[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 29, 1995

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
report for Wednesday, November 22, 1995, into the Congressional Record.

                           The Budget Battle

       As the federal government shut down on November 14, many 
     Hoosiers found themselves angry about the dispute that 
     precipitated the shutdown, unsure about how long it would 
     last, and concerned about how it might affect them.
       The shutdown occurred because Congress has not completed 
     action on all of the measures to provide funding for the 
     government during the current fiscal year, which began on 
     October 1. A short-term funding measure, called a continuing 
     resolution (CR), was passed in September and gave Congress 
     until November 14 to enact spending bills. But by that date 
     only three of the thirteen appropriations bills had been 
     signed into law.
       Congress and the President have not been able to agree to 
     extend the CR. The congressional leadership attached a number 
     of provisions to the second continuing resolution, including 
     an increase in Medicare premiums. President Clinton objected 
     to these provisions, and vetoed the measure. With my support, 
     Congress then passed a continuing resolution that would keep 
     the government open until December 5 and called for balancing 
     the budget in seven years. However, President Clinton also 
     vetoed this measure.
       On November 14, some 800,000 of the federal government's 
     two million civilian employees were furloughed. Many federal 
     government offices were closed, including national parks and 
     museums. New applications for federal benefits, such as 
     Social Security, could not be processed, though payment of 
     Social Security and Medicare benefits continued. The 
     Agriculture and Energy Departments remained open because 
     their funding and been approved. In addition, employees vital 
     to the safety and health of the public, such as air traffic 
     controllers and guards in federal prisons, were kept on duty, 
     as were those on active duty in the military.
       A short-term shutdown of the federal government produces 
     plenty of frustration, inconvenience and confusion, but 
     probably little enduring harm. Congress has typically ensured 
     that federal workers receive pay for the time they spend on 
     furlough. However, a longer shutdown could create major 
     problems for many people. Companies with federal contracts, 
     individuals receiving veterans' benefits, and federal 
     employees could see their payments delayed.
       In addition, shutting down the government is expensive. Pay 
     for furloughed federal employees is estimated to cost about 
     $150 million per day. The shutdown process itself--preparing 
     plans, notifying employees, securing property and so forth--
     also carries a price.
       But perhaps the greatest cost of the shutdown is that it 
     simply reinforces the cynicism and bitterness so many 
     Americans feel about the federal government, particularly 
     elected officials. They see the shutdown as the result of the 
     partisan bickering and political posturing, and they place 
     blame on leaders of both parties for gridlock.
       Complicating the situation further is disagreement on 
     raising the federal debt limit. Treasury Secretary Robert 
     Rubin has taken a number of steps to ensure that the federal 
     government remains below the debt limit, since at that point 
     the government could no longer borrow money to meet its 
     obligations. A default by the federal government could have 
     serious, long-term implications for the American economy, 
     though no one really knows how the markets would react. The 
     big unknown is that much of the debt is held in places abroad 
     where the understanding of American politics is meager. In 
     any event, my view is that we should do everything we can to 
     avoid default. There is no good reason to push the nation to 
     the edge of financial catastrophe.
       I agree with those who find the current standoff 
     unnecessary and counterproductive. Both sides are engaging in 
     political theater at the expense of substance. Congress has 
     had several months to complete work on the appropriations 
     bills. Voters expect us to work together to get the 
     government's business done, and we should do so.
       The current standoff is essentially not about short-term 
     funding, but about competing views on how to balance the 
     budget. The congressional leadership is trying to use the 
     spending and debt limit legislation, where they have a lot of 
     leverage, to force the President to sign the reconciliation 
     bill--the bigger fight where they have little leverage. This 
     is the most difficult struggle over budget priorities I have 
     seen since I have been in Congress. It is a high-stakes 
     dispute over what the role and the priorities of the federal 
     government should be over the next several years.
       The short-term solution to the shutdown of the government 
     may appear manageable, but it is extremely difficult to see 
     the solution to the long-term division between the President 
     and the congressional leadership. The real fight comes when 
     Congress passes the reconciliation bill and the President 
     vetoes it. What is at stake there is the future of Medicare, 
     Medicaid, the welfare system, rules governing the 
     environment, and federal efforts in education, employment 
     training and technology.
       We must take several steps to get beyond the current 
     impasse. I believe that sensible compromises are within 
     reach. First, in my view, Congress should enact a ``clean'' 
     continuing resolution and debt limit increase, without 
     extraneous policy provisions. Second, we ought to continue 
     negotiations in an effort to enact the rest of the 
     appropriations bills for the current fiscal year. Third, we 
     must to the extent possible seek agreement on policy issues 
     contained in the reconciliation bill.
       I suspect in the end we will not be able to resolve all of 
     these major policy differences in 1995. The way out will be 
     to keep the government operating largely under present 
     policies on these unresolved matters and then have a public 
     debate on the budget between now and the 1996 elections. Both 
     sides would then have an opportunity to clarify exactly what 
     they are for. I think this approach would make the voters 
     much more comfortable.
       The question with respect to the shutdown is: do we want a 
     battle or a bill? I believe that Hoosiers want the government 
     to get the people's business done. They are tired of this 
     game of political chicken and are not going to view either 
     party in this debate favorably. Both the President and 
     Congress must seek reasonable solutions, not political 
     points.

                          ____________________