[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 214 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19329-S19330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         POLICY DIFFERENCES AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota for his very strong statement. I know how 
keenly he has followed this matter. I also want to thank the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his very thoughtful analysis. 
He made some extremely important points about the workings of the 
American constitutional system.
  We have a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. 
That means that one branch cannot simply abdicate itself from assuming 
a measure of responsibility when sharp policy differences confront 
decisionmakers.
  There are sharp policy differences over the components of a 7-year 
balanced budget. One approach would make a cut of $270 billion in 
Medicare and give tax breaks of $250 billion. There are many of us who 
think that is a wrong set of priorities, that we ought not to be giving 
the tax breaks and, by not doing so we would not be making deep cuts in 
Medicare. That is an issue that needs to be argued out among the 
Members of the Congress and between the Congress and the President.
  The President has stated he wants to move to a balanced budget, but 
he does not want to do it at the sacrifice of important priorities 
involving Medicare, 

[[Page S19330]]
Medicaid, health care for our citizens, involving educational programs, 
the opportunity for young people to go to college, involving 
environmental matters, in terms of safeguarding our air and water and 
protecting and enhancing our environment. So there are sharp 
differences over priorities.
  Many of us regard the proposal to make sharp cutbacks in the level of 
services for those programs as a radical proposal. In any event, no 
matter how one resolves such issues, the closedown of the Government 
ought not to be a coercive tactic that is permitted. In other words, 
workers are being taken financial hostage in order for one side to get 
its way on a set of policies.
  There are millions of citizens who are not getting services that they 
require. It is impeding the functioning of the private sector, of the 
private economy all across the country. The private sector is not able 
to carry forward as it otherwise would do because the Government is not 
providing certain important services which everyone agrees need to be 
provided.
  In addition, the punishment that is being inflicted upon those who 
work for the Government is extremely unfair and unfortunate.
  I do not know what people assume about the ordinary person's ability 
to meet their financial obligations week to week and month to month. I 
really ask people all across the country to stop and think for a 
moment: If you cease to be paid, if you were not getting your salary 
check, your paycheck, how would you meet your obligations? There are 
some people--I think a limited number--who could handle that situation 
without any difficulty. They have lots of savings, they have lots of 
accumulated wealth put away and they would simply draw down on it. But 
that is not true of the ordinary citizen, and it is not true of the 
ordinary Federal worker. They now are confronted with what amounts to 
family crises.
  Over half a million of those workers have been coming in to work. 
They have been called in. They have been working, but they are not 
getting paid. Another 260,000 have been furloughed. They are not 
getting paid. The answer to this is, of course, for the Government to 
start up again under a clean continuing resolution while the budget 
discussions continue and allow the Government to function and provide 
its services to allow its employees to be paid; not to hold them 
hostage as part of a coercive strategy in order to achieve one's way 
with respect to the broader budget question. Very important budget 
questions, but we ought not to be using this tactic in order to coerce 
the opposite party into submission to a set of budget priorities about 
which there is sharp disagreement.
  So I hope that in short order we will be able to pass a clean 
continuing resolution that allows the workers to come back to work, 
allows the Government to open up and allows the workers to be paid.
  There is another proposal discussed last week to bring them in, but 
they would not be able to do anything because they would be precluded 
from incurring new obligations--in other words, the Government would 
not really perform its functions--and at the same time the workers 
would not be paid. Some of the employee groups have gone into court 
asserting bringing them in to work and failing to pay them violates 
their constitutional rights. I do not know what the outcome of that 
judicial proceeding will be, but it is very clear that you are 
inflicting tremendous personal and family harm on people who are in no 
position to meet their obligations if you cease to provide them with 
their regular pay.
  So I hope very much that we will stop this practice, cease this use 
of the Federal employees as pawns which has put them in a state of 
turmoil and apprehension. Let these dedicated people go back to work, 
let them be paid, and let the citizens of the country receive the 
benefits of the services that they are dedicated to providing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, let me first commend the Senator from 
Maryland for his comments. I think they are right on target.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning 
business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator may proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Presiding Officer for being here and keeping 
the Senate in session.

                          ____________________