[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S48-S51]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased that there have been efforts at 
the White House, meetings between the President, the Vice President, 
and the leaders of Congress to try to find a solution to our budget 
problems. I know that sometimes they feel like they are trying to grasp 
for the wind. It is very difficult to find a solution, but it is a 
very, very important effort. I wish them continued encouragement in 
their efforts to find an agreement to the budget. I have been very much 
concerned that it does not seem like they are making that much 
progress.
  The way you get a budget agreement, the way you get any agreement any 
time when you have two opposing 

[[Page S49]]
views is both sides have to give a little and get a little in return. I 
do not think that is happening yet. But I hope they will continue. I 
hope that something will happen, if they do not meet today, tomorrow, 
that dramatic progress will be made, although I know it will be very 
difficult.

  Yesterday afternoon the President went on national television right 
before the bipartisan meeting on the budget to bemoan the partial 
shutdown of the Federal Government. He recited a list of horror stories 
about the disastrous effects of that shutdown.
  He said, ``We ought to reopen the Government.'' I agree. He said, 
``The shutdown has been especially devastating to hundreds of thousands 
of dedicated public servants who work for the American people through 
the Federal Government.'' I agree with that. He said, ``It's time to 
stop holding Federal workers hostage in this process.'' I agree with 
that too.
  But that is the limit of my agreement with President Clinton. There 
is an awful lot of misunderstanding or misinformation that is being 
perpetrated on the American people about how we got into the situation 
we are in now.
  Let us remember that the current shutdown is indeed partial because 
it does not effect any departments or agencies whose appropriations 
bills have been signed into law. I believe seven of them have been 
signed into law.
  So the question is, why have not the remaining appropriations bills 
been signed into law? If they had been, we would not have the situation 
we have now.
  There have been two major problems in getting those bills signed into 
law. One is the President himself. The second is the Democratic 
minority here in the Senate. Most of the President's tales of woe 
yesterday would not have been happening if the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education appropriations bill was signed into law. But we 
would not even pass it here in the Senate.
  There is the problem. It is the Senate that has not acted. It is the 
minority in the Senate that has blocked the Labor-HHS, Education 
appropriations bill from even being considered. Keep in mind what has 
happened is that there is a threat to filibuster the motion to proceed 
because of some policy language that is in that Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill. We are being told by the minority in the Senate 
you cannot even bring it up because of some of the provisions in this 
bill.
  Why not? Let us bring it up. Let us have amendments. Let us debate 
them. Let us vote. Oh, no. The minority in the Senate, the Democrats in 
the Senate, have blocked even the consideration of this bill. Why? 
Because of striker replacement language that is in this bill where the 
President clearly, in my opinion, and I think some courts will 
eventually decide, has exceeded his authority with an Executive order 
on this subject. But the Democrats in the Senate will not even allow 
that bill to be brought up for consideration. Yet, they complain about 
how people are being affected by the fact that we do not have funding 
in this particular area.

