannot get paid, when FHA 
loans cannot be expedited? How dare you come before the American public 
and say give Newt Gingrich the authority to recess us, to simply let us 
go home, to let us go about our business, to let us go on vacation, for 
some of you to be able to go on foreign trips, just stop the work of 
Congress because you find that it is in your best interests to let this 
crisis drag on?
  Well, I ask my colleagues not to support this. We need a clean, clear 
continuing resolution, the vehicle by which we continue to fund 
Government while we are in the process of debating which way 
Government.
  This is not about a little dispute. This is about fundamental change. 
This is about which way American Government. This is about whether or 
not there is going to be a safety net for the average American worker 
out there. This is about whether or not we are going to give 
substantial tax breaks to the rich. This is no child's play.
  We cannot make mockery of this process by simply coming here and 
asking for an expedited procedure to recess. No, I say to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon], we will not support you. No, we will not 
take your argument that says let us just do this little thing, go on 
home and leave it to us. We are not going to ``leave it to us.'' You 
have shown that you are not responsible. You have shown that you are 
willing to be led by the newest Republican Members in this House, who 

[[Page H221]]
know nothing, who have no experience, and who do not care what happens 
to Government.
  It is absolutely unconscionable that you should come here and ask us 
to simply go on recess, to simply forget about those who are hurting 
out there, to simply not understand the fright and the pain that 
Americans are experiencing. No, we will not go home. No, we are not 
going to give you this vote. No, we are not going to join in any little 
conspiracy with you to do in the American people at a time when they 
need our support and our understanding more than ever.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote it down, not in a little way but 
in a big way, in a huge way. Let them know we are not playing this 
silly game.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe what I just heard, 
for a Member of Congress to stand up and say that the new Members of 
this body, these freshmen Members from the Democrat and Republican 
Parties, do not know anything.
  These Members of Congress just came from outside the beltway. They 
are affected like the rest of us, with this inside-the-beltway jargon. 
They know more about what is going on back home than all of us put 
together.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California, one of those 
freshmen, an outstanding Member from California, who has brought his 
experience in local government and in the private sector to this body, 
and what a difference it has made.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as one of the freshmen who was proud to be 
sworn in this year, I do have to ask the gentlewoman from California to 
recognize that the experience that this Member brings to this House is 
20 years of representing the public directly.
  In 1976, when Jimmy Carter was elected, I was elected to represent 
the people of the city of Imperial Beach. I was elected to be mayor. I 
was elected to be a county supervisor of 2.6 million people. I have 
some experience.
  But most importantly in this is every one of those 20 years, Mr. 
Speaker, I, as an elected official, and the body I served on did 
something that California, the State of the gentlewoman from 
California, demanded; we passed a balanced budget for our government 
agency every one of those 20 years. And so when a Member stands up here 
and says somehow because we have not been on this House floor for more 
than 12 months we are inexperienced, the experience that this Member 
brings is 20 years of balanced budgets.
  I wish this House had 20 years of experience balancing the budget.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will finish my 
statement.
  I have just talked to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], as 
I have done, I think, with every single freshman from both sides of the 
aisle over the last 10 or 11 months.
  Let me tell you what they are talking about. Here is the most serious 
problem facing this Government today, and that most serious problem is 
these deficits that are literally drowning this Nation in a sea of read 
ink.
  I want you to just draw a pie. The pie is the budget of this 
Government. It is $1.5 trillion. Today the interest, just the debt 
service on paying the interest of the debt that is held mostly by 
foreign nations in this world of ours, now totals $250 billion a year, 
and that is with interest rates as low as they are today and inflation 
as low as it is today.
  Let me tell you something, if we continued along this same path, the 
path that President Clinton gave us when he was first elected when his 
5-year projection would have added another trillion dollars to the $5 
trillion debt, do you know what the slice of the pie just to pay the 
interest on that debt would be today? It would not be $250 billion, it 
would be approaching $350 billion.
