[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 143 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13555-S13558]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DERAIL THE FEDERAL TRAIN WRECK

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the past number of weeks, we have 
witnessed a great deal of saber-rattling and speculation over the 
question of whether Congress and the President can avoid a Government 
shutdown, called, metaphorically, a train wreck, on October 1. That is 
the first day of fiscal year 1996, and is also the date by which all 13 
of the 1996 appropriations bills are supposed to be enacted.
  Failure to achieve enactment of any of the 13 appropriations bills by 
October 1 will cause a funding lapse for the departments and agencies 
covered by any such bill. The only way to avoid a funding lapse, and an 
accompanying shutdown of the affected departments and agencies, is for 
Congress and the President to enact a short-term extension of funding 
authority, which is commonly known as a continuing resolution.
  It is never easy to enact all 13 annual appropriations bills by the 
beginning of a fiscal year. In fact, only once in over 20 years have 
all 13 appropriations bills been signed into law prior to the beginning 
of the fiscal year. That year was fiscal year 1995. For every other 
year in the last several decades it has been necessary to enact a 
continuing resolution in order to enable the departments and agencies 
of the Federal Government to continue to carry out their 
responsibilities in the absence of appropriations acts. In most 
instances, those continuing resolutions have been of short duration and 
were enacted with little or no controversy.
  Mr. President, given that history, I see no earthly reason for a so-
called train wreck. There is certainly nothing to be gained politically 
by either side of the aisle or by the administration by such a 
catastrophe. In fact, it is far more likely that the American people 
will see such a train wreck as merely a game of high stakes poker 
played by politicians using public money to make their bets. The 
American people will rightly see through the political ``blame game'' 
that will accompany the so-called train wreck. They will ask themselves 
why they should have to pay the tab for the game of chicken being 
played by their elected officials--who, by the way, will continue to be 
paid their full salaries were there to be a Government shutdown.
  Furloughed Federal workers by the hundreds of thousands will not be 
paid, nor will those who do contract work for the Federal Government. 
But, the President, and Senators, and Members of the House of 
Representatives, will still receive their full paychecks, no matter how 
long the shutdown lasts. Be assured, Senators, that that situation will 
not make any of us dearly beloved by our constituents.
  Mr. President, we are told by the General Accounting Office, in its 
June 1991 report entitled ``Government Shutdown'' that there were nine 
occasions over the period from October 1981 through October 1990 when 
there were funding gaps of 1 to 3 days. In other words, we had nine 
short periods, usually over weekends when there were lapses of 
appropriations. This same GAO report analyzes the effects of the last 
of these nine funding lapses; namely, Columbus Day weekend of 1990, or 
October 6-8, 1990. The report points out 

[[Page S 13556]]
that on October 5, 1990, Federal agencies were directed by the Office 
of Management and Budget to implement plans to close down operations 
over the Columbus Day weekend (October 6-8, 1990). This action was the 
result of President Bush's veto of a continuing resolution that would 
have provided funding through October 12, 1990, and was a reflection of 
the President's dissatisfaction with progress on the fiscal year 1991 
budget.
  According to GAO, on page 2 of the report: ``The shutdown of some 
government agencies over the Columbus Day weekend was financially 
counterproductive.'' Overall, the shutdown costs of seven affected 
agencies totaled $3.4 million. However, these costs would have been 
much higher if a 3-day shutdown had occurred during a normal workweek. 
GAO states that ``the total cost of such a 3-day workweek shutdown 
would range from about $244.6 million to $607.3 million, depending upon 
whether revenues estimated to be lost by the IRS could be recovered.'' 
That is a lot of money that will be wasted--at least $250 million every 
3 workdays if we cause a Government shutdown on October 1. This is a 
very expensive way to prove once and for all to the American people 
that the Government cannot perform even its basic responsibilities. No 
wonder one hears so much talk about throwing the whole lot of us out of 
office!
  There is of course still time to complete action on all 13 
appropriations bills by the end of the month. We have already passed 7 
of the 13 bills and all of the remaining bills will be ready for Senate 
consideration this week, or certainly by the end of the week.
  There are a number of these bills which the President has threatened 
to veto unless substantial changes are made to them. There are 
legitimate differences, which, after reasonable debate, should, in my 
opinion, be resolved one way or the other. We need to vote these 
amendments up or down and get these remaining bills to conference, and 
to the President's desk. If he chooses to veto some of them, as I 
believe he will, then it is all the more important for Congress to get 
its work done on time so as to allow for further negotiations on any 
bills which are vetoed and not overridden.
  If Congress cannot complete action on all 13 appropriation 
conferences by October 1, there is still no excuse for a train wreck. 
