[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16993-S16995]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from California 
on her comments with respect to the budget. I would like to just say a 
few words.
  About a month ago, I came to the floor of the Senate and suggested 
that, as every Senator here knew, we were headed towards this 
inevitable moment that we are now in. I think a lot of us felt then 
that the American people would have been much better served if we had 
been able to come together on all sides of the aisle, as well as on the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in order to try to work out the 
differences between us.
  But all of us understand there is a different dynamic that is working 
here. And that dynamic, I feel, is underscored by those things that had 
been attached to the debt ceiling and to the continuing resolution.
  Most Americans are sitting at home today sort of scratching their 
heads. They are saying to themselves, what in God's name is going on in 
Washington yet again? We thought that in 1994 we voted for a 
``change.'' Yet, here is Washington caught up in this paroxysm of 
business as usual. For the average Americans who thought they voted to 
get rid of gridlock in 1994, here they are with a kind of gridlock 
revisiting them. And a lot of people are probably saying a pox on both 
of your houses, all of you.
  Undoubtedly, tomorrow, a lot of people are going to be confused as 
they see this definition of nonessential employees. All of a sudden the 
Government is going to shut down for a little while and nonessential 
employees are going to be sent home. I would not blame most Americans 
for sitting at home and saying, ``What is this? They are nonessential 
employees. The Government is going to function adequately for a few 
days--what are we doing with these people who are nonessential 
employees every other day of the year?'' So a whole lot of further 
confusion sets in by virtue of this absolutely predictable moment.
  Why is this happening? As the Senator from California pointed out, it 
is happening because our friends on the other side of the aisle have 
had a responsibility to pass 13 appropriations bills. Last year, under 
the Democratic leadership, we passed those bills. We sent them to the 
President on time. Now only five of those bills have been passed, so we 
need to have what is called a continuing resolution, a temporarily 
spending measure, because they have not done their work.
  Instead of just coming before the Senate and saying, give us a clean, 
temporary spending measure--what ``clean'' means is just pass a 
temporary spending measure; give us 2 more weeks to do our work. That 
is essentially what it means. We have not done our homework. So you go 
to the teacher and say, ``I need another 2 weeks.''
  But, instead of just getting another 2 weeks to do the homework, they 
have brought back other conditions and attached conditions to the 
temporary extension that they simply could not get passed any other 
way.
  They have had a regulatory relief bill here which the Senator from 
Kansas has introduced, which the Senate refuses to pass. The Senate 
refuses to pass it because it wants to attack things like letting 
citizens know, in their communities, what kind of toxic chemicals are 
released in their communities.
  It is just a voluntary knowledge issue. Should Americans know that a 
chemical company in the town in which our good citizens live is 
emitting X, Y, or Z toxics into the sky? It is a very simple issue. It 
is totally voluntary. Once people have learned that they are emitting 
this, it does not forbid the emissions. It does not punish anybody. It 
just lets people know what they are breathing. Our friends want to do 
away with that. We have not allowed them to do away with that because 
we think it is important for Americans to know what they are 

[[Page S 16994]]
breathing, and what a chemical company might be putting into the sky. 
They do not.
  Since they could not pass it in the normal course of business in the 
U.S. Senate, they have attached that kind of measure to the temporary 
debt ceiling, to the continuing resolution. The result is we are not 
going to let them pass it. The President says, no. I am not going to 
have legislative blackmail. I am not going to have a gun held to my 
head which holds hostage the default of the United States of America to 
an agenda that cannot be passed otherwise.
  That is part of what is at stake here, Mr. President. It is only part 
of what is at stake here.
  The other part of what is at stake here is a great difference that is 
now seeking definition in the debate in this country about what our 
priorities are as a Nation. I listened today. And I listened to the 
Speaker of the House. I listened to the majority leader. They stood up 
in front of the country, and they said, ``We want to balance the 
budget. They do not.'' I heard people say we want to just get the 
fiscal condition of this country under control, and they just want to 
spend money. That is not what this debate is about. That is not an 
accurate framing of what is at stake for this country. The issue is not 
whether or not we want to balance the budget. The issue is not whether 
or not we want to get control of the fiscal mess which no Republican 
President in the last 12 years vetoed. The issue is how are we going to 
balance the budget? Are we going to keep faith with the fundamental 
notion of fairness in America, or are we going to trample on every 
notion of fairness which has been part of the debate in this country 
since we were founded?
