[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17000-S17001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE DEBT LIMIT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I also want to address, while I have the 
floor--I know the Senator from Virginia is seeking recognition--but we 
have not had the opportunity yet tonight to talk briefly about the debt 
limit, at least I have not. I know some of my colleagues have addressed 
the matter.
  The President, as you know, vetoed the debt limit bill this 
afternoon. He did so for good reason. Let there be no doubt, we need to 
increase the debt limit. We recognize how critical it is that the 
Government of the United States not go into default.
  Let me offer praise for the Secretary of the Treasury for all that he 
has done to educate, to inform, to bring everyone to a better 
understanding of the ramifications of default, beginning Wednesday, if 
nothing is done. As I understand it, there is some hope now that we 
might be able to have yet another auction to move us back yet perhaps 
another 3 days. But while the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
administration appear to be doing virtually everything they can to see 
that this country does not default, our Republican colleagues, at that 
moment when they should cooperate and find some way with which to 
resolve this crisis, have chosen to do just the opposite.
  On what ought to be a very simple extension of the debt, our 
Republican colleagues have added a complete elimination of all the 
opportunities the Treasury Secretary has to manage the debt, to use 
short-term tools, to do what every single Treasury Secretary has been 
able to do for decades. They have sought to strip him of all those 
responsibilities and opportunities for debt management at the very time 
he needs them the most. Can you think of anything more irresponsible 
than that? Anything?
  It is just outrageous that, at the time when we ought to be pulling 
together with a full appreciation of the magnitude of the problems we 
may face if we go in default, what do our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle do but say we are going to make it even harder. We are 
going to make it even more challenging, create even more problems.
  And then, to add insult to injury, they add a provision that we have 
debated on the floor many, many times regarding what ought to happen on 
appeals for death row inmates; whether or not we ought to have this 
legal term ``habeas corpus'' modified in some way. What in the world 
does that have to do with dealing with the default this country may 
find itself in as early as Wednesday?
  How is it that anyone can rationalize, anyone can explain, anyone can 
find any reason why habeas corpus belongs on an emergency debt limit 
bill?
  And then we have had some healthy debates on the Senate floor now for 
months about regulatory reform. We have had some cloture votes, and in 
every single case Democrats have said very simply: You give us 
regulatory reform that does not endanger the public health and safety 
of Americans, and we are with you. You are going to get a vote with 
maybe 70, 80, 90 votes. But you offer regulatory reform that endangers 
the health and safety of Americans, and we are not with you. That issue 
has not been resolved. We have reached a stalemate until we resolve it, 
and there have been good-faith efforts on both sides to try to resolve 
it, good-faith efforts that are going on right now.
  So what happens? Our Republican colleagues add the entire regulatory 
reform language, all of the comprehensive issues relating to the most 
detailed threats to public health and safety and all the questions we 
have debated for months now on the debt limit--on the debt limit--with 
no opportunity for debate and no opportunity for amendments. It is a 
take-it-or-leave-it deal. It is accept this or accept default.
  Mr. President, for the life of me, I do not understand. I cannot 
contemplate what may have motivated our Republican colleagues to do 
that on this bill.
  I will yield to the Senator from Nevada in just a minute, but I want 
to add the last list. In addition to that, the agencies terminated in 
this short-term legislation include the Interstate Commerce Commission, 
the Rural Abandoned Mine Program, Land and Conservation Fund, 
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations, the Administrative Conference of the 
United States--all of that added on top of everything else. Yet, they 
would like to have the American people believe that this is an 
emergency, that somehow the President is not cooperating, that somehow 
all of this has to be done in the context of a continuing resolution, 
or the debt limit, or it is just not possible.
  Mr. President, this is just not the way to legislate. This is not 
responsible. We know better than this. In our heart of hearts, we know 
we have to run the country, we have to govern, and we have to do the 
things necessary to make this country work better. And this is not it.
  So I hope at some point before midnight tonight we could come to our 
senses, and at some point in the next 3 hours we could say, look, let 
us save these debates for later. Let us conclude that we are going to 
agree to disagree for as long as it takes to work out the larger 
issues. Let us admit that this strategy is not going to work, and say 
that rather than shutting down the Government, rather than bringing 
this country to a default, we are going to strip them all, we are going 
to send a clean resolution, we are going to send a clean debt limit, we 
are going to resolve these matters at another time, and we are going to 
do the right thing.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Is there a 10-minute limit on statements by individual 
Senators?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. We are operating in morning 
business.
  Mr. WARNER. I think the distinguished minority leader has now used in 
excess of his 10-minute allocation?
