[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17457-S17458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     LIMITED CONTINUING RESOLUTION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just want to take a couple of minutes 
to discuss what many of us feel, that a limited continuing resolution 
is not an appropriate resolution of the situation before us.
  This resolution does not cover the Federal Housing Administration, 
and, yet, the shutdown of the Federal Housing Administration has 
blocked home ownership for literally thousands each and every day. On 
an average day, the Federal Housing Administration processes 2,500 home 
purchases and refinancing applications totaling $200 million with the 
mortgage loans for moderate- and low-income working families.
  This resolution would do nothing to ensure the resumption of the 
financing of small businesses. On an average day, over 260 small 
businesses receive the SBA guaranteed financing. Thus far, more than 
$40 million in loans have been delayed or forfeited as a result of the 
shutdown.
  Another shutdown this resolution does not address--would not affect--
is the shutdown on exports this country attempts to ship each and every 
day. On an average day over 30 export licenses valued at over $30 
million are approved by the Bureau of Export Administration.
  The resolution does not address Head Start. Yet, if the shutdown 
continues much longer, 60,000 Head Start children will lose services 
each day, and 11,000 Head Start staff will do without funding.
  This resolution is a holiday for deadbeat dads. Those who are not 
living up to their responsibilities as fathers do not need to fear 
collection attempts, for the Federal Parent Locater Services which 
averaged 20,000 new cases a day is closed. The resolution does not 
affect that.
  The resolution does not address the halt in tourism in and around 
national parks. Yet, on an average day, 726,000 people visit national 
park service facilities. With parks closed down, the public 
inconvenienced, business is lost in the surrounding communities.
  The resolution offered today does not address the critical health 
care needs served by the National Institutes of Health, which provide 
advice to doctors and patients and the latest treatments available for 
serious illnesses. No new patients are being enrolled in research 
projects at the NIH Clinical Center. An average of 170 new patients per 
week were enrolled in these projects up until the time we saw the 
Government shut down.
  The resolution does not allow for the pursuit of new medical fraud 
and abuse cases. On an average day, 100 calls from public sources 
reporting fraud and abuse are normally referred to the Office of 
Inspector General for further investigation. That has been completely 
shut down.
  There has been a shutdown of projects and activities of the FBI, the 
Border Patrol, and other Federal law enforcement agencies. This 
resolution does not address that.
  Finally, it does not address the shutdown of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission work. Yet, in an average week, 20,000 toys are taken 
off the shelves because they are dangerous for children.
  The point, Mr. President, is pretty simple. Obviously, we are 
concerned about the need to address all agencies of Government, all 
important services. We want to ensure that we are not balkanizing 
Government. Already, through the House's passage of this resolution and 
the refusal to pass a clean short-term budget, we are pitting one 
agency against another.
  I think we have to come to an understanding that Government is 
important, and all these important services ought to be funded, not 
just some of them. We have been asked by the House to abandon that 
principle and provide funding for Government on a piecemeal basis. 
There is a regular appropriations process. Today, the President is 
going to sign the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, and the 
legislative branch appropriations bill. The more appropriations bills 
we can send on to the President, the less we are going to need this 
balkanized approach to a continuing resolution.
  Let us pass a straightforward continuing resolution. Let us take the 
riders off. Let us get the job done. Let us ensure that at some time in 
the not too distant future we can get on with dealing with the 
fundamental issue before this Congress, and that is a reconciliation 
bill: a comprehensive budget that balances the budget and reflects the 
true values and priorities of the American people--not the plan to 
devastate Medicare and Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for people who do 
not need them. Now that the reconciliation bill has passed, there is 
even less reason for a Government shutdown. The reconciliation bill 
should be sent to the President for its inevitable veto so we can get 
on with the real negotiations. I am hopeful that we can get to those 
essential negotiations and enact such a budget in the not too distant 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute just to review 
the situation. First of all, there would be no shutdown of Government 
at all if the President had signed the continuing resolution that was 
sent to him last week, one that did include language for a balanced 
budget in 7 years, and by allowing this continued spending to go 
forward it would have opened the Government.
