[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 185 (Sunday, November 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17476-S17478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have not heard all of the presentations 
on the floor today, but I am sure I would agree with some of what has 
been said in the context of the shutdown of Government. 

[[Page S 17477]]

  The shutdown of Government should not have happened. It should not 
continue even another minute. There is a lot of talk about who is to 
blame, and there is probably plenty of blame to go around. Yesterday, I 
said there is not any juice left in this lemon. It has been squeezed in 
a dozen different directions. The fact is that this shutdown ought to 
end.
  The Speaker of the House, beginning last April, talked about creating 
a train wreck, creating a shutdown of Government, boasting about a 
titanic confrontation resulting in a shutdown. Well, so we have had a 
titanic confrontation and a shutdown. Regrettably, it hurts our 
country. It ought not last. We should have and will have, in my 
judgment, an aggressive debate about the priorities of this country. We 
will not have a debate and should not have a debate about whether the 
budget should be balanced. Of course, it should be balanced.
  The debate is about how you balance the budget. I hope that 
negotiators, this afternoon, will decide quickly that the Government 
shutdown ends immediately, that the negotiations on a reconciliation 
bill to get to a balanced budget begin immediately, and that we balance 
the Federal budget.
  There is, however, more at stake than just balancing the budget. We 
certainly should do that. But the plan to do that also represents the 
spending plan for the next 7 years, or, said differently, it represents 
the spending priorities of this country for the next 7 years. That is 
important. The Senator from Arizona, before he left the floor, 
referenced me and said that I have been active on this. He is correct. 
But then he said that the difference is, those on the other side of the 
aisle want the people to send more of their money to Government and 
those on his side of the aisle want the people to be able to keep more 
of their money. I am telling you that is not the case. There is not 
that difference between the two sides of this aisle. I want to 
demonstrate that there is not that kind of difference.
  The difference is in what we would choose to spend the public's money 
for. I want to use a chart to demonstrate that. We recently had an 
appropriations bill on the floor, the Defense bill. The majority party, 
the Republicans, decided that the Pentagon was not asking for enough 
money. They said: You are not asking for enough, we demand that you 
take more. We insist that you accept $7 billion more in spending in 
this 1 year, over $30 billion more in the 7 years. We insist that you 
spend more money. We insist that you buy some B-2 bombers. You did not 
ask for them and we understand that. You asked to keep the production 
line open but not to buy more bombers. We insist you start buying more 
bombers. We have a plan and we insist you buy 20 more B-2 bombers that 
cost over $30 billion. We do not have enough money, they say, however, 
to keep the Head Start Program fully funded. We are short $533 million 
for that. So 50,000 kids, everyone of whom has a name, little boys and 
girls currently in the Head Start Program are going to be told we 
cannot afford you, we know the Head Start Program works. It is a 
wonderful program. A tremendous investment in young kids who come from 
homes of difficulty, low-income homes. It works. It makes a difference 
in young kids' lives.

