[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17463-S17464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Alaska, my 
friend from Virginia, and my friend, Senator Lott, for their remarks on 
the matter at hand. I understand as a senior member of the Armed 
Services Committee, and I join and thank Senator Stevens, Senator 
Warner, and others for bringing up this matter. It is a very critical 
matter and we cannot pass over it. So whatever help I can be to you in 
this regard, I will be.
  I simply point out that Senator Warner and I came here together, and 
we have served on the Armed Services Committee ever since then. I have 
been disappointed, as he has, that we still have not reported out of 
the Armed Services Committee the authorizing legislation, which 
customarily should precede the appropriations that are handled so very 
ably, and have been for so many years, by my colleague from Alaska. You 
bring up a very good point. I think that, as important as that is, we 
should realize and recognize that people in other areas are just as 
surely affected adversely. That is why we have to move.
  Thank you very much, my friend from Alaska, for saying we should stay 
here for however long it takes; there should be no recess. I was 
delighted, in case my colleague did not know it, that within the hour, 
the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected a move by Speaker 
Gingrich to adjourn the House of Representatives. How in the world 
anybody who understands Government--including the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, who evidently you have been in contact with 
regarding the dire circumstances coming on to the Defense Department--
why in the world he would want to adjourn the House of Representatives 
is beyond me. I was delighted to see that it was overwhelmingly 
rejected. I do not know whether there has ever been a case before where 
a motion to adjourn has been overridden on the floor. I do not ever 
remember that happening, at least on this side, while I have been here.
  I think maybe that message was sent very loud and clear to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives that this is no time for us to 
be adjourning or recessing. We have to stay here regardless of how 
early we come in or how late we work every night, to show that we are 
trying to work out the problems on this. I suspect and say, without 
knowing it for sure, that if the Members on the floor of the Senate 
right now would have their way, we could probably sit down and resolve 
this matter very, very quickly. But politics on both sides, 
unfortunately, are being played.
  I simply say that I was so pleased that the House of Representatives 
did not take the recommendations of their Speaker and adjourn. I 
thought it was rather interesting as I watched that vote, that early in 
the first 5 minutes of that vote, I believe there were 87 or 88 
Republicans who had voted with their leader, Speaker Gingrich, to 
adjourn the House of Representatives. But before the vote was over, 
when the Republicans saw what was happening, that 87 or 88 shrunk down 
to, I believe, about 32 at the end, as even the Republicans recognized 
that their leader was way, way off base by trying to adjourn with the 
dire circumstances that face our country today, including the ones 
brought forth and explained in great detail by my friend from Virginia 
and my friend from Alaska. I will be of whatever help I can.
  Now, on the overall and underlying matter that was addressed by 
Senator Lott, objected to by the minority leader, I think this points 
up the problem that we have today. Let me, as best I can, try to 
explain what is being overlooked in this discussion. Within the last 
few minutes, I have heard, I believe, the phrase ``balance the budget 
in 7 years'' about 17 times. Well, Mr. President, notwithstanding the 
fact that there is some dispute as to how we get there, this Senator 
has wanted to balance the budget in 7 years, if not sooner, for a long, 
long time.

  In fact, I was one of those that had voted for the constitutional 
amendment that would have been referred to the States to accomplish 
that end. So my credentials, certainly, with regard to national defense 
and certainly with regard to fiscal responsibility, I think, are pretty 
well established, and most people even on that side of the aisle would 
agree.
  I simply say that, when you throw around this phrase, a 7-year 
balanced budget--I have been for that for a long, long time, as have 
many people on this side of the aisle. I would like to advise all so 
that we can straighten that out--all that are hearing my voice at this 
time--that as late as last night when we thought we were very near 
reaching a compromise, we had as a part of that agreement that we would 
balance the budget in 7 years. That was put up not by the President, 
but by Leon Panetta and myself and others who were in on the 
negotiations. So when we throw around the term ``balance the budget in 
7 years,'' not everybody, but most people are for that. The President's 
Chief of Staff was here offering to enter into an agreement for a 
continuing resolution to accomplish that end.
  Now, the holdup comes with regard to how we reach that balanced 
budget in 7 years. Therein lies the grave concerns. What the 
Republicans are saying, I believe, without emphasizing it, is that they 
want to tie the President's hands to a 7-year balanced budget on their 
terms. I simply say, Mr. President, that I think that is wrong for lots 
of reasons, and I will not be part of that.
  When you ask the question, ``What is at stake here?''--and that 
question is asked by Senator Lott--well, what is at stake here is a 
great deal. What is at stake here are basic principles of Government, 
and most of us on this side of the aisle do not agree with the way 
those on that side of the aisle are coming up with their numbers, 
setting their priorities. We think they are mixed up. I said earlier 
today on the floor of the Senate and, therefore, I will try again at 
this time to keep my rhetoric within due bounds, because I do not 
believe expanded rhetoric of simply abuse is particularly constructive.
  However, among other things that have been overlooked about what is 
at stake here, I interpret it as being a basic violation of 
constitutional principles that is at stake here. The Constitution 
guarantees the right of the President to veto a bill passed by the 
Congress. The Constitution does not say that he has a right to veto 
only after consultation with Congress. The Constitution does not say 
that the President, in balancing the budget, has to do it in a fashion 
and in a manner that the majority of the House or Senate propose. The 
Constitution guarantees, as a very important part of that document--and 
the Framers of the Constitution, in attempting to have balance of the 
three equal branches of 