  Let us do something about it. Let us get the bill up. Let us go with 
the usual process around here, let us have votes. Some amendments will 
pass, some will not. Let us send it to the President and let him do 
what he will.
  So we need to keep in mind exactly why some of these horror stories 
are happening. It is because the Democrats in the Senate will not even 
allow this appropriations bill to be brought up. So, you know, I am 
concerned about the Meals on Wheels Program, over Medicare contractors, 
over jobs that might be affected by this. The solution is to take this 
Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill up.
  The responsibility is at least a shared one. The President had the 
temerity yesterday, for instance, to complain that the Environmental 
Protection Agency has been crippled by the shutdown. But who was it 
that vetoed the appropriations bill that had funding for the 
Environmental Protection Agency in it? President Clinton.
  The President complained about the shutdown of emergency programs at 
FEMA. But who vetoed FEMA's appropriations bill? President Clinton 
vetoed that bill.
  The President, with a straight face, complained about shutdowns at 
the State Department after he himself vetoed the State Department's 
appropriations bill. Oh, but he said he had his reasons for those 
vetoes, that he did not get everything he wanted in some of those 
bills.
  Well, here is, in his own words, what he said about why he vetoed 
some of these bills. ``I will not sign any version of this bill,'' 
talking about the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill--and get 
that, ``any version''--``that does not fund the COPS initiative as a 
free-standing, discretionary grant program, as authorized.''
  Translation: The Congress decided to fight crime by giving localities 
discretion in how they spend Federal aid. Mr. Clinton says it is his 
way or no way. He will shut down three critical Federal Departments 
unless he gets his COPS program the way he wants it.
  We have three coequal branches of Government. The President cannot 
say, ``It's my way or no way.'' He has to work with the Congress, and 
he has to be sometime aware of what the courts have said.
  But that is not all. He would keep those Departments shut down and 
their work force out on the street unless the Congress limits 
restrictions on the conduct of the Legal Services Corporation and its 
grantees, otherwise he cannot accept the appropriations bill. Funding 
is provided, services will be provided, but there are some restrictions 
on trying to control the excesses of the Legal Services Corporation. 
But he is ready to shut down all three of these big Departments and the 
agencies that are also affected by it because he cannot accept it the 
way it was written in the appropriations bill we sent him.
  He said he ``cannot accept'' the money Congress wants to spend to 
keep the Commerce Department in operation and to keep the Justice 
Department in operation and to keep the State Department in operation 
unless we agree to pay for abortions for prison inmates.
  Did you hear me? One of the 10 issues, I believe it was 10, that he 
listed why he vetoed that bill--actually it was 9 major issues--was 
because it had limits on abortions being paid for prisoners. The 
American people would not believe that. That was one of the main issues 
that he listed as to why he would veto that bill.
  He said he cannot accept congressional funding for these three very 
important Departments as long as there is a moratorium--not a ban, mind 
you, just a moratorium--on future listings under the Endangered Species 
Act by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  There is a lot of feeling across America that the Endangered Species 
Act has gone too far, has been distorted, has gone from what was needed 
to ridiculous. I voted for the original Endangered Species Act, but I 
had no idea that it was going to get into a situation where an entire 
appropriations bill would be vetoed for the Interior Department because 
of objections relating to the marbled murrelet. The President lists as 
one of the seven major reasons why he vetoed the Department of Interior 
bill is because he did not like the objections regarding the marbled 
murrelet.
  Do the American people know this? Would they be horrified if they 
realized that one of the major reasons the President vetoed an 
appropriations bill was because of this bird? I guess it is a bird. I 
do not think they would be very happy with that.
  He had other reasons, as well, for closing down those three 
Departments. He opposes funding reductions in the Census Bureau. How 
many of you think the American people are all upset because there maybe 
is not enough funding in 1996 for the Census Bureau? Maybe it does 
deserve more, but that is what all this budget discussion is really 
about, I thought. If there is an agreement there would be some more 
funding provided for these things, then the changes would be made. But 
to veto the bill, and one of the major reasons listed for the veto of 
the Commerce, State, Justice Department bill was because he opposes 
cuts in the Census Bureau. I do not think there are a lot of American 
people really worrying about that.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question on that? 
  
[[Page S50]]

  Mr. LOTT. Let me continue. I am about to get to the point where I can 
yield. Let me continue on my thought, if I can.
  He is so devoted to the Commerce technology programs that he shut 
down the entire Department in order to preserve them. I do not 
understand the thinking.
  The same holds true with the Interior and Energy Departments. The 
workers are idled because Mr. Clinton has two problems with the 
Interior appropriations bill. His first problem is he wants more money. 
Yes, that is the big part of it all, he wants more money for 
everything. I was looking over his objections on the Interior bill. He 
wants more money for DOE energy conservation, more money for Native 
American programs, more money for the National Endowments for the Arts 
and the Humanities.
  That is the crux of all of it. We have a President for the first time 
in my memory, and I have been watching them pretty closely now for 
about 27 years, who is vetoing appropriations bills because they do not 
spend enough. Every other President I have ever watched, Democrat and 
Republican, vetoed appropriations bills because Congress could not 
control its insatiable appetite to spend more of the taxpayers' money. 
Now we have a President who says, ``I want more money'' and, in most 
cases, we are not talking about cuts in a lot of them, we are talking 
about controls on the rate of increases in these programs.
  His second problem concerns provisions regarding 
certain environmental areas. The Tongass National Forest, the Columbia 
River Basin, the Mojave National Preserve. In the case of the Mojave 
National Preserve, as I understand it, he is mad because the 
responsibility would be shifted from the Park Service to the Bureau of 
Land Management. Is that enough reason to veto an appropriations bill 
for the Interior Department?