  Let us go back about 15 years ago when, because of deficit spending 
and irresponsible Government spending in this Congress, inflation had 
just skyrocketed to 13 percent. Do you know what the interest would be 
then? Instead of $250 or $350 billion, it would be over $500 billion. 
What is compassionate about that?
  If you truly want to help people in this country, who truly need 
help, you cannot do it by continuing this sea of red ink, because every 
year that the interest, the debt service, gets larger, that means less 
money to truly take care of those people that cannot take care of 
themselves. That is what this whole debate is about here today, and 
that is why we have to balance the budget.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Speaking as another freshman who has not talked with the good 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, let me say he does not speak for 
this freshman. My constituents told me when I was back in my district 
where I came from, the private sector, not from government like the 
other freshman who spoke, they told me we should stay here and work.
  My children go on recess at school. We are paid to stay here and 
work. If it means working to balance the budget, then we ought to stay 
here.
  Let us vote down this ridiculous bill. The freshmen know better on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as another freshman who has not yet spoken 
to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I would like to note that I 
served in county government. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Bilbray] and I were both on boards of supervisors, and I balanced 14 
budgets.
  One of the things we would never have done in my former job in local 
government was to leave town until the job was done.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution must be defeated. It is a 
resolution that allows Congress to go into recess for 21 days with the 
Government partially shut down.
  For the last 21 days the Federal Government has not been paying some 
Federal workers to work and not paying other Federal workers not to 
work, while all the time promising to pay both groups for working and 
not working.
  The GOP has come up with a brilliant new idea: ``We will pay Federal 
workers to come to work but do not actually let them work.'' That is 
what we are doing here today. We are paying workers not to work. That 
is what the so-called back-to-work resolution that the Republicans have 
put out here on the floor is. It is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction 
in terms, like jumbo shrimp or carnivorous vegetarian or moderate 
freshman Republican. There is no such thing.
  Now, just what are these Federal workers supposed to do when they 
come back to their offices for the next 21 days? Play solitaire? Watch 
``Oprah'' in the office?
  Well, I can tell you some of the things they will not be doing: 
Contractors will not be funding the processing of Medicare claims for 
our seniors. Funds will not be provided to State Medicaid programs. EPA 
will not be able to investigate midnight dumpers. OSHA will not be able 
to investigate workplace safety problems.

  You know, in ``Alice in Wonderland,'' the Red Queen said, ``When I 
use a word, it means whatever I want it to mean. What matters is who is 
master.''
  The GOP reopening the Government means keeping it partially closed.
  There is a better alternative. We should pass a clean continuing 
resolution for the next 21 days, but, no, the Republicans say, ``We 
will not do that unless Bill Clinton agrees to submit a plan using CBO 
numbers for the next 7 years to balance the budget.'' However, the 
Republicans signed that very same contract back in November, promising 
they would submit a plan that would protect Medicare, protect 
education, protect the environment, and give back their crown jewel, 
their 245 billion dollars' worth of tax giveaways to the rich. They 
have refused thus far to give back their crown jewel of tax breaks for 
the rich, and as a result they are in violation of the contract last 
November.

[[Page H222]]

  So, the hostage again continues to be the Federal Government, their 
employees, and those who benefit from the services, Medicare, Medicaid, 
and those that need protection, and the environment of our country.
  Vote ``no'' on this recess. Let us stay here and work to keep our 
whole Government open.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just so the record is protected, let me read from the 
Congressional Record: ``* * * and the crown jewel is not given back but 
it is protected with the President's approval, and that is to adopt tax 
policies to help working families and to stimulate future economic 
growth.'' That was what the Republicans signed, and that is what the 
President signed as well. We are still waiting for the President. We 
have been waiting for 50 days now, and we would like to see where he 
wants to start these negotiations.

                              {time}  1530

  It is very hard to negotiate in a vacuum. If you do not know where 
one side of the process stands, you cannot get anywhere. So, Mr. 
Speaker, we would implore the other side of the aisle to lean on 
President Clinton to get that to us so that we can have a clean CR. 