Surely the American people have a right to expect Congress and the 
Chief Executive to be able to work out a continuing resolution which 
will prevent a Government shutdown while negotiations take place as 
necessary to achieve the enactment of all 13 fiscal year 1996 
appropriations bills. I believe we can avoid a Government shutdown. All 
it really will take to do so is for both political parties to decide 
that they wish to avoid it. We are not on some preordained collision 
course. We are not controlled by some automatic pilot device which has 
the two political parties careening down intersecting tracks destined 
to collide. Those of us charged with carrying out the responsibilities 
of elective office have the will and the wit to avoid such nightmarish 
scenarios if we simply choose to do so. All it takes is for all the 
players on both ends of the avenue to stop the gamesmanship and go 
reread their oath of office.
  This is not some partisan polo match we are engaged in. We are 
gambling with the financial fortunes of a lot of real honest to 
goodness people who will suffer hardships if we remain intransigent and 
close down this Government. And, as I have already mentioned, there are 
very high, very real permanent costs to the U.S. Treasury if we choose 
such a course. I can think of no more irresponsible act by elected 
officials than to deliberately plot such a devastating scenario and 
then to actually carry it out. What will we be proving? Who can 
possibly win if such a mess comes to pass? No one will applaud our 
statesmanship or patriotism, that is for sure. And, we will have earned 
the wrath of the voters in 1996, who would be well justified in their 
belief that nothing has changed in Washington where it is gridlock and 
power plays as usual.
  But, as if this is not enough, there is another far more serious 
train wreck that may be imminent--and that is the train wreck which 
could occur if Congress insists on putting the debt limit increase into 
the reconciliation bill. According to recent testimony by the Treasury 
Department before the Finance Committee, Treasury's current estimates 
show that the permanent debt ceiling of $4.9 trillion will be reached 
by late October or early November.
  As Senators are aware, once that debt limit is reached, the Treasury 
Department has no authority to spend any cash that would cause the debt 
limit to be exceeded. A failure by Congress and the President to raise 
the debt limit would bring about, in a matter of days, one of the 
greatest financial crises the country has ever seen--probably the 
greatest in some ways. The Government would not be able to continue any 
of its operations. It could not honor Social Security checks or pay 
employees to issue them. The same applies to military and civilian and 
veterans' pensions. They would not be honored. Interest on U.S. 
Government securities could not be paid. All of this is coming up this 
fall unless we enact an increase in the debt limit, as called for in 
the Budget Resolution, and which the Treasury Department has told us 
will be necessary no later than mid-November.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, in its August 1995 
report entitled ``The Economic and Budget Outlook,'' the debt limit has 
had to be raised 19 times over the last decade. That report also points 
out the obvious; namely, that raising the debt limit is considered 
``must pass'' legislation. Paradoxically, because of its critical 
importance, passage of the debt limit is frequently viewed by some very 
misguided forces as a device to use to mandate action on some other 
legislative partisan goal. The debt limit is, therefore, the ultimate 
tool in the hands of the legislative blackmailers, the ultimate tool.
  CBO gives the example of 1990, when Congress voted seven times on the 
debt limit between August 9 and November 5 in connection with the 
budget summit negotiations. In that instance, as I recall--I was 
there--the Congress and President Bush enacted a series of debt limit 
increases as progress was being made on the overall budget at the 
Budget Summit. Those debt limit increases were supported on a 
bipartisan basis in both Houses, and by President Bush, as we all 
worked day and night, and on Saturdays and Sundays, to resolve our 
differences on a 5-year deficit reduction package. That package 
ultimately was enacted into law in what is known as the Budget 
Enforcement Act.
  Despite the fact that President Bush later expressed regret for his 
involvement in that Budget Summit Agreement, I believe that it made a 
number of very important improvements in the Budget Act, and it also 
cut the deficit projections at that time by almost $500 billion. But 
whatever one's view may be of the 1990 budget experience, one thing was 
clear. No one seriously talked about deliberately causing a default on 
our national debt in order to gain some political advantage by blaming 
the other political party for the calamity.
  Yet, Mr. President, we are now facing a situation where, I 
understand, the majority party in Congress may choose to include the 
debt limit increase in the upcoming reconciliation bill. They see it as 
an opportunity to force the President to sign the reconciliation bill. 
They see it as a way of slamming several crazy, at least in my 
judgment, legislative ``losers'' into law--no matter how unwise or how 
untested those proposals may be. They view this devious and 
irresponsible tactic as a sure way to enact massive tax cuts, which 
mainly benefit high-income ``fat cats.''