  Second, there is another continuing resolution that has passed by a 
wide margin in the House and in the Senate--by 60 votes in the Senate, 
with some other Senators indicating they really would like to vote for 
it. We have that resolution ready to go to the President, but he said 
no, he will not sign that either.
  That resolution is very simple, and it did not have any of the riders 
that had been objected to earlier. It says we will have a balanced 
budget in 7 years as certified by the Congressional Budget Office, 
which is what the President had called for in 1993, and it did allow 
for continuing of the spending at the lower of the House-Senate or 
current level and even the programs that had been zeroed by the 
Congress would be funded at 60 percent--more than a 50-50 split with 
the President.
  So that has not been sent to the President yet because he indicated 
he would not sign it. But perhaps he will think better of it and 
indicate maybe later on today or tomorrow that he would sign it, and we 
could send that right down, he could sign that tomorrow afternoon or 
Monday morning and get the Government back to work, and we could get on 
to the serious business of the balanced budget that we are committed 
to, that this body voted for just last night and that we have been 
working on all year.
  Now, I think also you need to emphasize here what was just objected 
to. This is a short or small continuing resolution that will allow the 
opening of Social Security, veterans and Medicare offices. Who is 
against that? The Senator just objected to us getting those very 
important offices open and working on Monday morning. Surely----
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. There would be no objection to it. Let me continue, if I 
could, and I will yield.
  We could get those offices open, and then perhaps there are some 
other areas where we could pass some other 

[[Page S 17458]]
continuing resolution that would perhaps address the concerns of the 
Defense Department. Hopefully, that will not be necessary because not 
only has the President been sent today from the Congress the Department 
of Treasury and Postal Service appropriations bills, which he indicated 
perhaps he will sign, I believe, and the legislative appropriations 
bill, which he indicated maybe he will sign, we also sent him a very 
important, very large Department of Defense appropriations bill. If he 
will sign that bill, then all of the Defense Department, our defense 
people can go back to work.
  This is not an indication that this is all we should do or can do or 
will do. We are just saying that we would like for the Social Security 
offices, the veterans offices and the Medicare offices to be open. I do 
not think any Senator wants to object to that.
  So we put it on the calendar, and we will have a chance, I am sure, 
to vote on it at some subsequent point. If I could just make one more 
point, and then I will yield to the Senator's response, if he feels so 
inclined.
  What is really at stake here? There is a continuing effort by the 
President to get a continuing spending resolution. The President wants 
more spending available to him. What we are trying to get is a 
commitment to the balanced budget in 7 years with honest numbers. That 
is all we are trying to accomplish.
  Now, discussions continue, are underway. There have been 
conversations today across the aisle with both sides of the Congress 
and with the White House. I am hopeful that something could be worked 
out where the President can agree to the 7-year balanced budget as 
certified by the Congressional Budget Office so we can make sure the 
numbers are allowed, and maybe that will happen. There are a number of 
ways that we can continue to work together and get the Government open. 
Certainly we should get these very important offices open on Monday. 
The House has already voted that way.
  I would be glad to yield to the leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my friend for yielding. I would just ask the 
distinguished Senator from Mississippi, my friend, whether he is aware 
that the President has already made an announcement that all of those 
people will be going back to work on Monday, making the resolution as 
he has proposed it unnecessary?
  The second question I would ask is, why, even if he thought it was 
necessary--perhaps he was not aware of the President's announcement--
why would he feel the need to open the offices in Social Security and 
other branches and maintain closure of small business offices around 
the country, the Federal Housing Administration? Why would he see the 
need to keep the National Institutes of Health and a number of other 
Federal agencies that I would think he would view as equally important, 
closed down? What I tried to do in my subsequent unanimous consent 
agreement, to which the Senator objected, was to open those offices, 
too. How does the Senator draw the distinction?