That is exactly what this vehicle will provide for. They will have the 
clean CR that they so desperately want, that we would all like to see, 
if the President submits that budget with our crown jewel intact.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Coleman].
  (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that all of us, 
in trying to come together on seeking resolution to the situation in 
which we find ourselves, try to not rewrite history, try to recall what 
the agreement was back in November. My colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Markey], just made the point very clearly, I 
thought, that not only did the President agree to use CBO numbers and 
seek a 7-year balanced budget, but the Congress also agreed--do not 
look away, I would ask the majority party to try to remember this. We 
also agreed that what we would do is we would see to it that we 
protected those matters that the President had at the forefront in 
believing that it was his responsibility to protect Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, and the environment. We did all agree to that. The majority 
party agreed to that.
  So I think it is rather odd that everybody would say it is all the 
President's fault. You know, I have been around here the whole time, 
too. I have not yet seen the Republican Congress produce a new budget 
that does those things. Where is it? Have you presented that budget? Is 
it on the table? One that protects Medicare and Medicaid?
  I heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules just a minute ago say, 
well, the President can put it on the table, and if he is going to 
spend $180 billion and we are going to spend $100 billion, we can 
compromise to $140 billion.
  Wait a minute. Hold the phone. That puts the budget $40 billion out 
of kilter, does it not, if we are using the President's budget? Of 
course it does. Where are you going to get the $40 billion? You have 
not said where yet, have you? It is because you have not done you job.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little tired of sitting around here in the 
minority watching the majority saying, oh, this is all a White House 
problem. You have not met your obligation yet, and you know you have 
not. You have not put a budget on the table that respects what you said 
you would do last November. You are going to protect Medicare, you are 
going to protect Medicaid, you are not going to cut education, you are 
going to see to it we are going to continue to have school lunches for 
children in America. You have not done that, and I know why you have 
not, because you cannot do it and be honest with the American people.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on the ``Alice 
in Wonderland'' analogy that the gentleman from Massachusetts made 
before, because that is what I feel like I am hearing today. I have the 
utmost respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio, the gentleman from New 
York on the Committee on Rules, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, 
but this suggestion that somehow this resolution here is here in order 
to bring up legislation rather than to just allow the Congress and the 
House to go home is just nonsense.
  The majority and the Committee on Rules have the prerogative at any 
point to bring up legislation next week, to bring up appropriations 
bills, to bring up budget bills, authorization bills, of any kind they 
please. The only reason why this resolution is before us today is 
because they want to go home.
  There is a lot of business that has to be done here. The last time a 
resolution like this came up we went home for about a 10-day holiday 
between Christmas and New Year's. They are not going to come back in 3 
days and look at what is going on and then come back 3 days later. They 
are just going to go home for 3 weeks. They are going to give the 
impression to the public that somehow they can bring up legislation 
next week or 2 or 3 days from now. That is not what this is all about. 
Everyone knows that informally everyone has been told this a 3-week 
opportunity to go home.
  Again, the Government is going to be shut down. The Federal workers 
are going to go back to work, but they are not going to have any work 
to do in many cases. The other CR that is going to come up later that 
deals with the balanced budget and opens up the Government again if the 
President agrees to certain terms, every one knows if that is passed 
here it is going to die in the Senate or not be passed into law.
  It is just a farce. That is what this is all about. We have major 
disagreements here on Medicaid, on Medicare, on the environment. The 
Democrats want to preserve those programs. We need to sit down over the 
next few weeks with the Republicans and work out the differences so we 
can preserve Medicare, preserve Medicaid, preserve environment and 
educational programs that are important to Americans. This is not the 
time to go home.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why all the Members of this 
body would like to go on recess. It has been along, frustrating year. 
Virtually nothing has been accomplished, with all the rhetoric and all, 
lots of attention. But we ought not go home until we do our job.
  The fact is that while Federal employees are no longer held hostage, 
they are still going to be held under house arrest. They will be paid, 
they will have their own personal needs taken care of, but they are 
locked in their offices. They cannot perform their work, because the 
money necessary to perform the work of the Federal Government is not 
provided for in this legislation.