  Reports say the majority may be planning to put the debt limit 
increase into the reconciliation bill and then to ram that whole 
package through Congress without serious negotiations with the minority 
in Congress or with the President.
  They are riding high in the saddle, Mr. President, but the worm is 
going to turn. It is just a matter of when. They are riding high in the 
saddle, but the worm is going to turn. That is exactly what will 
happen, if the majority can muster the votes in both Houses of Congress 
for their reconciliation bill. They have chosen the reconciliation bill 
because reconciliation bills cannot be filibustered. Neither can 
reconciliation conference reports. Reconciliation bills are intended to 
reduce the 

[[Page S 13557]]
deficit, and so they are privileged matters with exceedingly tight time 
limits. Therefore, what we may be facing in regards to reconciliation 
is a take-it-or-leave-it bill--one that largely contains everything the 
majority party espouses, and with little consideration, if any, of the 
views of either the President or the Democratic minority in Congress. 
That would mean huge cuts in Medicare--around $270 billion--huge tax 
cuts for the wealthy--$245 billion--folly on folly--and huge cuts in 
discretionary investments in our physical infrastructure, as well as 
cuts in such programs as education, job training, and medical research. 
The attitude is do it our way. Take our highly partisan agenda, just as 
we wrote it in that great so-called ``Contract With America'' or we 
will wreck the national economy, close down the Government, and 
threaten global financial disruption.
  If the Republican majority can round up a majority of the House and 
Senate to vote for such a reconciliation bill, and if it also includes 
a debt limit increase, then the President, it would seem, would be in 
the impossible position of having to either swallow a bill that he has 
said he will veto and will deserve to be vetoed, or shooting down a 
``must pass'' increase in the debt limit. This is just a deplorable way 
to govern. It is putting politics first. Politics is important. I have 
never considered it to be first, above everything else, and I do not so 
consider it now. It is irresponsible. It makes a mockery of our 
constitutional system and encourages chaos to reign.
  If you think that Milton's ``Paradise Lost'' presented chaos, as 
Satan and his angels fell from Heaven, just wait and see what this will 
look like.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate, in the House, and 
in the administration not to go down this road. Despite the political 
enticement of being able to blackmail the President into signing a 
highly partisan version of a reconciliation bill, I submit that in 
reality there is absolutely no political advantage.
  The people are going to say, a plague on both of our Houses.
  Go back and read Chaucer's tale by the Pardoner, wherein all three of 
the young men destroyed themselves. Because of their greed for gain, 
two knifed the one while the one poisoned the two. And they all fell in 
excruciating pain on top of the pile of gold and died.
  So there can be no winners in this game. The Democrats, the 
Republicans, and the President will all destroy ourselves because of 
our political greed for gain.
  The American people will clearly understand what is going on. We 
cannot bamboozle them. They are onto our childish games. And they and 
the press will quickly be able to determine that the debt limit can 
easily be increased as a free-standing bill and that the majority party 
in Congress need not and should not try to gain advantage in the budget 
battles by risking a world class financial crisis.
  Am I exaggerating? Am I engaging in hyperbole? Just what would be the 
consequences of not raising the debt limit? I predict that such a 
default on paying interest due on Government securities, for example, 
would cause an earthquake on Wall Street, one that would rattle your 
eye teeth and curl your hair, as someone has said upon one occasion.
  A failure to raise the debt limit in a timely manner would have 
devastating effects on the standing of the United States in the 
international economy. Investor confidence in the dollar and in U.S. 
Government securities would plummet--plummet, sharply affecting 
domestic and international stock and bond markets. U.S. bonds and bills 
would never be ``risk free'' again. They would become ``government 
insecurities,'' not ``government securities.'' Uncle Sam would no 
longer be a pillar of financial rectitude, but would become a shady 
junk bond dealer on the international market. International investors, 
who hold billions and billions of U.S. dollars, would understandably 
look for safer havens--safer havens for their investments. Interest 
rates would increase--interest rates would be offered and would again 
entice these investors to buy U.S. Government securities. This would 
cost the United States more, and still might not ensure stability in 
our financial markets.
  The United States would be the big loser, big loser, in the long 
term, facing permanently increased borrowing costs when the time came 
to roll over our debt. Interest rates on those loans, which are secured 
with Government bonds, would be raised, increasing, in turn, the costs 
to the taxpayer. The added costs of an increased interest rate on 
borrowing to finance the debt would have to be offset by reduced 
Government investments in people and in infrastructure programs which 
already feel the crunch of budget constraints designed to bring the 
budget into balance. This foolhardy posturing on raising the debt limit 
is being played out on a knife edge that is poised to cut the throat of 
the American taxpayer, who will suffer from increased costs and reduced 
Government services for years to come.
