[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 185 (Sunday, November 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17473-S17475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            EFFECTS OF SHUTTING DOWN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to share my views of appreciation 
for the remarks just made by the Senator from Colorado. I would also 
like to express my appreciation to the Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe], 
on the introduction of her legislation, and I urge the leadership on 
both sides of the aisle to take up that legislation and pass it.
  As the Senator from Maine pointed out, there is a great credibility 
gap here in the Congress that we treat ourselves all too often 
differently from the American people. This is a glaring example of it. 
People who also work for the Federal Government are not receiving their 
pay and benefits, and we in the Congress continue to do so.
  That is not a good message for us to send. I do believe that as in 
the past there is very little doubt we will compensate those who have 
been laid off as nonessential workers, although I would certainly hope 
we in the Congress would examine the impact or the lack of impact of 
the absence of some of those nonessential workers and perhaps over time 
we could use that as a guide to downsizing the size of Government. In 
the meantime, we in the Congress should not accept our paychecks when 
Federal workers are also not receiving them.
  Mr. President, I wish to also point out that some of the actions 
taken in this downsizing or laying off of essential workers and 
providing what is deemed nonessential, cutting off what are deemed 
nonessential services to the 

[[Page S 17474]]
American people has gone a little bit too far, and I speak specifically 
of the Grand Canyon.
  For the first time in its history, the Grand Canyon has been closed 
down with a very few number of employees. Most of the services could 
have been provided to people who come from all over the world. I think 
it is just a disgrace and a bit of political demagoguery that the Grand 
Canyon is being shut down because of this crisis. The Federal 
Government, the Department of the Interior and, most of all, Secretary 
Babbitt should know that we could provide services to about 90 percent 
of the visitors with just a handful of employees. I urge the President 
and the Secretary of the Interior to reverse that decision.
  I also point out that in our zeal--and it is well-founded zeal--to 
protect those who are Government workers who are not receiving their 
pay, let us remember that there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds 
of thousands, of Americans who are directly dependent upon places like 
the Grand Canyon--the hotel employees, the concessionaires, the people 
who supply all of the things that go into these provisions of 
Government services that will never be compensated. They will never be 
compensated. I appreciate very much what the Senator from Maine is 
trying to do for Government workers and what we will do, but let us not 
forget that there are a whole lot of people who are not Government 
employees but who are dependent upon Government for their economics and 
their livelihoods, and their families are dependent upon it, and they 
will have a very bleak Thanksgiving because they have already lost 
income which they can never regain.
  That is what the tragedy of this whole confrontation and crisis is 
all about. I understand why many Americans say, as a commentator this 
morning on one of the talk shows said, it is a food fight and mothers 
would not approve of their sons behaving the way we have seen happen, 
especially wrestling matches in the Chamber of the House of 
Representatives and a great deal of disparagement of integrity and 
character and personal attacks that are being mounted on both sides.
  But, Mr. President, I do not think we should let it distract us from 
the fact that there is an enormous amount at stake here. And that is 
really whether we are going to carry out the commitment that we made to 
the American people in the election of 1994. And for us to depart from 
the valid assumptions which have been supported by Members on the other 
side of the aisle, by the President of the United States, and all of 
us, and the Congressional Budget Office, as providing us the basis for 
economic assumptions, would be an absolute travesty.
  Mr. President, I will not go through again the number of times the 
President of the United States has changed his view as to how many 
years it would take to balance the budget. But I do remember quite well 
in 1993 when in a rather raucous State of the Union message the 
President of the United States said--and I quote from his State of the 
Union Address, as he explained to Congress and the American people why 
he used CBO numbers to score his 1994 budget proposal.
  He said:

       I did this so that we could argue about priorities with the 
     same set of numbers. I did this so that no one could say I 
     was estimating my way out of this difficulty. I did this 
     because if we can agree together on the most prudent revenues 
     we are likely to get if the recovery stays, and we do the 
     right things economically, then it will turn out better for 
     the American people than we say. In the last 12 years, 
     because there were differences over revenue estimates, you 
     and I know that both parties were given greater elbow room 
     for irresponsibility. Let us at least argue about the same 
     set of numbers so the American people will think we are 
     shooting straight with them.