  So we have not done our job. That was our job, to provide the money, 
in addition to authorizing the programs, and we have not done our job. 
Until we do, we have no business going home.
  The last time that the Republican majority overrode the will of the 
Democratic minority and vetoed to go home for the holidays, we created 
a situation where we will now, as a result of the last bill that was 
just passed, pay $1.75 billion to Federal employees for not performing 
any work. They did not want that. They wanted to be doing their job. 
But $1.75 billion will be paid out to civil servants who are miserable, 
who are frustrated, who want to serve the public, who chose a career in 
civil service, and now we think we can buy them off, essentially bribe 
them apparently to keep quiet. We will give you pay, but just go sit in 
your office. We do not want you performing your job.
  We ought not do that. We have no business going home until we have 
done our job. Vote against the resolution.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my Republican 
colleagues are embarrassed to speak on a resolution of this character, 
because what it is going to do is it is going to 

[[Page H223]]
pay billions of dollars to people who ain't going to be able to do 
nothing to serve the public interest or carry out the functions of the 
Government.
  The issue here is very simple: This is a go-home-or-go-traveling 
resolution. People who on this side are going to vote for this are 
going to be able to go home and tell the people what a great job they 
did for the people, or be off to some warm and happy place where they 
can enjoy themselves fully.
  But make no mistake; the Government is not going to function when we 
pass this legislation. The Government is simply going to have a Speaker 
who is going to have authority to put everything over, while nothing 
happens in the Government. We are going to pay a lot of people, and we 
are going to pay a lot of people to do nothing. Toxic waste cleanup is 
not going forward; student loans are not going to be there for our 
young people; Housing and Urban Development programs, including home 
purchase loans, are not going to be available; Peace Corps is not going 
to be funded; Centers for Disease Control is not going to have the 
money to address the flu outbreak in the Midwest; and the food and 
shelter program of FEMA is not going to be funded.
  This is a phoney program. Vote against it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us call this resolution for what it is: It is a 
cynical resolution to allow the Republican Congress to take a vacation; 
nothing more, nothing less. The Republicans shut the Government down, 
everybody knows it. No amount of political spin can change it. They are 
suffering politically for it.
  The Speaker tried to relieve the pressure by trying to think about a 
clean continuing resolution, but last night there was a rebellion in 
his conference amongst House freshmen Republicans. They will not have 
any part of it. They are on a crusade, an extreme crusade, but a 
crusade, so the Government is shut down.
  This is to relieve them of that pressure, so there is a resolution to 
take the political pressure off them. It is a cynical move. Everybody 
knows we are not coming back until the 23d. The American public will 
not be fooled by this.
  Congress should stay here and do its job. We should pass an 
absolutely clean continuing resolution to keep the Government open. 
This is the way it has always been done. The Republicans want to kill 
Medicare and Medicaid; the Democrats want to protect it. It should not 
be ``our way or no way.'' Let us stay here and do our job.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I was not planning on joining this debate 
today, but I got a phone call in the Cloakroom about 2 hours ago, and 
my only daughter-in-law, I have 3 married daughters, a married son, and 
a single son, and my one son who is married, a beautiful daughter-in-
law, they have two children, and she just called me from her place of 
employment in Virginia and said that she is starting to go into labor. 
That will be grandchild number 10 today, or in the wee hours of 
tomorrow morning. The third child, it will probably be today.
  This is really what this debate is all about. We talk about it on 
both sides of the aisle, that we are trying to make this a better 
country for our grandchildren. Our debt is so enormous, we are really 
talking about great-grandchildren being saddled with this massive, 
crushing debt.
  If you look at the big picture of what 7 years is really all about, 
this sounds almost too simple to be believed, but it is true. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle want to spend $13 trillion, or 
at least their leader, Bill Clinton, wants to spend $13 trillion. What 
do we plan on spending on this side of the aisle over the next 7 years? 
We plan on spending $12 trillion; $12 trillion here, $13 trillion 
there.