  Mr. LOTT. If the President as a matter of fact has been moving to 
open these offices, certainly it makes good sense to me that the 
Congress would concur and put that into law. But I might respond to the 
Senator, why did the President stop with these offices? Why did he not 
go further? Every one of these things cut both ways.
  I think it is important to note that the other side of the aisle has 
objected to moving to this targeted continuing resolution. This bill 
would provide sufficient funding--until the relevant appropriations 
bills are signed into law, or if necessary, for the remainder of FY96--
to allow HCFA to pay claims filed by Medicare contractors, the Social 
Security Administration to meet its administrative expenses, and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to process and disburse veterans 
compensation, pensions, and dependency and indemnity compensation 
payments. The minority leader points out that the President has sent an 
Executive order sending many of these workers back to work; however, it 
is important to note that the President's Executive order does not 
provide funding for these employees. This, I believe, is a very 
important distinction.
  I think what we need to do is quit arguing about what should be open 
and what should not be open, get an agreement to do that, and get a 
commitment to a 7-year balanced budget with honest numbers. That is 
what really is at stake, and we are hopefully very close.
  The leader, I believe, has had indications by many Members on his 
side they want a 7-year balanced budget. The ranking member on the 
Budget Committee in the House indicated that he supports that. I think 
there is growing support in the Congress to get that commitment agreed 
to, go with honest numbers and pass a continuing resolution that will 
allow the spending to continue while we get a way to control the budget 
that has been out of control for 30 years.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me just respond, and I know others seek the floor, 
so I will not belabor this point. This issue is not about a 7-year 
balanced budget. The Senator from Mississippi knows it. This issue is 
about whether or not we can make Government function while we debate 
the critical issues behind the issue of a 7-year balanced budget. I 
think we could get broad-based support for a 7-year balanced budget if 
we could also get broad-based support for what that means--what the 
budgetary values priorities defining that budget are.
  What does it mean? What so many on the other side seem to be arguing 
is that we have to come to the bottom line before we know what the 
components are. If the Senator will tell me exactly what the tax cut 
figure will be, exactly what the growth assumptions will be, exactly 
what all the cuts in entitlements will be, exactly what we can 
anticipate in terms of freezes on discretionary spending, then we can 
probably get some better appreciation of whether it is going to take 7 
years or 8 years or what. Seven years is fine with most of us, 5 years, 
4 years might work, depending on the assumptions and priorities 
entailed. but that is not the issue. We have to consider all the 
components of the budget as we debate this issue.
  The real debate will begin almost immediately because the President 
will be vetoing the reconciliation bill that we passed last night. So 
we are left now with the realization that if we are serious about doing 
this the right and responsible way, we need to put the rhetoric aside 
and get down to making some very tough decisions about whether we can 
do all that everybody says they want to do in 7 years. We better start 
negotiating for real on that reconciliation bill. That is the issue. 
The continuing resolution debate ought to be behind us because that 
really should not going be the issue any longer.
  The issue is, can we seriously debate our goals in reconciliation. If 
we can do that, if we can sit down in a bipartisan way, then I believe 
we can accomplish our task. But the longer we debate this continuing 
resolution, the longer we decide we have yet another iteration, another 
alternative, another way to play political games with a document that 
ought to fund Government for whatever length of time it is going to 
take to get the real job done, the less the real job is a real 
possibility.
  So I hope that we could both agree to that. I will agree with what 
the Senator said about the ongoing effort to try to resolve this 
matter.
  I must really commend him and Senator Domenici, the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico, the chair of the Budget Committee, and others 
who have been working diligently all day long in an effort to find some 
resolution. I think we are very close on our side. I wish I could say 
the same for those on the other side. But I do commend them for their 
work and their effort. I know it is still ongoing. And I hope, even 
though the odds seem to be diminishing, I hope at some point, even yet 
today, we could find some resolution. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________