  We are told by this plan that we do not have enough money for 50,000 
of those kids. But we put the almost identical amount of money into B-2 
bombers that the Pentagon did not ask for, did not order, and does not 
want. The national missile defense, star wars--it is a fancy way of 
saying star wars. There is $375 million more stuck in the budget for 
star wars that the Defense Department did not ask for. And $1.3 billion 
is put in the budget for an assault ship, amphibious assault ship that 
the Pentagon did not ask for; $974 million is stuck in the budget for a 
second assault ship that the Pentagon did not ask for. In fact, most 
people thought the Pentagon does not want one, but Congress wants one, 
so Congress will decide which of these two it shall buy.
  On that side of the aisle, they said, heck, as long as we have the 
public credit card, the sky is the limit, so buy them both. We have 
plenty of money. Buy both of those ships for $2 billion. Then we say 
for veterans health care, for those veterans who need outpatient 
visits, 46,000 fewer hospitalizations, and about a million fewer 
outpatient visits; we are going to save money on you, veterans, because 
we do not have the money. We spent it on ships the Pentagon did not ask 
for.
  Low-income home energy assistance, 1.3 million households in the 
middle of the winter when it gets cold, get assistance for the home 
heating bill because they do not have the money. Well, they are sorry, 
they say we do not have the money.
  But when it comes to F-15 and F-18 airplanes, they say, ``By the way, 
let's buy more, the Pentagon is not right. We know they only asked for 
a certain amount but we insist they buy more.''
  I raise these points because when someone stands up and says, ``We 
are the ones who want the taxpayers to keep their money and you on this 
side of the aisle, you are the ones who want to take it from them.'' I 
say baloney, what a bunch of nonsense. You all want to spend it on jet 
fighter planes and B-2 bombers and star wars. We want to spend it on 
Star Schools and nutrition programs and Head Start and education that 
invests in people.
  It is not a question of how much we spend. It is a question of what 
we spend the money on.
  I mentioned yesterday, there is probably no better metaphor for the 
difference in priorities--not the difference in the desire to balance 
the budget. We should, we must and we will balance the Federal budget.
  Seven years, that is fine with me. Make it 5 if we can get Alan 
Greenspan and the Federal Reserve to get the boot off the public's 
neck. Every time we get any amount of economic growth at all, the Fed 
jumps up and raises interest rates to slow the economy down. We can get 
some decent economic growth in this country and we can balance the 
budget in 5 years. We do not need 7.
  The metaphor that I think is the best on priorities is a little 
program called Star Schools. It is a $25 million program nationally, 
Star Schools. In the proposal given to us this past week, Star Schools 
is cut 40 percent; 40 percent of the funding for Star Schools is gone.
  But star wars, national missile defense, ergo star wars, a 100-
percent increase. The Pentagon does not ask for star wars funding. 
These folks say, ``We want 100 percent increase in star wars funding.'' 
A little program, about one-twentieth the size, a 40-percent cut in 
Star Schools funding.
  That represents a difference. These differences in priorities are not 
little issues for a lot of the American people.
  A Republican, David Gergen, who also worked for Democratic 
administrations--he worked for the Clinton administration as well as 
Reagan and Bush, but he said recently in an article the following: The 
lowest 20 percent of the population,'' under the majority's party line, 
``Would lose more income under these spending cuts than the rest of the 
population combined. At the other end, the highest 20 percent would 
gain more from the tax cuts than everyone else combined.''
  That is a difference in priorities, a legitimate difference, one we 
ought to have an ambitious debate on. But we ought not, because of a 
continuing resolution and the intransigence of some, have the 
Government shut down while we debate that.
  I am not convinced these days with what is going on in Congress and 
with the kind of extremism and the interest and, yes, even the appetite 
to create chaos and, as I said before, what one participant called a 
titanic confrontation, I am not convinced that the Congress could very 
easily approve the Ten Commandments. Surely they would find something 
wrong with them. Almost certainly it would provoke enormous debate. 
Should there be 11 commandments or maybe only 8? Should we combine six 
and seven?

  The fact is, all of us represent the same interests in this country. 
Yes, we belong to different political parties. We may be conservatives 
and liberals. But I think the American public would like us to first of 
all end this shutdown, and second, turn our attention in a serious way 
to balance the Federal budget and then do much, much more because our 
lives are not just about balancing the budget.
  That is important, and we should do that. That is not the only thing 
we can 

[[Page S 17478]]
do in this country. There is much, much more to do to move this country 
ahead, to advance our economic interests, to compete with others around 
the world who are shrewd, tough international competitors, to help 
create more jobs, more opportunity, and more income for the American 
people. There is much, much more to be done on all of that.
  I know there are some in the Congress who do not believe in much of 
anything that Government does. They do not like Government. But you 
know Government builds our schools, our roads. We create a police 
force. We do it together, in something called Government. We have done 
a lot of wonderful things in 50 years. We have made some mistakes, but 
we do it together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. In this debate about priorities, what we need to do is 
decide--all of us, of every political persuasion--that we want the same 
goals for America. And then we debate, with the guidance of the 
American people, how we achieve those goals.
  Do we, in fact, achieve those goals by doubling the funding for star 
wars and deciding star schools are unimportant? I do not think so. Some 
others may think so. If that is the case, we should have that debate 
and have the counsel of the American people, as we do, and make 
decisions.
  Mr. President, 200 years of differing views in this country have 
required us in a democratic system to make decisions by compromise. 
This time is no different. Compromise is necessary now. I hope by the 
end of today we are over this hump, the Government shutdown has ended, 
and we get on to the serious business of balancing the Federal budget 
and making America better by the right investments in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Nevada is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Chair advise 
the Senator from Nevada when there is 1 minute of the 10 minutes 
remaining.

                          ____________________