  Now, everybody agrees that there is too large a Government and to 
much spending and too many failed programs, and we are stuck here 
because the man down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who indicates when he 
is on the road that he wants to spend only the $12 trillion, but he 
will not tell that to this party across the country. He plays games and 
wants to have it both ways.
  Now, my pal, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and he is my 
Congressman when I need snow removed around here, is he suggesting that 
we withhold that $1.5 billion and not give it to these Federal workers? 
I do not think he is suggesting that. So he is going to be part of what 
he calls a bribe. That is not the way to refer to that money.
  Mr. Speaker, what are we saying about these workers, some of whom 
have not been at the job for several weeks? That they are not smart 
enough to go in and take care of all the administrative burden that 
they missed over the last 2 weeks, or they cannot catch up on some 
administrative burden to come?
  Look, it has been a given since day one in this debate that no civil 
servant was going to be denied a nickel of their pay once we resolved 
this battle in this House. Now, some Federal workers were anxious to 
get on television, the more nervous types. We all have different 
personalities. I know some others went on a skiing vacation, a vacation 
that is not going to come out of their vacation time; maybe a tougher 
person, more trusting in both parties that we were going to keep our 
word to pay them their backpay.
  But I will tell you this, the dominant media culture, which is 
liberal from top to bottom, has a profile very similar to one we know 
in this city: Dodge the draft; adultery does not count; abortion is 
superior to any other decision in life, homosexuality is superior to a 
normal marriage; and graft does not count if it is in politics. This 
dominant media culture does not want change. They might want a balanced 
budget by raising enormous sums of taxes, but they don't want change. 
The media love Clinton and hate Republicans who seek limited 
government, lower taxes, morality, and a better America.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend and 
colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, here a few minutes 
ago, and I want to try to be helpful to him in his pursuits here. He is 
a good fellow, he works hard, and I think he even means well, but the 
fact of the matter is what he is asking us to do would be simply wrong.
  He is asking us to invest in the Speaker of the House extraordinary 
powers to recess this House for the next 3 weeks. Now, that would be 
fine if we could rely upon the Speaker to do the right thing in the 
first place, which, of course, he has not done. We have not done what 
we are supposed to do, which is pass a budget.
  We shut the Government down and have not been able to pass a 
resolution which will keep the Government going effectively. The one 
that has passed only does it piecemeal, part of the way. Things like 
FHA mortgages are not being processed, small business loans are not 
being processed, the environment is not being protected or cleaned up. 
People's health, safety and welfare are being put in jeopardy as a 
result of the failure of this Government to come to grips with its 
responsibility.
  We want to balance the budget, too, just as much as the Republicans 
do. As a matter of fact, we have brought the budget closer into balance 
than it has been in a long, long time. In the last 3 years, the budget 
deficit has come down by about $160 billion. That is five times more 
than what the Republican budget resolution would achieve over the 
course of the next 3 years.
  We want to balance the budget, we just do not want to do it the way 
they want to do it. What do they want to do? They want to take health 
care away from elderly people and from the disabled. They want to make 
it difficult for people to get an education. They want to take 
education away from children. They want to make it tougher for students 
to go to college or to stay in college. They want the environment to be 
degraded. They do not want to protect the environment. We disagree with 
them on all of these things.
  It is not that we do not want to balance the budget, we want to do it 
in a different way. We want to do it in a 

[[Page H224]]
way that protects the elderly, that protects the infirmed and the 
disabled. We want to do it in a way that ensures that people have 
educational opportunity so that they can make something of themselves. 
We want to do it in a way that protects the quality of the natural 
environment so that people's health and safety are protected as well.
  So, therefore, we cannot join them in giving this extraordinary power 
to the Speaker. We are going to vote no on this resolution.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that I am sure the gentleman unintentionally misspoke when he said 
we have not passed a budget, because this body has passed a budget, and 
the other body has passed a budget. We sent that budget to the 
President, and the President chose to veto that budget and he has yet 
to produce one in its stead.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the 
comments of Grandfather Dornan from California, and I thought it might 
be appropriate for Grandfather Bartlett to make a comment or two.