  Is it fair to cut the money that provides summer jobs for kids who 
see no opportunity in their lives? Is it fair to ask senior citizens to 
pay a double amount in their premiums even though they are on a fixed 
income while you give a tax break to people earning more than $300,000 
a year?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DODD. I want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts. I hope 
people are paying attention to what he is saying. It might be 
worthwhile if our colleague would share with us the very notion. People 
hear the words ``continuing resolution'' and ``debt ceiling.''
  As I understand it, Mr. President, the continuing resolution means 
that the Government is allowed to continue operating despite the fact 
that the Congress has not completed its business on the normal 
appropriations bills. As I understand it, we have completed work on 4 
of the 13 appropriations bills--9 have not been completed--and that 
because the Congress has not completed its work on that we have a 
continuing resolution.
  Am I not correct? I ask my colleague, if that is not the case?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is absolutely 
correct. The continuing resolution is simply an extension of the budget 
that takes place because the budget has not been done by the people who 
are responsible for doing the budget.
  Mr. DODD. I further ask my colleague. I understand that a minute ago 
he said this. Maybe people are not aware of this. Is my colleague 
suggesting that there are substantive pieces of legislation outside of 
the budget considerations that are being attached to a continuing 
resolution merely to allow the Government to operate until we complete 
our business? For instance, in the area of regulatory reform, is that 
being put on this kind of a bill?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is absolutely 
correct. I think it is an essential component of what people in America 
need to understand; that while the dilemma is simply extending the 
budget because the homework has not been done--and I repeat in direct 
contrast to what happened last year under the Democratic leadership 
where all 13 appropriations bills were completed on time--the 
Republicans who were supposed to bring a revolution to the U.S. Senate 
and to Washington have failed to complete the work on the vast majority 
of these appropriations bills. Now the issue before the American people 
is how do you have a budget since they failed to do this work, and how 
do you continue to keep the Government moving for a short period of 
time?
  But instead of just passing a short-term continuation of the budget, 
what they have purposely done is added to these measures a list of 
items that they know are calculated to punch hot buttons, and 
calculated to serve political purposes for campaigns at home so they 
can come in and say, ``Look. We tried to get this. But the President 
will not give it to us.''
  Those items are items which could not pass here independently, and 
they effectively result in a kind of legislative political blackmail. 
They hold the gun to the head of the President. They hold a gun to the 
country, and they say to the country, we cannot get our way any other 
way. So we are going to get our way by pushing the country to the brink 
of default for the first time in American history, and tell the 
President of the United States he either gives us our way or the 
country be damned.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KERRY. I want to finish the colloquy with the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I have been handed a one-page piece of paper that has just 
the following words:

       Section 106(c) of Public Law 104-31 is amended by striking 
     ``November 13th, 1995'' and inserting ``December 1, 1995.''

  I am told that simple language would allow for the Government not to 
be shut down--no other bills, no other ideas, no other failed pieces of 
legislation--that simple clause would avoid the shutdown of the Federal 
Government of the United States if we would just adopt that simple 
language for a week or two to allow us to go about the business of 
negotiating all these other extraneous matters. The mere adoption of 
that one sentence would avoid this kind of train wreck that we are 
going to see later on this evening.
  I ask my colleague from Massachusetts. Is that not correct?
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Connecticut has hit the nail on the head. 
That is all it takes. It is very, very simple.
  I might add, Mr. President, that if you want to add insult to injury 
for the American people, it is my understanding that the Republicans 
have agreed that nobody is going to forfeit any pay. So not only are we 
going to shut it down temporarily, but everybody is going to go home 
and are all going to get paid to sit at home.
  What kind of a revolution is that? I mean this is the most 
extraordinary fakery I have ever heard in my life. We are going to shut 
down the Government but we are not going to shut down the Government. 
People are still going to get paid, in effect.
  This is going to cost the American people more money, and the farce 
of it is the revolution is paying people not to do their jobs. Boy, 
that is a heck of a change in Washington, DC.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am pleased to hear this discussion tonight because the 
Nation is very confused. They hear all of this argument, and they do 
not realize that the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from 
Massachusetts just pointed out that with one sentence that we could 
move on and fight our battle on the budget, which is very legitimate. 
After all, we are going to see people on Medicare essentially lose at 
least half of their Social Security COLA as a result of this increase 
in their premiums.
