[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 214 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19330-S19332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENOUGH BLAME TO GO AROUND

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, this is a most unusual time that we are 
in. There are people in Washington who are now arguing about who are 
essential employees and who are nonessential employees. I think the 
people of my State of Louisiana have already made a conclusion. After 
seeing the Congress over the last 24 days not able to keep the 
Government in working order, they have decided that the Congress is 
nonessential; that we are incapable of governing, that we are incapable 
of keeping the Government working.
  I have been in Congress over 23 years now, and I have never been in a 
situation like we are in today, and it is most unfortunate.
  When people look to find who is to blame for this, I think there is, 
quite frankly, enough blame to go around for everybody. That is not 
going to get us out of this predicament. Deciding that it is the fault 
of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is not going to solve 
the problem.
  My colleague on the Republican side, Senator Chafee, and I offered a 
proposal about 2 weeks ago now which was a compromise. It was 
significant in that it was not just two U.S. Senators but that it was 
14 who signed up in a bipartisan fashion to make a recommendation that 
would have brought this stalemate of trying to reach a balanced budget 
to a conclusion.
  That proposal said that there would be tax cuts, but the tax cuts 
would be less than many Republicans would like to see. That proposal 
said, ``Yes, there were going to be reductions in Medicaid and 
Medicare,'' and more than many Democrats would like to see. But the 
bottom line is, that was the essence of an agreement, it was an 
outline, a blueprint of how balancing the budget in 7 years could be 
achieved.
  It used CBO numbers and made recommendations that were tough on both 
sides. But it was an agreement. It was actual, real numbers on the size 
of a tax cut. It was actual, real numbers on the size of reductions in 
various programs that are going to have to see less money being made 
available than in the past if we are going to balance the budget in 7 
years.
  That was really the first bipartisan agreement that I have seen that 
has been offered by Members of both parties as a way out of this mess. 
It is very clear that a way out is not just to blame the other side. We 
are past that. The people in my State of Louisiana and people in many 
States have come to the conclusion that something is basically wrong 
when people who are elected to govern can no longer govern, can no 
longer keep the Government operating the way it should.
  While we have done some things, I imagine when people read some of 
the things we have done compared to what we have not been able to do, 
they are going to scratch their heads in further amazement at the 
inability of the system to work as it was designed to work.
  One of the things we did do, which I think is sort of ironic, is that 
the Federal Government and the Senate did manage to pass one piece of 
business, as this article of yesterday, January 1, points out. They 
gave final approval to a bill ensuring that the Palestine Liberation 
Organization office in Washington would stay open. Without the 
legislation, the PLO office would have closed.
  If we can keep the PLO office open, how come we cannot keep nine 
Departments of our own Government open?
  If we can keep the Palestine Liberation Organization open and 
operating, why can we not keep the Department of Commerce working?
  If we can keep the PLO office open, how come we cannot keep the 
Education Department working?
  If we can keep the PLO office open, how come we cannot keep open the 
Health and Human Services Department?
  Or if we can keep open the PLO office in Washington, how come we 
cannot find enough intelligent men and women 

[[Page S19331]]
to come together to find a way to keep the Departments of Housing and 
Justice and Labor and State working?
  So it really is a question of priorities, and I think that so many of 
us on both sides of the aisle have tried to offer suggestions and ideas 
about what to do. As I mentioned, and I see the distinguished junior 
Senator from Virginia on the floor, and he joined with me and Senator 
Chafee and 14 other Senators to offer a package of suggestions that 
would have brought this stalemate to an end, would have opened up the 
nine departments, along with the PLO office that we were able to open, 
keep it open and functioning.