  My friend from California is exactly right, that is what this debate 
is about. I have 10 children, and we now have 10 grandchildren, and 
will have several more. Ten years from now, as America looks back at 
this time, almost nobody will remember that we had a partial government 
shutdown, but everybody in America is going to remember whether or not 
we balanced this budget. This is what it is all about, balancing the 
budget.
  The measure before us now is a procedural mechanism to expedite this 
process. America wants us to balance the budget in overwhelming 
majority. Let us pass this and get on with the process.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for yielding time to me.
  I am sort of new to this grandfather role that my previous colleagues 
referred to, but I want to assure my friends that I am very proud of my 
new grandson, but I am very concerned about the direction that we are 
going with regards to this rule that is being offered.
  I have to agree with my colleagues that we need to get back home and 
be with the people. We have had a busy year in 1995 and not had enough 
time to do that. Obviously, many of our Members want to visit in other 
places in the world and get that type of experience that is vital for 
the decisions that we must make, but I do not think we should do either 
under the action being proposed.
  This rule really is a rule for crisis, yet this crisis that we have 
here today is a self-inflicted crisis. It is the wrong solution. What 
this rule is an attempt to do is to provide for the expedited procedure 
where we will not even examine bills in the concurrent resolution that 
is going to come before the House today which, I might add, is a very 
defective measure and process. It is an excuse.
  Basically, the reason that we acted on the previous emergency Federal 
Congressional Resolution, the CR, to put the employees back to work and 
fund some high-profile programs and as my colleagues have commented and 
then tied their Federal workers' hands so they cannot do their work, 
which makes no sense at all, the reason that was enacted was so that we 
could act on this crisis rule and then there would be this 3 week 
hiatus.
  Incidentally, I would point out to my colleagues that the previous CR 
for putting Federal workers back to work in those selected programs is 
about the same length as this particular rule. So the whole modus 
operandi here in terms of handing this to the Speaker, is to get the 
Members out of town, to postpone making decisions and to postpone the 
work we should be doing on the budget.
  And where are we today? I think a little review of the agenda is in 
order. We are 13 weeks into the fiscal year and the Government has been 
down for 4 of those 13 weeks. Over 30 percent of the time the 
Government has been in shutdown or partial shutdown this fiscal year 
under the Republican leadership in this Congress, which has failed to 
enact the necessary spending bills for this fiscal year. Failed to 
enact them. Three of them have not even been presented to the 
President.
  Of course, we get a lot of excuses about that and the straw man 
arguments about the balanced budget, but those are arguments that 
should be met and resolved at the negotiating table and reasonable 
compromise attained.

  The Republican Congress has tried repeatedly to make a virtue of 
shutting down the Government and claiming piously their 7-year balanced 
budget plan as a heat shield. But the issue isn't a balanced budget--
the issue is how do we, the total Federal Government, achieve such 
goal. For a real agreement rather than a political posture. Neither 
Democrats or Republicans have a monopoly on precise or correct economic 
forecasts. This rule simply is an excuse and an attempt in the end to 
dump the funding problem, and there will be funding problems for 
numerous Federal programs on the Senate or the President. Let's defeat 
this rule and work.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the 
State of California [Mr. Bono], a distinguished freshman Member.
  (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I am truly fascinated and I enjoy being here 
because it is such a thrilling education, and a big part of this 
education is how people can take basic truths or just basics and twist 
them and turn them to give impressions that have nothing to do with the 
issue.
  I just heard a statement that the Republicans have shut down the 
Federal Government under the Republican leadership. It was shut down 
under the leadership of the President of the United States.
  Now, how complicated is this issue? Let me tell my colleagues how 
complicated this issue is. Why did all this start? It started because 
we had a position that we should balance the budget. Now, we could lie 
to the American public and tell them not to worry about it, that they 
will keep getting their money and they should not worry about it; they 
will get it forever. But, see, it runs out in 14 years. Everybody 
admits that. So that is like saying, well, yeah, everything is going to 
crash, but we should not worry about it.
