[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S18814]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE BUDGET IMPASSE

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I do not believe there is justification for 
the partial shutdown of the Federal Government. It is really occurring 
only because of a widely perceived and grossly exaggerated assumption 
that the long-term Federal budget must be concluded in the same 
timeframe as the annual appropriations bills.
  There is no real basis for a linkage between the two beyond the 
budget for the current fiscal year. The fact that there is an 
assumption of linkage beyond that point is, at best, an artful strategy 
or, at worst, a hoax on the public and on our democratic Government. 
Appropriations and reconciliation are two completely different 
processes.
  On the one hand, it is notable that significant agreement already has 
been reached on a great many major reductions in Government 
expenditures in the 13 major appropriations bills that have been or are 
being processed. But they are all badly behind schedule, through no 
fault of our President, and six of them are heavily burdened by 
extraneous provisions dealing with matters like striker replacement and 
the abortion issue--matters that should be addressed in separate 
legislation on their own merits. And now the passage of interim 
spending authority has been arbitrarily made a condition of budget 
reconciliation.
  But the reconciliation process is an entirely separate matter. Unlike 
the appropriations process, the failure of which leads to a cutoff of 
current funding, the reconciliation process is not driven by immediate 
need. Absent passage of a reconciliation bill, current law stands. The 
Government continues to operate at existing levels until reasonable 
agreement can be reached about changed priorities and a new level of 
commitment.
  That the two processes were declared to be compressed into the same 
timeframe is simply a transparent device to force acceptance of policy 
choices that are not in accord with the priorities of the American 
people or the President.
  The second continuing resolution passed in November tightened the 
time frame by specifying that a 7-year balanced budget plan should be 
enacted in the first session of this Congress, which presumably ends 
January 2. But the remaining period of 2 weeks includes the traditional 
holiday season and it seems to me that any comprehensive solution 
forced this week would inevitably be flawed by haste.
  Mr. President, the time for budgetary hostage-taking is over. The 
country will not stand for it and both parties put themselves at risk 
of public rejection because of what appears to be petty and small-
minded squabbling.
  As I see it, the solution must come in two separate steps:
  First, the appropriations process must be concluded without any 
further delay. All remaining bills should be sent to the President 
forthwith in whatever form a majority can approve. Vetoed bills should 
be returned promptly so that revised versions can be enacted. A 
realistic continuing resolution should be passed providing funding 
authority at least until January 12 to allow for the process of 
revising and repassing vetoed legislation.
  Second, separately, the terms of the second continuing resolution 
must be modified to provide for an expanded time frame for 
reconciliation extending into the second session. The President is 
entitled to adequate opportunity to secure the best budget he can 
obtain that will reflect his highest priorities, while still honoring 
those of the congressional majority. As a practical matter, it will be 
necessary to reach closure on at least the first stages of a long range 
budget by the statutory date for presentation of the fiscal year 1997 
budget by the first Monday in February.
  Mr. President, I offer these views from a vantage point of some 
detachment. I have not endorsed the idea of a balanced budget and I do 
not subscribe to the mantra that it should be achieved in the arbitrary 
timeframe of 7 years.
  I do believe we should curb deficit spending, and that includes 
borrowing to pay for a tax cut. And I do not believe the agenda of the 
United States should be set by a willful subgroup of the House 
majority.
  Clearly, we all are going to have to give ground. We in the minority, 
for example, must acknowledge more candidly the need for constraints on 
the Federal medical programs. The majority must relent their drive to 
curtail great advances we have made in social legislation, particularly 
education. And both sides, I believe, must acknowledge the patent 
futility of cutting taxes at the very time we seek to curtail deficits.
  Tax cuts must be deferred for the present, even if it means a delay 
in more favorable treatment for capital gains, and I support more 
favorable treatment for capital gains.
  I think the image that the country has of us is that of children 
squabbling. I hope the sooner we can get down to business and reach a 
compromise, the better off we are. Plus the Government only moves when 
there is compromise. And in this case we are denying it the opportunity 
to work.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________