  I was talking to people over the recess here in Washington that are 
actually prohibited from going into the Department of Education. The 
guards at the desk have a list of who is essential, and if you are not 
on the list you cannot even come to the building and work if you wanted 
to. You cannot volunteer to keep your job going to serve the people of 
this country because Congress has not been able to come together. We 
have come together to keep the PLO office open.
  People are really wondering in amazement what has gone wrong in 
Washington. They are telling me ``Enough is enough. We have heard the 
arguments, we have heard the blame game. Can't you folks get together 
and make it work? That is what we elected you for.'' There are some, 
particularly in the other body, who make the argument we will keep the 
pressure on the President by shutting down the Government and by 
shutting down the Government and making these people not be able to 
work and not get paid while we keep the PLO office open--somehow that 
will put pressure on the President to make compromises he might 
otherwise not make. That has proved fruitless--24, 25 days now the 
Government has been partially closed.
  I hope this evening in the negotiations with our team of negotiators 
and the Republican team and the President, who are supposed to meet at 
6 p.m, hopefully we can move toward an agreement. I hope somebody in 
that meeting would pick up the Chafee-Breaux proposal along with the 
Senator from Virginia, Senator Robb, and say, is this not a pretty good 
starting point, and throw that down on the table see if there is a way 
to split some of the differences and get an agreement.
  I want to point out just for a minute or two the illogic of trying to 
say that by shutting the Government down and hurting the Federal 
employees and telling the people that we cannot govern that somehow 
that will pressure the negotiators to come to an agreement. Mr. 
President, we are getting full salary. We are getting paid like it is a 
normal day. We get $133,600 a year; the leadership gets a little bit 
more than that, and they richly deserve it. As long as the Congress is 
continuing to get paid like nothing is happening, we are not going to 
have any real pressure.
  Senator Barbara Boxer from California offered a resolution to cut the 
pay of Members of Congress several weeks ago. I said that is, maybe, 
just a little too extreme. That type of rhetoric is not really 
essential and really necessary. But as each day has passed I have come 
to the conclusion that she is right, that as long as we are getting 
paid for performing our duties--which I suggest we are not performing 
as we should--there is not a lot of pressure for us to make the real 
compromises that are essential to get the job done.
  I was amazed by an article which I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record from the Washington Post of Tuesday, January 2, 
1996, entitled, ``Don't Touch Our Pay, House Republicans Say.'' ``Hill 
Checks Protected During Budget Fight.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Jan. 2, 1996]

               Don't Touch Our Pay, House Republicans Say


               hill checks protected during budget fight

                           (By Larry Marasak)

       House Republicans have offered an abundance of proposals in 
     their drive for a balanced budget agreement, but giving up 
     their paychecks apparently isn't one of them.
       While the partial government closure will leave some 
     760,000 federal workers with pruned paychecks, House GOP 
     leaders repeatedly have rebuffed attempts to halt 
     congressional pay during a shutdown.
       House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (Tex.), the third-ranking 
     House Republican, offered these reasons for the opposition in 
     a recent CNN appearance: Balancing the budget ``has nothing 
     to do with our pay''; Democrats were ``demagoguing'' the 
     issue by trying to change the subject from a balanced budget; 
     and, as a member of Congress, he was a ``constitutional 
     officer,'' not a federal employee.
       Rank and file House lawmakers--Republican and Democrat 
     alike--are paid $133,600; Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) gets 
     $171,500; Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) gets 
     $148,400, as does Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-
     Mo.).
       Although some federal employees make more than $100,000 a 
     year, the norm is the same as ``most working Americans, the 
     majority of whom live paycheck to paycheck,'' said John 
     Koskinen, deputy director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget.
       President Clinton, who makes $200,000 a year, has not given 
     up his pay, though his aides have said for days that his 
     staff was researching whether forsaking his salary would be 
     constitutional.
       Three times, the Senate uanimously approved language that 
     would decree--during a full or partial shutdown--that no 
     paychecks go out to the 435 House members, the 100 senators 
     or the president.
       Five times, Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said he tried 
     to get the House to consider the proposal and was rebuffed by 
     Republicans--especially in the leadership-controlled Rules 
     Committee.
       ``I think the Republican leadership is very two-faced,'' 
     said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the chief Senate sponsor 
     of the legislation. ``They want federal employees and 
     contractors [serving the government] to sacrifice themselves 
     on the altar of their balanced budget plan, but are not 
     willing to sacrifice themselves on that altar.''
       ``It's cowardice on their part for them to put the 
     paychecks of a lot of innocent people on the line and refuse 
     to put their own paychecks on the line,'' Durbin said.
       In addition to Durbin's rejection in the Rules Committee--
     the gatekeeper panel that decides which bills and amendments 
     go to the floor--the Boxer proposal was deleted by a House-
     Senate conference from legislation to abolish the Interstate 
     Commerce Commission.
       When DeLay was asked on CNN's ``Talk Back Live'' on Dec. 19 
     whether he would support congressional pay cuts during a 
     shutdown, he told the audience participation show: ``No, I 
     would not, I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional 
     officer. My job is in the Constitution of the United States.
       ``I am not a government employee. I am in the 
     Constitution.''
       Boxer has introduced another version of the legislation to 
     answer congressional critics who said stopping their pay 
     could treat members of Congress more harshly than other 
     federal workers. The latest bill would treat lawmakers the 
     same as the most adversely affected federal employee.
       ``If they lost a week's pay we would lose a week's pay,'' 
     Boxer said. ``If their pay was delayed, our pay would be 
     delayed.''