  We are taking all this heat because we are saying to the American 
people, please be aware that the country is going to crash in 14 years. 
There will be no money if we operate status quo. It is that simple.
  We are saying, well, one way to start handling these problems is to 
balance the budget. Now, the President says, all right. We will 
balance, says the President. I sat here and I saw him say we will 
balance the budget and it should be CBO scored. Well, then we cut a 
deal, shake hands and wait for the CBO score that the President said he 
would commit to. The date that he said he would commit to it is gone. 
He has not committed to it.
  Now, what have we done again? We have now again said, okay, let us do 
this all over again. Mr. President, give us a CBO scored balanced 
budget in 7 years and we will open up the whole deal. Now, that rests 
on his shoulders. So what I am saying to my colleagues is, put the 
appropriation of these problems where they belong. They belong on the 
President's shoulders.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, but in 
my statement, which the gentleman referred to, I said we failed to 
enact, which, of course, requires the President's signature on 
appropriations bills. Furthermore, we have not sent 3 of the 13 
appropriation bills to the President.
  So it is our responsibility, in terms of acting on this, to make 
certain that these bills, not for 14 years but for this year, in 1996, 
are enacted.
  Mr. BONO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I 
appreciate that. I enjoy those lessons because I learn how to expand 
language to where we lose communication with the issue, and that was an 
experience of that.

[[Page H225]]

  I am not going to lie to the American public. If we do not address 
the problem of what is going to happen in 14 years right now, this 
country will crash, and that is the reality of the situation. We have 
to do that jointly and we cannot fool the public. It is wonderful to 
let our numbers go up and say, look, whatever people want, they can 
get, and they should not worry about it, but we cannot do that.
  So I hope this time the same simple message will get to the President 
and he will submit a balanced budget scored by CBO in 7 years. It is 
that simple and that would be the end of all of this tribulation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to say, don't be fooled, taxpayers 
don't be fooled. The Gingrich shutdown is still alive and well. The 
list of unmet needs goes on and on. And, to add insult to injury, the 
Gingrich Republicans now want to skip town and leave the American 
people with the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, 198 House Democrats want to keep working to end this 
shutdown. The other body wants to keep working. For Pete's sake, even 
Bob Dole wants to keep working.
  There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that it's the Gingrich 
Republicans who would rather go home than get this Government up and 
running again.
  Mr. Speaker, for the people of this country and for the honor of this 
institution, don't even think about sending us home. Our No. 1 job 
right now is to end this shutdown as soon as possible. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this foolish resolution.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that this body has done its part and will do its part later on this 
afternoon to end this shutdown, the Senate has pledged to do its part 
later on this afternoon to end this shutdown, and then America must 
look to the President to see if he does his part to end this shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will you kindly inform the parties as to 
the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kingston). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 3 minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind everyone who is 
listening what is being discussed when we discuss this budget impasse.
  Mr. Speaker, what is being discussed is not whether we have a 
balanced budget in 7 years; it is how we balance the budget. Can we 
balance it with no tax break, half of which goes to the top 12 percent 
of income tax earners? Yes, that is how we can balance it, and in 7 
years.
  In fact, 68 of us who are moderate Democrats in this body have voted 
for a 7-year balanced budget. Yes, my colleagues heard me correctly, 7 
years balanced, but with no tax break. The reason is that tax break 
money is used to soften the impact on our seniors, on our poor 
children, on our environmental standards, and on our educational 
commitments.
  We need to make sure that we keep these things in mind as we consider 
these budget issues. But more than anything else, we need not to do it 
on the backs of the very people who are going to suffer if we do not 
get on with this job.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle that if we think today's budget decisions are difficult, 
we just have to wait until our Nation sees the year 2030. If we do 
nothing, either all Federal taxes would have to be increased by 85 
percent or all Federal spending programs would have to be cut by 50 
percent.