  Mr. President, let us let the American people know that we are 
shooting straight with them. We can only do it with Congressional 
Budget Office numbers. I heard one of the President's advisers this 
morning going through the same routine that they have, that if we 
balance the budget in 7 years, if we stick to the CBO numbers, we will 
destroy the American's ability to receive welfare, education, student 
loans, et cetera, et cetera.
  It is the same line we have been hearing for a long, long time. 
Clearly for quite awhile it has had resonance with the American people. 
There is a legitimate question that needs to be asked. If we do not 
balance the budget, what happens to all of those programs--education, 
Medicare, welfare, all of those programs if we do not stop this 
reckless spending? And I think the answer is obvious. None of those 
programs can be funded if we continue to amass this enormous debt that 
has laid $175,000 debt on every child born in America today, only to 
pay the interest on the debt that we have already accumulated.
  Mr. President, I hear a lot of talk about a compromise, so do my 
colleagues. And compromise is the name of the business in Government. 
But if we compromise our 7-year commitment, and if we compromise the 
Congressional Budget Office numbers, then we will have done a great 
disservice not only to the overwhelming majority of the American people 
that told us they wanted the budget balanced in the last election but 
to future generations of Americans who, by us using irresponsible 
numbers and unrealistic figures, would do a great disservice to them.
  Let me also point out one other thing, Mr. President. This is really 
all about how much money Government can spend. If we use the Office of 
Management and Budget numbers, they will provide different estimates 
which will then say less sacrifice is required to balance the budget 
thereby giving the executive branch and the other bureaucracies more 
money to spend.

  The question is, are we going to let the American people keep that 
money and spend it themselves or are we going to send it to Washington 
and continue to fund many, many failed programs which have not only not 
helped the American people but in the view of many of us in the case of 
the failed welfare system, harmed the American people more than it has 
helped. So it is really about how much money is going to be spent.
  I always enjoy it when my colleagues--I see my colleague from North 
Dakota who has been very active on this issue on the floor--say we want 
to balance the budget, too. Give us your plan over 7 years, and give us 
credible numbers, and we do not have a problem. We can start the 
Government back to work in a New York minute. But the question is 
whether there is going to be the commitment over 7 years and whether we 
are going to use realistic numbers.
  Mr. President, this morning the Concord Coalition took out a full 
page ad in the Washington Post. I urge my colleagues to look at it. I 
do not agree with everything said here by the Concord Coalition, but I 
do think they make some very important and valid points.
  We can either get an agreement here today or tomorrow or the next day 
or the next day or on Thanksgiving Day or afterward, but at some point 
we are going to have to agree and get the Government going again. I do 
not know when that will be. I hope it is today. But what we decide 
today or tomorrow, or when we make that agreement, it will directly 
impact the future of America. And those that call this a food fight, or 
whether somebody was snubbed on an airplane or not, are not cognizant 
of the fact this is really what the differing philosophies are all 
about, between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle, 
whether the American people should keep their money and not send it to 
Washington, DC, or whether the Government spends the money that is 
their hard-earned money, which is now for an average family of four in 
America is $1 out of every $4. In 1950 that same average family of four 
sent $1 out of every $50 to Washington, DC, in the form of taxes. And I 
know of no one who believes that same family in 1995 is better off than 
that family in 1950.
  Mr. President, I know my time has nearly expired. I urge my 
colleagues to agree rather than disagree, and regain the level of 
civility that is required for us in order to reach reasoned and mature 
decisions and judgments.
  Mr. President, I yield the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous-
consent request made earlier be amended so that I be allowed to 
continue in morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes. 

[[Page S 17475]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
  It is my understanding that the procedure now before the Senate is 
that we are in morning business, and that we are each allowed to speak 
up to 10 minutes. Is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am sorry. I understood it was 5 minutes. That is why I 
requested 10 minutes.
  I ask that I simply seek recognition under the normal order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________