  On the international security scene, a U.S. failure to increase the 
debt limit could also adversely affect U.S. military preparedness. If 
the men and women in our military are worried about their paychecks 
being honored, about paying their bills and feeding their families, how 
credible a deterrent can they be? This has very unsettling 
ramifications for U.S. military operations possibly in Iraq and North 
Korea. Should we stop firing Tomahawk cruise missiles--at a cost of 
$1.3 million per missile--at Bosnian air defense sites because we are 
not sure that we can afford to replace them in the inventory? Do we not 
send in costly reinforcements if Iraq makes threatening moves toward 
Jordan or Kuwait? Will defense contractors make timely deliveries of 
new weapons after the first payment check is not honored? Will the 
United States be able to honor its security agreements with other 
nations, when it cannot credibly be counted upon to follow through on, 
and to pay for, its own commitments? These are just a few of the 
possible effects of our failure to increase the debt limit and maintain 
faith in the security of U.S. Government financial commitments.
  Now, whether my predictions will be correct will be known in November 
if we have not enacted a debt limit increase by then. This is so 
because in November, we are told by CBO, cash interest payments are due 
on Treasury instruments totaling around $25 billion. Treasury tells us 
that they will not have room under the present $4.9 trillion debt limit 
to pay that interest. We indeed, therefore, must pass a debt limit 
increase, or risk a real default on the payment of interest on Treasury 
instruments for the first time in our history.
  That is what is at stake here along with the lack of cash to honor 
Social Security checks, or Government pensions, or veterans' pensions, 
or the paychecks of Government workers. Surely sane men and women will 
not choose to play a game of chicken of this horrific magnitude. We 
would be risking the entire economy. Where would the panic stop? Once 
it started, how could one turn off the total loss of faith in the 
ability of this Congress to responsibly carry out its work? Once that 
genie is out of the bottle, who can say where or when the damage will 
end? We are not talking about a mere metaphorical train wreck under 
this set of circumstances. We are talking about a nuclear explosion--a 
financial doomsday scenario that could make the Great Depression, in 
some respects at least, look more like a picnic in the park by 
comparison. And, thank God, I lived in that depression. I was 12 years 
old when the October 29 stock market crash took place. I remember what 
it was. And yet, we hear daily the trumpets of our leaders at both 
ends, both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue preparing us for the 
catastrophe, as though it was inevitable due to some unavoidable, 
locked-in, preprogrammed self-destruct device.
  That will not wash, Mr. President. We are not dealing with a bomb 
which we cannot disarm. There is nothing inevitable or uncontrollable 
about it. We have every authority and power that we need to avoid a 
funding lapse at the beginning of this fiscal year and a debt limit 
crisis. We have always solved our political and policy differences in 
the past without risking serious permanent damage to our economy and to 
our very system of Government. All it takes is for us once, just once, 
to put the good of the country ahead of the partisan political 
advantage and the 

[[Page S 13558]]
good of political parties. All it takes is for us to stop wallowing in 
the intoxicating sweet smoke of rhetoric--in the intoxicating aura of 
power, and start trying to be what we all loudly claim to be: 
statesmen! All it takes is for us to sober up, put the cards down, and 
fold up this drunken poker game that has already progressed far too 
late into the evening. We need to pass the coffee, get the red out of 
our eyes, and try to remember why the people sent us here in the first 
place.
  If the people have lost respect for public officials, spectacles such 
as the one now being touted as a train wreck are surely the reason why. 
If confidence in the Federal Government is failing, this type of power-
induced insanity that views flirting with an economic collapse as good 
political strategy is certainly one reason why. If we try to publicly 
pretend that we cannot avoid such a fiscal crisis, we need never again 
scratch our heads and wonder why people do not trust and do not believe 
politicians. There need be no crisis unless irresponsible partisan-
crazed politicians create one, and we all know it.
  I am encouraged by the press accounts of the meeting that occurred 
earlier this week between President Clinton and congressional leaders, 
at which they apparently agreed to negotiate a short-term spending plan 
that would avoid an October 1 Government shutdown. That would address 
at least part of the problem. And if cooler heads prevail, surely we 
can, and surely we must, find a way to settle our very real and very 
serious budgetary and appropriations differences in the coming weeks, 
as we were elected to do, without fashioning deliberate train wrecks 
that would be devastating to this great country of ours. If we fail to 
do so, if November brings such unimaginable devastation to our country, 
I fear not for our sorry lot, for we politicians will get exactly what 
we deserve. I fear only for the American people who so wrongly invested 
their trust in us in the first place.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object for the moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________