[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17196-S17198]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE SHUTDOWN

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to comment on three items. 
One, I compliment Senator Boxer and Senator Snowe for their initiative 
to treat us like everyone else; that is, if we are working and other 
Federal employees are working, and they are not getting paid, we should 
not get paid. Most of the public in our home States do not realize that 
all of us have voted for that already. We voted for that twice already. 
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has either inadvertently 
or, in fact, refused to bring that up. I will not make a judgment about 
that. But we have been on record for some time.
  I think it makes good sense. I just depart from one comment made by 
one of our colleagues who supported this initiative. I do not think the 
Congressmen and Senators are smug about this. The truth about this much 
of this is artificial. I have been here for 23 years and although we 
have never had this extent of a crisis, we have shut down for a couple 
of hours or a day. In every case, it has been standard operating 
procedure that everybody is made whole. The Federal employees--
everybody is made whole.
  So I do not think most of our colleagues thought that this sort of 
stupidity would go on as long as it has. Therefore, I do not think my 
colleagues sat there and said, ``By the way, I know people like the 
stenographer here, who is working, and I know he is not getting paid, 
and I do not care; ha, ha, ha, he is not going to get his paycheck.'' I 
do not think anybody thought about that.
  I want to make this clear. Sometimes, in our zeal, we make it sound 
like this place is a little more heartless than it is. The truth is 
that there is an artificial element to this and, in all probability, 
nobody is going to end up losing a cent in this --unless this does go 
on for weeks or a month, which none of us wish to happen, and I think 
probably none of us believe will happen.
  Now, sometimes we do stupid things. Sometimes ego and pride and 
politics and partisanship get in the way and everybody wakes up one 
morning and says, ``My Lord, how did we get here?'' I am hopeful that 
will not happen. That leads me to my second point.
  My second point. I have great respect--and I mean this sincerely--for 
Senator Dole, the majority leader. I have served with him and next to 
him for 23 years now. You cannot be around somebody that long and not 
get some sense of the man, the person. I do not know anybody who is 
smarter in this place, and I do not know anybody who is a better 
legislator in this place, or that I have had any better relationship or 
dealings with than him. I make one distinction in what he said. When he 
said the President is not bound in any real way if he were to sign the 
continuing resolution that the Senate sent to him, and he then 
mentioned the CBO figures, Congressional Budget Office figures--and he 
did accurately say the President, in the past, had mentioned 
Congressional Budget Office figures. But whether the President said it 
in the past or not, we all say things that turn out not to make so much 
sense sometimes--at least I have. 

[[Page S 17197]]


  The truth of the matter is that it is important for the public to 
know not whose figures are right, but just to understand the debate. 
There is a fundamental difference in the outcome of a balanced budget 
and in how much you have to cut to get to a balanced budget, based upon 
how rapidly the economy grows or does not grow.
  Now, the figures are infinitesimally small when you say them. For 
example, the Congressional Budget Office says the economy will grow, on 
average, over the next 7 years, at 2.4 percent per year. And along 
comes the Office of Management and Budget in the executive branch, and 
they say, no, the economy, over the next 7 years, will grow, on 
average, 2.6 percent per year. The public up there says, ``What is the 
problem? What difference does it make which number you accept?'' Well, 
I am not saying who is right. By the way, you know that old joke, I say 
to the former Governor of Missouri, now the Presiding Officer--I am 
sure he has asked a lot of economists about the impact of what happens 
in his State. But it reminds me of that joke that used to go like this: 
Give me a one-armed economist because every economist you speak to, no 
matter who they are, in their estimates, they say, ``On the one hand'' 
it could be this, and ``on the other hand'' it could be that.
  I would love to find a one-armed economist who would only tell me 
this is what is going to happen.
  Well, back to the central point, the difference between a 2.4 and 2.6 
growth rate in the economy over 7 years is almost one-half trillion 
dollars more that would have to be cut from the Federal spending.
  Right now if you said to me, I am sitting there and I say ``OK, I am 
President''--I am not President obviously--``I am President.'' You say 
to me, ``OK, I will agree to balance the budget in 7 years,'' and I 
look out there, and I say, ``All right.''
  By the way, what is the magic? Why did we not say 5 years? Why did 
the Republican Party not say 5? Why did the President say 10? Why did 
we not pick 6? The truth is, it is of little relevance in terms of a 
goal. It is a practical relevance in terms of how much you cut and how 
rapidly you cut.
  But back to the central point. I am sitting there as President. You 
come to me and say, ``I have good news. We have signed on to 7 years.'' 
Great. That is what I say. ``I can do this in 7 years.'' But the 
numbers they gave us are that we have to balance everything based upon 
the economy only growing this fast.
  Mr. President, what that means is those cuts, that $1 trillion in 
cuts you were going to find to balance it over 7 years, you have to 
find $1.5 trillion. And you say, what does that mean? That means I 
either have to give no tax cut at all or that means I have to make 
major cuts in Medicare, or that means I have to make significant cuts 
in education. And for what? For the want of 1 year? For the want of 2 
years?
  I lay you 8 to 5, which is what is disturbing me, the American people 
are way ahead of all of us--the President, the Speaker, the leadership, 
Democrats, Republicans. They no more believe that we are going to 
balance the budget in 5 years than 7 years or 7 years than 8. They do 
not care if it is done in 8 years or in 6 years. They just want to know 
we are serious and we made a decision.
  The glidepath of this Government spending over the next decade is 
going to be this way--down, and real numbers, real cuts, real changes. 
That, I agree, there is a mandate to both parties on that. But do you 
think anybody who sits home and says, ``Well, I have been thinking this 
over. I listened to that debate in Congress, and my grandchildren are 
going to be put in serious jeopardy if we do this in 10 years instead 
of 7. This means the health and welfare of my granddaughter.''
  Do you believe anybody thinks that? What they are sitting home saying 
is ``God, all those guys and women down there, all they do is talk. 
They keep promising balanced budget amendments. I do not believe they 
will do it any time.'' That is what they really say about us all.
  The truth is, I have been here 23 years. I have never seen a time--
and I say this with total sincerity--where the overwhelming majority of 
the Members of this body have done anything other than agreed we have 
to balance the budget, and mean it.
  I introduced a balanced budget amendment in 1984 that got nowhere. I 
am a Democrat that voted for the constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget. I have introduced on four occasions--four occasions--entire 
plans to balance a budget, knowing I am not President and I am not the 
leader, but for illustrative purposes. I tried with Senator Grassley 
back in the 1980's to freeze all Government spending, including Social 
Security, including everything.