[[Page S 17464]]
Government to try to balance the judiciary, executive, and the 
legislative, gave the President that power.

  What the Republicans are really doing, Mr. President, whether they 
realize it or not, is putting a gun to the head of the President of the 
United States, saying, ``If you veto, which you have a right to do 
under the Constitution, we are going to take that away, or attempt to 
take it away by saying to you we are going to close down Government if 
you exercise your right, Mr. President.''
  We are going to violate the principles of the Constitution simply by 
putting that gun to your head and saying, ``If you do that, we will 
close down Government because you, Mr. President, can't veto this bill 
or you will close down Government.''
  I think the President is standing up not only for himself but every 
other President that we are going to have in the years to come. If this 
President of the United States does not stand up and protect the 
prerogatives of the President of the United States, that are guaranteed 
in the Constitution, if he is going to set precedence here to some time 
in the future with some other Congress and some other President, they 
are going to hark back and say ``Well, the Republicans back there in 
1995 took away the prerogatives of the President.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time allotted to the Senator from Nebraska 
has expired.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent since there are no 
other speakers on this side of the aisle that I be allowed to continue 
for an additional 3 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will allow for another 3 minutes and then I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. So, Mr. President, I simply say, what is at stake here is 
the fact that we cannot get together.
  What is at stake is the President of the United States and others who 
were negotiating last night said, ``OK, 7 years. We will work for a 7-
year balanced budget but we are not going to accept what I think is 
being tried to be dictated to by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.''
  We are in a very serious situation. I looked at the clippings from 
the newspapers back home today. One headline says ``GOP Puts Wrapping 
on Budget Package;'' ``Return to Sender Seen as Response.''
  Here is another: ``Gingrich's Remarks Fuel Democrats' Budget Fight.'' 
Down below that a headline, ``Park Service to Evict Campers.''
  Then, of course, ``Veto Expected As House OK's Defense Funds.'' That 
is what has been addressed here.
  I simply say, Mr. President, that if we could have the continuing 
resolution that we have been pleading for, on a short-term basis, that 
has been continually rejected by the Republicans, primarily led, I 
suspect, by Speaker Gingrich, we could have that continuing resolution, 
all of us know that all of these concerns that have just been addressed 
by the Senator from Alaska and others would fade. They just would not 
be there.

  Why can we not be reasonable? Two other items and headlines: ``Office 
of Aging Plans Furloughs, Service Cuts,'' and ``21 Guard Drills Are 
Canceled As Budget Standoff Continues.''
  Let me read briefly from the ``Office of Aging Plans'':

       The Eastern Nebraska Office on Aging intends to furlough 74 
     of its 90 employees because of the federal budget dispute.
       Bob Whitmore, a spokesman for the Omaha-based agency, said 
     the furloughs would take effect at 5 p.m. Wednesday. . .''

  All this would not be necessary and we would not go through the silly 
charade if we could have, as we have had several times in the past, a 
short-term continuing resolution to December 5 or December 15.
  All this could be set aside if it were not for the fact that the 
Republicans were trying to put that gun to the President's head to take 
away the constitutional right guaranteed to the President by saying 
``You are going to do it our way or none, or we will close down 
Government.''
  I hope we have an understanding between cooler heads in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 1 minute and 21 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. I do hope that I could pick up on your final comments, I 
say to my good friend--that is, cool heads. I hope the Senator would 
rephrase some of his rhetoric about the gun to the head.
  I kind of think that this matter needs a little cooling off in terms 
of rhetoric, Mr. President. I know that the meetings which I have 
attended today, it has been calmness, coolness, and very conscientious 
efforts on behalf of those in attendance to try to bring this to 
resolve.
  I know the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Dole, is going to be 
working through the early evening. I hope to work with him on this 
matter.
  One last comment. The distinguished colleague, a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, mentioned the authorization bill. I say that 
Chairman Thurmond has been working through late last night and again 
this morning with the ranking member, Mr. Nunn, and other members of 
the committee.
  I am pleased to say I think we are making some progress on that bill 
to bring it to a conclusion and soon, hopefully, present it to the 
Senate, the conference report.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________