[Pages H12167-H12168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WHY CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT WHEN THE HOUSE HAS NOT COMPLETED ITS WORK 
                           ON APPROPRIATIONS?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad for my colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] to come back. I think the gentleman 
and I agree on most of what the gentleman has said, not everything. One 
of the things that has puzzled me about this emergency, and why we are 
sitting here 3 hours and 55 minutes from shutting down the Government, 
and we keep talking about what the President has or has not done.
  It has always seemed reasonable to me that the House should have 
completed its work, that the budget reconciliation bill that should 
have been addressed by October 1, which has not been addressed, which I 
was told tonight at 8 o'clock the conferees were going to meet for the 
first time, only to be told that we are not going to meet tomorrow 
until 3 o'clock, but it seems to me that the House should have done its 
work if we are going to be criticizing the President.
  What am I missing?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield, as the gentleman 
well knows, we made a commitment to the American people that we were 
going to pass a Contract With America in the first 100 days. Because we 
spent the time making good on that commitment and did it in 93 days, 
the appropriations process was set back. He knows that.
  We are trying to catch up and we will catch up. We will pass all 13 
appropriation bills, as well as reconciliation, but it is a bogus 
argument in my opinion, and I have great respect for my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas, to say that we are playing games here. The fact 
is we want a balanced budget and we are on a trend line to do that. The 
legislation we sent to the President gets us on that track.
  Mr. STENHOLM. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, there are at 
least 68 Democrats who agree with you.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I appreciate that.
  Mr. STENHOLM. It seems to me if you have Democrats also saying 
balance the budget in a time certain, if you have Democrats also saying 
to balance the budget by the year 2002, it should not be unreasonable 
for us, before we shut the Government down as we are doing, that we 
ought to let the regular legislative process go before we start 
criticizing the President. It seems to me that what we ought to be 
doing is going ahead and doing our work.
  We have wasted 5 days playing this game that we are playing. The 
gentleman and I do not want to play games, we say. At least he has made 
a speech, it was excellent, on what he is for. I would want to make the 
same speech. But it seems to me when we are talking about the President 
not engaging, under the regular legislative process that everyone in 
this House understands as clearly as anybody could, when you have a 
bill, the House passes it, the Senate passes it, you go to conference, 
the conference works it out, the conference then goes to the President, 
the President signs or vetoes the bill. If he vetoes it, then we try to 
override, or we start over and we start negotiating.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield further, the fact 
of the matter is, and my colleague well knows, the President has stated 
his opposition to a number of the provisions 

[[Page H 12168]]
in the short-term CR and the debt bill that he said he opposes. These 
are things that we believe America wants. He said he opposes them. The 
only way we could get around the President was to send him a bill that 
he could not veto.

  Mr. STENHOLM. If I could reclaim my time----
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. He has chosen to shut the Government down, not 
us.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I find the logic strange that somehow the 
President ought to be questioned about his conduct before we have ever 
gotten appropriation bills to him. We can all have legitimate 
differences about what ought to happen on Medicare, what ought to 
happen on education. That is normal in this country. What is not normal 
is when you start criticizing the President for not signing legislation 
that has not yet been sent to him.
  When the Congress has failed to pass 10 of the 13 appropriation 
bills, then the issue is not whether the President has vetoed 
something, the issue is whether the Congress has produced something for 
him to sign or veto. We have not yet done that, and until we do, it 
seems to me that it comes with considerable ill grace for this 
institution to suggest that we ought to short-circuit the process when 
this institution has not yet performed its basic duty.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. I would like to ask a question. There is nothing in these 
two bills that the President is talking about vetoing, there is nothing 
in these bills that could not go the regular legislative route if you 
had done your work, or will do your work. They could be separated out. 
You have got the majority. You could bring them up, even under 
suspension, if you wanted to.
  Am I right? Is that right?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
minority well knows that in the past there have been many, many, many 
times when we did not pass all the appropriations bill and we ran this 
place with continuing resolutions, short-term CRs. When we did that, 
the Democrats, when they were in charge, sent to the President of the 
United States things that he did not want.
  Mr. HEFNER. The gentleman is not answering my question.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The fact is you are turning everything on its 
head. The gentleman knows that.

                          ____________________