  The truth is the last election did one thing. I do not know whether 
it really made you guys a majority party for long. I do not know. We 
will find out. I know one thing it did. What it did was it made sure 
that there was nobody left on the left in my party who, in fact, said 
we do not care about moving the budget toward balance.
  These folks mean it. We all mean it. The public knows we mean that. I 
think they look at us and say, ``You are all being kind of childish.''
  For example, I bet--and I should not say this because I do not know 
whether the Senator from Missouri, the Presiding Officer, would agree--
I bet I could find 20 Members at least on the Republican side of the 
aisle if I were in charge of this outfit--and I am not--we could sit 
down and say, ``Here is the deal. You guys want a balanced budget in 7 
years and you want CBO numbers. I want a balanced budget, too, but I do 
not want to cut as much Medicare as you do. I do not want to cut as 
much as you do, and I do not want to give as big a tax break as you 
want.''
  So we can make a deal, make a deal. We will split the difference 
between the CBO figure of 2.4 and the OMB figure of 2.6. Take 2.5--that 
is $250 billion. And make another agreement. Agree I will go for a 
bigger cut in Medicare. I say we only need to do $89 billion. That is 
all we need--not $270 billion. I will split the difference with you on 
that.
  You have to make a deal on taxes, too. As much as you want to help 
wealthy folk, and I want to help them, too, tell them to wait until the 
end of the line. We will not give them anything. We will not raise 
their taxes, but we will not give them a tax cut.
  Just those gross numbers--by the way, also make a deal, satisfy the 
President. Do not do this in 10 years. Do it in 8 years. Do not do it 
in 7--you give a year, we give up 2 years.
  Do you think the American public will go home and say, ``Boy, they 
all sold out. Boy, they all do not mean this. Boy, that is ridiculous. 
Boy, my grandchild is now in real jeopardy. Boy, my child's future I 
borrowed against now another 18 months''? I think they would say they 
are finally acting like mature adults.
  I respectfully suggest, to go back to the original point I made, the 
majority leader said, what difference does it make whether it is CBO or 
OMB? Let me tell the difference. That is like saying to me, ``Joe, you 
got to forge this creek, the Ardent Creek. You have to forge it, and it 
is 43 feet wide where the rapids are, and you have a hook at the end of 
the rope.''
  It makes a difference whether you give me a 48-foot rope or you give 
me a 38-foot rope whether I can get across that creek. If you give me a 
38-foot rope, I cannot make it without getting awful wet and put in 
danger. Give me a 48-foot rope I can throw that sucker across, hook it 
around the tree, and have no problem bringing myself across.
  That is the fundamental kind of difference between these numbers. 
These numbers are real. They make a difference.
  I might add, the DuPont companies of the world, the Fortune 500 
companies of the world who all of us say are better at estimating what 
will happen than we, they all say the growth rate will be about 2.9 
percent per year. They say we will have $1 trillion difference from 
what the Congressional Budget Office says.
  Let me say, if you ask whether I accept a DuPont Co. economist or a 
Federal bureaucrat's economist, I tell you where I go, this Democrat. 
If you ask whether I take an economist from Maryland National Bank or 
from the Chrysler Corp. in my State, I know which I would take. I would 
take the private sector guy.