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Who retains the floor, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has the floor. If he 
wishes to yield for an inquiry, he has that opportunity.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Parliamentary inquiry: Are not Senators under a 10-minute 
rule?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I did not think the parliamentary inquiry was in order 
if I did not yield time for such an inquiry. Is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator yielding for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am asking a question of the leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I ask the leader. Is it not true that we have 13 different 
appropriations bills that should pass?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada is correct. Thirteen 
appropriations bills, and only five have been passed so far.
  Mr. REID. Is not it true that the President has signed only two of 
those?
  Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, he has signed two and five have 
passed.
  Mr. REID. Is it not true that we have been waiting for conferences to 
be completed sometime in some instances for months?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. I would add that in all the time 


[[Page S 17001]]
we have been under this budget process--since 1974 --this may be the 
latest, if not one of the latest dates that Congress has gone prior to 
the time it has completed its work.
  Mr. REID. I also ask this question of the leader. Is it not true that 
when one of the elements of the Contract With America was sent to us 
from the House that we in the Senate acted upon that with an amendment 
and that the Senate adopted regulatory reform? In effect, what it said 
is, if there is a regulation promulgated to have a financial impact 
over $100 million, that there would be the ability for a legislative 
veto for 45 days, and the regulation would not become effective for 45 
days?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. In fact, the Senator from Nevada 
was the author of the legislation.
  Mr. REID. Is it not true that if a regulation was promulgated for 
less than $100 million, it would become effective immediately but that 
we would have the opportunity to in effect veto that within 45 days?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nevada is exactly correct. His memory 
is perfect.
  Mr. REID. Is it not true that amendment was offered by a Republican 
Senator, Senator Nickles, and this Senator, and passed by a vote of 100 
to nothing?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Is it not true that took place approximately 5 months ago, 
and conferees have not been appointed as a result of inactivity of the 
majority?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. So we in effect have tried to do regulatory reform, have we 
not, in this body, and we passed comprehensive regulatory ``reform,'' 
in some people's minds, by a vote of 100 to nothing?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. We passed a line-item 
veto, a legislative veto, and we passed a number of issues relating 
directly to changing the regulations under which Congress must operate, 
changing the regulations under which we deal with States, and unfunded 
mandates. We have had a series of regulatory reform measures already 
passed, unfortunately many of which have not been passed into law as a 
result of the Republican opposition.
  Mr. REID. And, in fact, I say to my friend, is not it also true, I 
repeat, that we have been waiting for conferees to be appointed on the 
regulatory reform that passed this body by 100 to nothing for 5 months?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. There has been no 
consideration of legislation in conference because the conferees have 
not been appointed.
  Mr. REID. I also say to my friend in the form of a question, is it 
not true that habeas corpus has been debated on this floor not for 
hours, not for weeks, but for months, if we add up time over the last 3 
or 4 years?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. We have had countless hearings 
and extraordinary debate on the Senate floor. We have had countless 
amendments offered as alternatives to legislation that passed. This has 
been an issue that has been hotly debated for not only weeks and months 
but for years now in prior Congresses.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the distinguished minority leader, is 
it not true also that habeas corpus reform is not a partisan issue? Is 
that not true?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct. The Senator from Nevada is correct in 
stating that there are Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the 
issue.
  Mr. REID. In fact, I say to my friend from South Dakota, is it not 
true that on occasions this Senator has joined my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle for habeas corpus reform?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would have to go back and check the record, but I will 
take the Senator's word for it.
  Mr. REID. I would ask if you can give this Senator, or the people of 
this country, any reason why on extending the debt limit we would have 
habeas corpus, regulatory reform, or termination of these agencies--
some of which I agree to--but should we not vote those up or down?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator makes a very good point. The answer 
can be provided in one word. The word is ``coercion.'' This is the 
Republican effort to coerce the President to sign legislation that 
otherwise he would veto; to sign legislation that he philosophically 
finds at fault; to sign legislation that many of us on this side of the 
aisle are very uncomfortable with; to sign legislation that has not 
been resolved in the case of regulatory reform. It is to finish 
unfinished business that ought not be finished for good reason--because 
we have not been able to resolve our differences.
  So they are putting it in this language in the hope--and it is only a 
hope, because the President made it very clear today when he vetoed the 
bill, it is a false hope that somehow we can resolve these issues by 
loading up a bill as critical as it is, as the debt limit and the 
continuing resolution are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to remind the Senator 
from South Dakota that the 10 minutes allotted to him under morning 
business has expired, and in fact you have controlled the floor for 
nearly an hour. It would take unanimous consent in order to continue.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the 
indulgence of the Senator from Virginia. I know he wishes to speak. I 
will regain the floor at a later time.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________