[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 214 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19336-S19337]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE 18TH DAY OF SHUTDOWN

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are in the 18th day of a partial 
Government shutdown, the longest in our history. The Senator from 
Alaska just said the taxpayers ought to be irate. They should be 
irate--all taxpayers--because it is not just the more than 700,000 
Federal employees who are either working and not getting paid, or are 
staying home and not getting paid, but who know they will be paid some 
time in the future who are being affected. The fact is, this shutdown 
is estimated to cost taxpayers $40 million a day.
  Mr. President, 18 days, that is $720 million. We are approaching $1 
billion that this unnecessary shutdown has cost the taxpayers of this 
country, and yet those who prolong it fancy themselves as fiscal 
conservatives. They are willing to throw the taxpayers' money away by 
shutting down the Federal Government.
  Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, has offered time and time 
again a clean continuing resolution that would continue the Government 
operations to a date certain. This would put these Federal workers back 
to 

[[Page S19337]]
work and end the waste, yet that has been turned down time and time and 
time again by the Republican side. All we've asked is to pass a clean 
continuing resolution, keep the Government operating to a date certain 
and we do not care what that date is. We can do it once a week or 
something similar, but at least get these people back to work and stop 
the $40 million a day waste of taxpayer money.
  I forget how many times Senator Daschle has tried to offer that or 
has offered it here and has been turned down. More than 10 times, I 
believe.
  So we have tried on this side of the aisle to save the taxpayers this 
$40 million a day and to try to have some compassion and understanding 
toward Federal Government workers who have to make their house payments 
and their car payments and pay their doctor bills and everything else. 
Yet they are not getting their paychecks. Oh, they will get it some 
time in the future, but how do they make those payments right now? And 
to have done it over the Christmas season to me is just being 
hardhearted at its worst.
  However, Mr. President, one group stands above it all: Members of 
Congress. Unlike Federal workers, our pay is guaranteed no matter what 
happens. Senator Boxer from California and I have offered on a number 
of occasions a bill that says that Members of Congress should not be 
treated differently, they should be treated like other Federal workers. 
It has passed three times in the Senate. Yet, it always seems to die 
someplace in conference or in the House of Representatives.
  Here is an article that appeared in the Washington Post just today. 
The headline is: ``Don't Touch Our Pay, House Republicans Say.''
  The article goes on to say that the House majority whip, Tom DeLay of 
Texas, the third ranking House Republican, said that ``I'm not a 
Government employee. I'm in the Constitution,'' when he was asked about 
this bill that says that we should be treated like other Federal 
employees.
  On CNN's ``Talk Back Live'' on December 19, asked whether he would 
support congressional pay cuts during a shutdown, he told the audience 
participation show: ``No, I would not. I'm not a Federal employee. I'm 
a constitutional officer. My job is in the Constitution of the United 
States. I am not a Government employee. I am in the Constitution.'' 
That statement was made by House majority whip Congressman DeLay. Talk 
about the arrogance of power. I ask the House majority whip, who signs 
his paycheck? Is it signed by the U.S. Constitution? No, it is the 
Secretary of the Treasury. It is the Federal Government. You may be in 
the Constitution but first of all, we are all Federal Government 
employees. We are paid by the taxpayers of this country.

  Our bill is being held up by arrogance, an arrogance of power. Some 
Members obviously see themselves as above the average person. They are 
above Federal employees. Senator Boxer, I and others have offered, and 
we will do so again, an amendment that says that if the Government is 
shut down, Members of Congress should be treated like the most 
adversely affected Federal employee. If they are not getting their pay, 
we should not get ours either. If they are going to get paid back 
sometime in the future we would get paid back sometime in the future.
  It is, again, an arrogance of power for us to say to a Federal 
employee, you have to go to work but you do not get paid. That is what 
we are saying. Or, you can stay home and not get paid, but you will get 
paid later on sometime. I think we should cover Members the same way 
and make sure that Members of the Senate and the House are treated just 
like the most adversely affected Federal employee.
  Last, Mr. President, this Government shutdown is not about whether or 
not we have a 7-year budget agreement. The shutdown is related to 
whether or not our annual appropriations bills are passed and signed 
into law. They are not. And I again point out, at the end of the fiscal 
year, last September, only two appropriations bills had been passed. 
Only 2 of 13. We did not filibuster any of them, Mr. President. We did 
not filibuster one appropriations bill on this side. We wanted them to 
go through. The President, then, of course, has his constitutional 
prerogative to veto them and we try to work out something that he will 
sign.
  I heard the Senator from Wyoming earlier say he mentioned November 14 
when the negotiations started. I say that this summer, is when 
appropriations bills should have been passed and sent to the 
President--before September 30. Let the President, if he wants to veto 
them, he has that right, and we could have spent October and November 
working out appropriations bills that would pass. That was not done. 
Last year we passed every appropriations bill on time before September 
30 last year.
  Again, we should not get this confused. The reason the Government is 
shut down, the reason it is costing taxpayers $40 million a day has 
nothing to do with reaching a 7-year balanced budget agreement which we 
all support. It has to do with whether or not we are going to do the 
job we should have done last year before September 30 in getting the 
appropriations bills passed and down to the President. We should not 
confuse those two.
  We have to be about getting a balanced budget agreement. We have to 
make sure in reaching that in balancing the budget which I strongly 
support--and I know the present occupant of the chair supports--we may 
have a difference in how we get there--but I believe there is room to 
negotiate as long as we do not hurt people, as long as we do not take 
it out of the elderly and our young students in order to give big new 
tax breaks for the wealthy in this country and we cut down on corporate 
welfare.
  Yes, then we can reach a balanced budget in a way that is fair, 
decent, compassionate and caring to people of this country. If we can 
agree on that we will have a balanced budget in 7 years. However, if 
all we want to do is give new tax breaks to the highest income 
Americans and we want to make the elderly pay a lot more for their 
Medicare, I do not see how we can do that. We have to hold firm. We 
have to hold firm that we are not going to balance this budget in 7 
years on the backs of the elderly or on the students or on hard working 
people in this country. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________