[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17195-S17196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         A BIPARTISAN MAJORITY

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to take just a moment to comment on 
the vote that we just had. It seems to me when the vote is 60 to 37, we 
pretty much replicated what happened in the House about midnight last 
night, where 48 Democrats joined Republicans in a bipartisan effort to 
open up the Government, take the lid off, put people back to work and 
balance the budget in the next 7 years.
  It seems to me that is the best of both worlds. I am very proud of 
that strong bipartisan majority of 60 Senators who stood up tonight for 
our Federal workers and for a balanced budget which will mean a 
brighter future for our children and our grandchildren.
  I think we keep losing sight of why we want to balance the budget and 
why should we be concerned. I must say, we 

[[Page S 17196]]
have to keep reminding ourselves, the language we use does not resonate 
because we keep talking about balanced budget, CR's, debt ceiling 
extensions, and it does not mean a thing to many people, but their 
children mean a lot to people and their grandchildren mean a lot, and 
that is what this debate is all about. It is not about numbers, it is 
not about a continuing resolution, it is not about a debt ceiling 
extension, it is not about any of us in this Chamber; it is about 
trying to do something for a lot of our young people who are going to 
want to find jobs.

  I must say, as I read the Washington Post editorial again and again 
today--because I could not believe it; it was a good editorial--it 
talked about the real default, the default of leadership on the other 
side of the aisle.
  I must say, as the Senator from New Mexico said earlier, when you do 
a lot of heavy lifting, you get a lot of criticism. We have been doing 
a lot of heavy lifting. We believe the American people gave us somewhat 
of a mandate to make fundamental change last November, and we have kept 
our word and our promise. We have worked together, and we have had some 
bipartisan support, just as we have had tonight. So it is not just a 
Republican effort. We had a number of Senators join us earlier this 
year on a balanced budget amendment. We lost by one vote. We hope to 
bring it up again.
  Now, President Clinton says a lot of things at different times and in 
different ways. Yesterday, at a news conference or in a short 
statement, he mentioned the phrase ``balanced budget'' 16 times, by 
actual count. If the people who watched television last night saw the 
clips of what he has been saying in the last 2 years, he talked about a 
5-year balanced budget when he was a candidate, then maybe 10 years, 
maybe 9, maybe 8, maybe 7.
  Now, I think the President could indicate that he is in good faith by 
signing this bill. There is nothing in this bill that is going to 
hamstring the President of the United States. Nothing commits him to do 
anything, except it says we shall enact a balanced budget amendment in 
the next 7 years, using CBO estimates--updated CBO estimates--the very 
estimates that President Clinton asked us to use. CBO is the 
Congressional Budget Office, for those who do not understand these 
initials all the time. But when he first spoke to a joint session of 
Congress, he boasted about using CBO--Congressional Budget Office--
figures in his budget and said they had been, as I recall, fairly 
accurate over the years. And they have been accurate over the years.
  So we are not asking too much of the President of the United States. 
I am not one who advocates shutting down the Government of the United 
States. I would like to find some resolution, and if we cannot do it 
with this continuing resolution, maybe we can figure out a way tomorrow 
to resolve the differences.
  What harm does it do the President of the United States to sign a 
bill that says we will have a balanced budget by the year 2002? He said 
today on television that he did not mind the 48 Democrats voting with 
Republicans last night because it was not binding. Well, if it is not 
binding on the 48 Democrats, why should it be binding on the President 
of the United States if he signs it?
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues tonight who said to our Federal 
workers that it is time to go back to work, and said to the President 
of the United States, it is time to balance the budget. Again, I say, 
as I said earlier today, I do not think it does a lot of good to have 
press conferences every day where we say one thing and the President 
says something else. Why do we not sit down together, without the 
press? We are all adults. I believe the American people are looking to 
all of us for leadership. So the Government has been shut down Tuesday, 
Wednesday, Thursday, and it will be shut down tomorrow. Is that enough 
time? I think it depends on the leadership that we can produce in the 
next 24 hours. If not, we are going to go into the next week and then 
into the next week. I do not see much opportunity next week to have any 
resolution.

  So I say, first of all, Mr. President, sign this resolution. It is 
not a bad resolution. I am told that the only objectionable feature is 
the balanced budget language, which does not legally bind the President 
of the United States. It seems to me that we may be very close. If the 
President would sign that tomorrow, and we send it down tomorrow--and I 
assume we will--then everybody can come back to work on Monday, and we 
could go on about the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which we hope to 
finish tomorrow night around 10, 11 o'clock, maybe a little later. And 
then on Saturday morning, we will take up a conference report or two, 
and then Members could be off with their families for Thanksgiving, as 
many would like to do.

                          ____________________