  What I am told is--and I may be wrong, but I do not think I am--I am 

[[Page S 17198]]
  told the blue chip analysis, that is taking all the blue chip companies 
who have analyzed what the growth rate is going to be, the consensus is 
it is going to be about 2.9 percent per year.
  I will tell you what. If we agree to their numbers, I can balance the 
budget and not cut Medicare and not hurt education and not make the 
changes I do not want to make and I can do it in 5 years.
  This makes a difference. It makes a difference what numbers you pick. 
Like I said, it is like that rope. You tell me I have to get across a 
40-foot creek with rapids and if I slip in the rapids I go over the 
dam, and you give me a 30-foot rope, I have a problem. You give me a 
50-foot rope, I can do it. So the difference here is the length of the 
rope we are giving the President.
  I will conclude by saying the Presiding Officer is the only 
Republican in the Chamber--and by the way I am not suggesting anybody 
else should be in the Chamber. All reasonable people are home at 10 
minutes to 10 at night, and I do not know why I am doing it, because I 
am not sure that the four people in here, who are kind enough to be 
listening to me, are listening. But I would respectfully suggest the 
following.
  The reason why a guy like me is a little bit suspect of the 
insistence on the CBO numbers is--I will be real blunt with you --I 
believe this is more than about balancing the budget. I believe this is 
about eliminating programs, or drastically changing programs that the 
Republican Party, understandably and defensibly, historically has not 
liked.
  But it can be cloaked in balancing the budget now. Because if you 
give me the 30-foot rope, I have to get rid of education. I cannot pull 
education across that creek with me on my back. I cannot take Medicare 
across that creek with me on my back. I cannot take a lot of things 
across there--baggage that some of my friends on the Republican side, 
and some Democrats, do not think we should be doing anyway.
  So I think what the President should do--presumptuous of me to 
suggest what the President should do. But, if the President called up 
and asked me tonight, Joe, what do you recommend about this? I would 
pick up the phone and I would call Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich and I 
would say, Fellows, look, come on down. Let us have a cup of coffee. 
And I would promise Newt could sit at the head of the table. I would 
let him sit behind my desk. And I would say, Here is the deal. Let's 
make a deal. Let's split the difference on the numbers, not between the 
private sector, but the two Government bureaucrats who said what the 
numbers were. Split the difference and let us split the number of 
years. I will take off 2, you add 1. And let's get back to work, and 
then let us fight about the details, which is what appropriations bills 
are about.
  I hope we do that. I am not suggesting my particular formula, I say 
to the Presiding Officer. I am not so presumptuous as to say that is 
the only way to do it. But I do know one thing. Legislation is the art 
of compromise, not weakness, compromise, because we have very divergent 
views.
  I have come to know a bit more about the Presiding Officer. He and I 
have divergent views on a number of issues, but I truly respect him. 
And I think he respects me. There is no reason why we could not work--I 
have to give something. You are never going to agree with my 
philosophy. I am never going to agree with yours, on the whole. So we 
have to give something.
  I do not mean to paint it--I would like it if the Senator from 
Missouri and I could settle this, but I know neither one of us are in 
the position to do this. But the larger point is simple. I think it is 
time for us to sort of--I was going to say act like grown-ups. That 
implies they have not been. I think it is time to say, OK, everybody 
has made the point. Let us get back to work. Let us split the 
difference on these things. Because the truth of the matter is, if the 
President agreed to an 8-year balanced budget with CBO numbers, or OMB 
numbers, does anybody believe that means he is less committed to 
getting to a balanced budget? He locks himself to a balanced budget on 
those terms.
  So the issue is not if. The issue is how. I think we could settle 
this quickly. I hope we will do it.
  My colleagues are here. I will not do it tonight, but I was going to 
make a statement, and I will do it tomorrow, on a third point. That is 
Mr. Helms'--and I love Senator Helms--outrageous, in my view, holding 
up of the START Treaty and holding up the Conventional Weapons Treaty. 
But I will save that for another moment. Maybe the Senator would be on 
the floor, because I would rather deal with him on the floor. As my 
colleagues know, I never say anything that references another Senator 
without telling him first. It is nothing derogatory, but I hope he will 
reconsider. We are about to lose the START Treaty, and that is the 
thing that eliminates all those Russian missiles that could be aimed at 
us again.
  My colleagues are waiting to speak. I thank my colleagues and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________