  But the question I have for my friend from Massachusetts is this: As 
I understand it, in this debt limit bill--I say to my friend--included 
in it is the House regulatory reform language. And the reason I want to 
ask my friend a question is this: He has been the leader in the Senate 
in trying to bring to the Senate a regulatory reform bill that makes 
sense, not one that guts the environment, not one that guts health and 
safety. As I understand it, the House version of regulatory reform is 
included in this debt ceiling.
  I would like him to address for me and for others what this really 
means if this were to become the law and to discuss with us why on 
Earth he thinks the Republicans would have put a regulatory reform bill 
that deals nothing 

[[Page S 16995]]
with the debt on a debt ceiling increase. I would ask that question of 
my friend.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would be delighted to say a few words 
about that for my colleague from California.
  The regulatory reform bill presents the most radical, overreaching 
effort to undo 25 years of environmental protection for the people of 
this country.
  The regulatory reform bill that is attached to the debt limit will 
undo the protection of our citizens for the inspection of food for the 
potential of carcinogens in that food. To everybody who has read about 
E. coli poisoning, the incidents of people who have died or gotten 
seriously ill as a consequence of the lack of inspection, that will now 
be liberated. That will occur as a consequence of this.
  I just share a list here. This is a long, rolling list. These are the 
88 different openings for people to stop the process of putting out 
legitimate regulations within the Environmental Protection Agency. This 
list, which could not pass the Senate, has been attached to the debt 
limit.
  Mr. NICKLES. We are not on debt limit.
  Mr. KERRY. No, but it is attached to it. It is attached to it. What 
we are talking about here is whether or not the President of the United 
States is going to have this kind of gun held to his head or not.
  Just take the continuing resolution. They have restrictions on 
Federal grants, lobbying to public interest groups; they have Medicare 
part B premium increases, abolition of certain agencies. These are not 
items that ought to be on what the Senator from Connecticut has 
adequately pointed out ought to be very simply an extension of the 
continuing resolution.
  Mr. President, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are going to say, look, we have been here for years, and we have never 
balanced the budget. That is correct. Some of us tried. We tried with 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. We tried with other efforts. We finally have 
come to an agreement that this year we are going to try to do it. The 
question is how are we going to do it, not whether we are going to do 
it.
  So when anybody hears our colleagues come to the floor and say the 
Democrats do not want to balance the budget, I hope America will say, 
``Wrong; not true.'' We voted, 39 of us, for a 7-year balanced budget 
on this side of the aisle. The difference is we did not do it by making 
it more expensive for kids to go to college. We did not do it by 
cutting out the volunteer corps of America, AmeriCorps. We did not do 
it by cutting student capacity to have summer jobs. We did not do it by 
taking hot lunches away from kids. We did not do it by raiding the 
pension funds of this country. We did not do it by denying the people 
at the lowest scale of income the earned-income tax credit, the ability 
to be able to work out of poverty.
  Do you know how we did it? We did it by not giving to people this 
extraordinary $245 billion tax break, most of which is unexplainable in 
the face of this kind of a deficit.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to yield, Mr. President.
  Mr. DODD. I just wanted to ask----
  Mr. KERRY. I yield for a question.
  Mr. DODD. My colleague, did I understand him to say that we have an 
increase in premiums for Medicare in this continuing resolution? We are 
going to have Medicare put on a continuing resolution and not save that 
debate for the kind of attention it deserves with 37 million Americans 
depending upon Medicare? That is wrapped up in the continuing 
resolution?
  Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Connecticut is absolutely correct.
  Mr. DODD. Can my colleague from Massachusetts explain, what is the 
wisdom of taking a simple extension of the continuing resolution and 
incorporating a critically important program to millions of Americans 
and their families in something like the continuing resolution? Why not 
leave that for the broader debate? Is there some rationale that my 
colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. President, is aware of as to why we 
would have an increase in premium costs in Medicare put on something 
like this?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would say to my friend, there is 
certainly no legitimate or fair rationale. I can certainly explain to 
my colleague a political and craven rationale but not one that I think 
would meet the test and standard of fairness.
  Now, I know that the acting majority leader wanted to ask a question. 
I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understood when the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts started speaking he indicated he would speak until 
we were ready to dispense with the other issues pending, and we have 
gotten an agreement on that and I am ready to ask for that consent when 
he completes his statement.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi knows how to 
silence the Senator from Massachusetts. If we can get consent on this, 
the Senator from Massachusetts would be delighted to terminate his 
colloquy. So I would be happy to move to that consent if we can.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________