[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16948-S16949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE IMPENDING SHUTDOWN OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am not going to speak specifically to the 
resolution, but I do want to speak to the underlying issues with which 
the resolution--and the other business which we will be taking up 
today--is involved. That, of course, is the question of the impending 
shutdown of the Federal Government, what has brought it about, and 
where we are going.
  I think it is unfortunate that it has been characterized--but it is 
not unusual--as I understand it, by the national press as an event 
which is involving a confrontation over personalities, a confrontation 
that has borne the position of business as usual, or politics as usual; 
not necessarily name calling, maybe name implying, rather than a 
confrontation for what it is.
  This is an issue involving some very substantive philosophical 
differences that we have arrived at, and we have not yet arrived 
completely at the point of final decision, if there is ever a final 
point of decision, in the business of governing because the point of 
final decision is more appropriately the reconciliation bill at which 
this motion to instruct is directed. The reconciliation bill, which is 
now being conferenced, involves the fundamental changes which we as 
Republicans have proposed--or many of them anyway--especially in the 
entitlement accounts; fundamental changes which go to the fact that we 
believe the Nation's budget must be brought under control, that our 
Federal Government must work towards a balanced budget; and that needs 
to be done within a confined period of time; that we need to reach that 
balanced budget by the year 2002, or 7 years from now; that the way you 
reach that is not by cutting the Federal Government but slowing its 
rate of growth, and specifically slowing the rate of growth in certain 
major entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, farm 
programs; and, that in slowing the rate of growth of the Federal 
Government we believe--and we have put forward proposals with which we 
think we can deliver better programs.
  We can, for example--and have--put forward a program which is going 
to deliver to our senior citizens we believe a much stronger Medicare 
system, at least one which will be solvent, which is absolutely 
critical, something which will not occur if action is not taken. As we 
have heard from the Medicare trustees, the Medicare trustees say that 
it is going to be insolvent unless something is done. What we have 
proposed--and what is being discussed--essentially is to say to seniors 
we are not going to allow you to keep your present health care system. 
But, if you wish to participate in it, we will give you a chose of 
other forms of health care delivery. We are going to give you choices 
of other forms of health delivery, like I or other Members of Congress 
have, and using an HMO, or a PPO, or some of these other initials, 
which mean basically groups of doctors and different types of health-
care suppliers getting together and offering you, the seniors, service.
  We are going to bring the marketplace into the Medicare system, and 
by bringing the marketplace into the Medicare system hopefully create 
more efficiencies of delivery of service while still delivering first 
class-service, and in the process giving our seniors more choices; and, 
also in the process slowing the rate of growth of Medicare.
  We have proposed in the welfare area that we take this system--which 
is so fundamentally flawed, which has created such dependency amongst 
so many of our citizenry and has not allowed people to get off the 
system but rather put people into the system for generations--and say 
to those folks, ``Listen. You can only be on welfare for 5 years. You 
have got to be willing to go to work, if you are going to get welfare 
benefits.'' And, more importantly, we are going to turn it back to the 
States and allow the States to manage this welfare system, something 
that we should never have taken from in the first place because the 
States can do it so much better, to be quite honest, because they are 
closer to the people that are impacted by this.

  So we are putting forward ideas which fundamentally reform the way 
this Government operates.
  Today we are confronted with the fact that the President has vetoed 
the continuing resolution, which would allow the Government to operate 
for a couple of weeks, because he disagrees with the basic theme of the 
proposals that we are putting forward. It is the administration's 
essential position that the status quo works. I do not believe the 
status quo works. And many of us obviously on this side of the aisle do 
not believe that the status quo works. We happen to believe that this 
Government needs to be adjusted, that we cannot pass a Government on to 
our children which is fundamentally bankrupt and expect our children to 
have an opportunity to prosper.
  So we come to the point of decision. That point of decision is going 
to be the reconciliation bill. But, prior to getting to that point, we 
have reached this preliminary discussion over about how we fund the 
Government for the next 2 weeks. And the President has decided to make 
a stand at this point on his belief that the Government of the status 
quo is appropriate. So that is his right. It is his right to put 
forward that philosophical position--that this Government is not large 
enough, that it should get larger, that this Government should take 
more taxes from our citizens rather than less tax taxes, that this 
Government, which has a Medicare system which is going to be bankrupt, 
according to our own trustees, should pursue a system which does not 
correct that system, or improve that system. That is his right to put 
forward those philosophical differences.
  What I think is unfortunate, however, is that, as we move forward 
over the next week, we will be in a period of confrontation which 
appears to be one surrounding politics as usual--name calling or 
posturing that is superficial--rather than one that in actuality we are 
really discussing here, really getting to the question of how this 
Government is delivered over the next 7 years, as to how this 
Government is going to be restructured and reformed, and, in my 
opinion, improved, and significantly strengthened.
  So as we take up this issue for the balance of the day--and I suspect 
we are going to be in this matter of the Government shutdown for quite 
a few days because I do not see any immediate resolution of it--I hope 
that we will stick to the issue of discussing the substance that has 
gotten us here, the substantive issue which have brought us to this 
point.
  Those substantive issues really come down to this. Do we wish to 
bring the Government into balance? Do we wish to have a Government 
which is fiscally responsible, one which is a Government which we can 
afford, and a Government which our children can afford? That is what 
this debate is really all about. It is not about who talked to who on 
the flight to Israel. It is not about what the phone conversations 
were, and the tone of the phone conversations. It is about whether or 
not we as a nation are going to finally make some decisions, and we in 
the Congress and this President as a Presidency are going to finally 
make some decisions about restructuring this Government and make it 
affordable for our children, and how we go about doing it.
  My expectation is that we will not resolve this overnight; that 
decisions which will be made in the next 24 hours will not be those so 
momentous as to 

[[Page S 16949]]
complete or even significantly impact that final decision process, but 
it may well be significant in impacting the manner in which we get to 
that final decision. We can spend our time over the next few days as we 
debate this continuing resolution, which is simply a preamble to the 
major issue which is reconciliation, we can spend our time debating the 
superficial issues of who, where, when, or what names we call each 
other or we can talk in terms of the substance of the debate which is 
how do we reform this Government and how do we take this Government 
which is so completely out of control and bring it under control; how 
do we give our children an opportunity to have a lifestyle that is 
better than ours; how do we become a generation which passes more on to 
children than was passed on to us by our elders.
  These are the core issues, the issues of substance which we should be 
discussing over the next few days, and hopefully we can attend to those 
issues rather than become involved in the ancillary issues of name 
calling, political posturing, of Government by polls and Government by 
reelection.
  Mr. President, I yield back such time as I may have.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________