David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Madison, MI [Mr. Smith], my friend and a member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Davenport, IA [Mr. Leach], chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Harrisburg, PA [Mr. Gekas], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vienna, VA [Mr. Wolf], who, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations, understands how tough the work is to balance the budget.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Fairfax, VA [Mr. Davis], chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth], who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Palm Bay, FL [Mr. Weldon], a hard-working new Member.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration in the House without intervening points of order of the joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996 through December 5, 1995. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and further provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The motion to recommit may include instructions only if offered by the minority leader or his designee. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is not the legislation that will bring us a balanced budget in 7 years. However, the political confrontation that has preoccupied this city and the national media, if not all Americans for the last few days, has been about one simple, but fundamental issue--balancing the budget. The continuing resolution we will consider this evening will fund the Government for 20 days. Taken alone, that may not seem like much. However, it is extremely significant because it will give Congress and the President more time to pass the regular spending bills, and a balanced budget reconciliation bill, to get the Government on a realistic glidepath to a balanced budget. Frankly Mr. Speaker, it is taking us more time than we would like to pass those appropriations bills. We have run this House in a much more open manner than it was operated under the old majority. There have been more amendments and more open rules. The open process delayed the House. The result has been that we have worked more days and cast more votes than past Congresses. Along with the other body carrying out its constitutional role of slowing down the legislative process, it is simply harder to craft appropriations bills when you are operating within the constraints of a balanced budget. You can not just throw money at every problem. As those who served on the other side of the aisle for many terms as members of the old majority certainly know, past Congresses often used continuing resolutions to provide spending authority in lieu of regular appropriations bills. For example, in 1987 and 1988, all of the appropriations bills were wrapped up in a year-long continuing resolutions. In addition, legislative add-ons were a common occurrence. The administration precipitated this confrontation for political reasons. They looked at polls and saw that picking a fight over Medicare, even if there really were no Medicare reductions in the bill, was good for the President. Even the New York Times called the administration's Medicare charges purely political. The administration placed a Medicare attack strategy ahead of a balanced budget work strategy. Mr. Speaker, the administration has called for a higher rate of spending for programs that were eliminated in the House and Senate appropriations bill. While a clean continuing resolution would not normally provide funding when the House and Senate both voted to eliminate the program, the original bill did provide 60 percent funding in the spirit of compromise. Calls for higher funding belie the true intention to simply continue with the status quo rather than have a clean continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, the overriding issue is whether we will have a balanced budget. This Congress was charged by the American people in an historical election to balance the Federal budget and restore the future for America's children. That is hard work as we found out. We can do it in 7 years, while letting programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches and student loans grow--just not as fast as some people in Washington would like. That is the mandate of the 1994 election, and that is a responsibility we will not discharge. Balancing the Federal budget is not a trivial issue. It is about the role of Government and our Nation's future. While some oppose balancing the budget, and hope and pray that we fail, we want this to be a bipartisan, unifying way that includes the President. He repeatedly says that he supports a balanced budget. He called for a balanced budget in 5 years in his campaign when he was running in 1992, and has hinted that he would even support the idea that it can be balanced in 7 years. He should sign onto this fundamental compact with the American people. Mr. Speaker, we must keep our eyes set on our ultimate goals. We will balance the Federal budget, save the Medicare system for a generation of retirees, end welfare as we know it, and implement a tax cut for families that increases the take home pay of workers and creates private sector jobs. This rule will permit the House to approve a fiscally responsible continuing resolution so that we can get back to accomplishing those critical goals without unnecessary diversions. I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we can proceed with balancing the budget. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close the debate on our side, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Stamford, CT [Mr. Shays], a senior member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative Process of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I was quoting, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I think the gentleman is referring to my remarks earlier on this business-as-usual thing. I would simply like to clarify for the record what I meant.

Mr. DREIER. All I was trying to say when I referred to bringing business as usual to an end is that we have passed and are trying desperately to pursue a balanced budget. Since it has been a quarter of a century since we have done that, that is really the pattern of spending we are trying to end. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned ``business as usual.''

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. The answer is, It is nongermane to this measure. I thank my friend for the question. Mr. Speaker, let me say that as we look at where we are headed today, I hope very much that we can put into place a package that will balance the budget. I was rather struck with the statement that came from the President yesterday. I did not see it but a couple of the essential members of my staff saw it and they were rather struck. They indicated to me that apparently a land speed record was broken, because in 3 minutes, the President on 11 occasions talked about his quest for a balanced budget. He said: We share a central goal, balancing the federal budget. We must balance the budget. I proposed to Congress a balanced budget. We must balance the budget. I proposed my balanced budget plan. It balances the budget. We can balance the budget. We can balance the budget. I am fighting for a balanced budget. I'll balance the budget. I will continue to fight for the right kind of balanced budget. Looking at those statements that were made by the President, one could not help but think once again of what David Broder referred to in his very famous column back in 1993 as the ``trust deficit.'' The trust deficit is something that many people have talked about since then. In that piece that Broder wrote, he said in the 1992 campaign that President Clinton played fast and loose with the facts. The President knows that people are unhappy about the fact that the Federal Government has shut down and that we are at this point, but he also knows that the American people want us to balance the budget. This is really little more than what the New York Times described as a political play, and I believe that it is not contributing to our ultimate goals of trying to bring about a modicum of fiscal responsibility. We also know that Robert Samuelson, another very respected columnist, has written several damning pieces about the President, and I do not like to be one who in any way is critical of the President of the United States, but in this piece he is very direct and blunt, more blunt than I would be, frankly, when he just said, ``Clinton lies.'' That is the way he put it. So these things came to mind as we observe the rhetoric that has been going on for such a long period of time, and then these 11 claims to be pursuing a balanced budget. It is very unfortunate. I hope very much that we will be able to settle this thing, but it is not going to be done by defeating the previous question on this. The responsible thing for us to do is to pass this rule and proceed with the appropriations bills, which is what we very much want to do. I hope my colleagues will join in doing that.

Mr. DREIER. It is nongermane to the bill and it could not be brought up. Now, what my friend advocated was defeat of the previous question and defeat of the rule. Obviously if they proceeded with a completely different rule. But under this rule, the standing rules of the House, it would be nongermane and I think that is what needs to be realized as we proceed with this. So let me just say that I am convinced that we----

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and congratulating him on his fine management of this very important rule. Mr. Speaker, the American people are unhappy with the fact that we are faced with a shutdown of the Federal Government. I am one of those who is very, very concerned. But having said that, I am convinced that the people whom I am privileged to represent and others from around the country are even more concerned about the prospect of proceeding down the road of business as ususal. That is the main reason that we have gotten to the point where we are today. There is a sense from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that defeating the previous question will somehow allow them to offer this resolution that would provide a clean CR. Well, it is not germane and could not be considered even if the previous question is defeated.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, so that we can move ahead as expeditiously as possible, at this time we have no requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.