  Mr. Speaker, this is our last, best chance. We must balance the 
budget, and the President must do his part.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce]. She knows that we were together last 
evening at the Rules Committee meeting trying to come together in a 
bipartisan manner to really respond to the needs of the American 
people, and that is to open the Government fully, not because of any 
self-serving interests but really to put good public servants back to 
work fro the American people. I know that the American people do not 
believe that. But so that we can actually do the job that the taxpayers 
want public servants to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have not come to do that today, and it 
is important to clarify what we are doing right now; why I am in the 
well of the House right now. This is not a balanced budget vote; this 
is a go home vote. This is to give to the Speaker of the House the 
power to play a hide-and-seek game. That is, to hide away the 
negotiations of the budgeting process so that we will not be able to 
speak on behalf of those needing Medicare and Medicaid and a clean 
environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important that their Congress be engaged 
in this process. With this martial law, the Speaker of the House is 
asking for a recess and is saying ``I will call you back when I want to 
think about calling you back.''
  We are being put in a position as the U.S. Congress to abdicate our 
responsibilities of give and take in the budgeting process. For those 
who would think that the President of the United States shut this 
Government down, we have had on many occasions cleared continuing 
resolutions placed before the Speaker and he has refused to allow this 
Congress to vote on it.
  Who has ever seen, as documented by the press, not by any Members in 
this well, an animated and engaged President in the midst of budget 
negotiations trying to be in front of the bulldozer that is running 
over student loans, of running over HUD loans, or running over small 
business assistance loans.
  It is important that we face the reality, Mr. Speaker. We must not go 
home, and we must insist that we fully work. NASA employees, who will 
be called upon to do another launch next week. They must be able to 
work fully with the ability to use all resources so we can ensure the 
complete safety of their launch.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to predict what will happen between the 
leadership of the Congress and the White House. The purpose of this 
resolution is to give the House some flexibility in responding to 
whatever progress is made over the next few weeks and to respond 
quickly.
  It is hard to accept change. It is hard to depart from the status 
quo. It is hard to keep promises. But I will say again, this is our 
last, best chance to balance the budget of our country for our 
children's future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a valued member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to point out that this really is 
not a vote about going home. This is a vote about opening up 
Government. This is the vote that gives us the key to getting to that 
clean, clear, continuing resolution that I keep hearing about from the 
other side. This is the vote that smooths the pathway to get us to that 
chance.
  So, Mr. Speaker, those who vote ``no'' on this procedural vote are 
voting to keep the Government closed and are voting to keep those 
employees coming to their desks and not having the money to do their 
jobs, and having that scenario of ``the sky is falling'' that has been 
so graphically painted by so many Members on the other side.
  So, if Members care about efficient government, if they care about 
having the opportunity to open it up to get the funds, the services 
flowing, the people back to work, then they must vote 

[[Page H226]]
``yes'' on this procedural vote so we can get to the next piece of 
business before this body, which is, indeed, a continuing resolution 
that does, I hope, get us to a balanced budget with the President of 
the United States aboard as a player.
  Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is it 
appropriate to ask for a parliamentary inquiry at this time before the 
vote?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] has 
already moved the previous question.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet. I just want to make a 
parliamentary inquiry. Is that out of order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, before we vote, it has not been explained to 
me, if this passes, then every 3 days at the end of a recess does there 
have to be a pro forma session for the Speaker to declare the next 3 
days, or whatever, in recess? Does there have to be a pro forma?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the resolution 
while it is pending and must let the text of the resolution be 
interpreted by Members of the House.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, is that not a proper parliamentary inquiry? 
What is the proper parliamentary inquiry then to find out how I want to 
vote?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot interpret the pending 
resolution. The resolution is before the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 190, not voting 19, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 8]

                               YEAS--224

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Hayes
     Johnston
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Montgomery
     Myers
     Quillen
     Rose
     Stark
     Stockman
     Studds
     Wilson
     Wyden
  Mr. KLECZKA and Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. ROUKEMA and Mr. TIAHRT changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________