  Mr. BREAUX. Some of the quotes are absolutely amazing, from some of 
our Republican colleagues: ``Balancing the budget has nothing to do 
with our pay.''
  A further comment was, ``As a Member of Congress this Member was a 
constitutional officer, not a Federal employee.''
  Three times the Senate has passed unanimously language that would, 
during a full or partial shutdown of our Government, say that no 
paychecks would go out to the 435 Members of the House and the 100 
Members of the Senate. Five times they tried to enact that same 
legislation in the House. Each time they were prevented from bringing 
it up. When this particular Member was asked about whether they would 
support this congressional pay provision, they said ``No, I will not. I 
am not a Federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My job is in 
the Constitution of the United States. I am not a Government employee. 
I am in the Constitution.''
  Mr. President, I think people back home have had enough. They have 
had enough of people who grandstand, of people who play the blame game, 
and people in the Congress who say they are better than anyone else. We 
are getting full salary and let the rest of the people suffer because 
we want to make a point.
  I think it is time to come to insist on rather drastic action. I 
support the efforts of Senator Boxer. I think she was right on target. 
She was early and ahead in the game in offering something that I 
guarantee will make a difference.
  If we had our pay cut today, can you imagine how many Members would 
be back in Washington, no matter where they might be in the world or in 
their respective States. No matter how many times flights would change 
and schedules would change, Members would be 

[[Page S19332]]
rushing back to Washington to say, do you know something, we are not 
getting paid, we better get back and fix the problem. There is not 
going to be any pressure that anybody can put on anybody in the 
Congress like saying we are not going to get paid when we cannot make 
the Government work. To some of us that is our only income. It will 
make one heck of a big difference.
  I thought it was pretty much high rhetoric when initially offered. I 
cannot think of anything else to do. We got together with a bipartisan 
group. We offered a bipartisan suggestion. This is a blueprint or an 
outline. It has not worked. It still has not made the progress that I 
think is essential.
  I suggest, Mr. President, that when, as I understand it, we have to 
have another continuing resolution that is going to be offered, I think 
maybe tomorrow sometime, because there is a continuing resolution to 
ensure that foster care payments and AFDC payments and veteran payments 
and Medicare payments would have to be made, that at that time if we 
have not reached some kind of a framework of an agreement, I will 
attempt to offer once again a suggestion, and part of that legislation, 
an amendment to that continuing resolution which will say Members of 
Congress shall be treated in the same manner as the basic pay of the 
most adversely affected Federal employees who are not going to be 
compensated during the shutdown period.
  Mr. President, we cannot be treated better than the people that we 
are responsible for their jobs. I guarantee that if that amendment 
passes there will be a rush back to Washington by Members of both 
parties who will come to Washington, roll up our sleeves, and stay here 
and not leave until we get the job done. That may be the only way I 
think that we are going to push ourselves into making a proper 
compromise that is absolutely essential and necessary.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period for 
morning business be extended by an additional 5 minutes and I be 
recognized to speak therein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________