  And in Tongass, he objects to clear cutting. As I understand the 
language in the bill, clear cutting is prohibited in there. He pointed 
out three technical concerns he had, basically technical. I think they 
can be worked out. I hope they will be, and I hope we can move this 
Interior Department appropriations bill forward.
  The third vetoed appropriations bill would have funded the Veterans' 
Department, HUD, and several smaller agencies. President Clinton killed 
that funding and let those Departments and agencies close because 
Congress would not give him money for his pet projects, such as the 
National Service Program. As always, he wanted more of the public's 
money than Congress wanted to spend: More for EPA; more for the Council 
on Environmental Quality; more for something called Community 
Development Financial Institutions Program, and just generally more 
money.
  He even vetoed the bill because Congress inserted a provision to stop 
the Secretary of the Veterans' Department from engaging in 
inappropriate political activity. He cited that as one of the reasons 
why he vetoed it.
  So it goes on and on, Mr. President. I am afraid we have not done a 
very good job in explaining why we did some of the things we did in 
appropriations bills, but more importantly, explaining why the 
President vetoed them.
  If I held up the list of the seven things that he cites as to why he 
vetoed the Interior appropriations bill--plus, of course, more money 
for everything--I do not believe the average American would agree with 
what he did. They would not think that a disagreement over whether some 
particular national preserve is controlled by the Park Service or the 
Bureau of Land Management is enough reason to veto the bill.
  But I think we can find a solution. We will and we should try to pass 
these appropriations bills again with changes that have been suggested, 
sometimes by the President and sometimes by others. It has not been 
done before now partially because there was a thinking that there were 
serious budget negotiations underway and maybe some conclusion would be 
reached on the entitlements programs and on returning tax dollars to 
the people who pay the taxes and only appropriated accounts.
  But since fast progress is not being made, at least we should go 
ahead and try to move some of these appropriations bills, individually 
or in a group, and allow the President to make up his own mind then 
whether or not he wants to veto them again. But if he does, the record 
will then be replete with evidence: The problem is not the Congress, 
the problem is the President, because we are going to give him another 
opportunity to consider these appropriations bills individually or 
perhaps even in a group.
  Hopefully, we can come to an agreement. Hopefully, the budget 
discussions will bear real fruit. But it is going to take a lot more 
movement by the President than I have seen or I have read about in the 
press so far.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning 
business be extended until the hour of 1:30 p.m., with statements 
limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield to the Senator from 
Maryland. I thank him for letting me complete my statement before he 
asked his question.
  Mr. SARBANES. If the Interior bill permits clear cutting in the 
Tongass National Forest, I take it from the Senator's comments he would 
be opposed to it; is that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. I think there should be language in the appropriations bill 
that would be--frankly, I hoped it would say there should not be clear 
cutting. I am not on the Appropriations Committee. I know they are 
working on that, and I think they will come up with language that will 
clarify that.
  Mr. SARBANES. I take it from that response, if the President had a 
reasonably based concern that the bill would permit clear cutting, it 
would be a justified basis on which to veto the bill?
  Mr. LOTT. I do not think so. Although I understand his concern and 
while I may have some agreement with him on it, to veto the entire 
Department of Interior appropriations bill over that one point would 
not be sufficient, in my mind, because you are talking about thousands 
of people being out of work, you are talking about monuments being 
closed down, parks being closed down.
  That could have been clarified in other ways, through authorization, 
through other appropriation bills, and it would be coming very quickly.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is what we did with Presidents Reagan and Bush. 
They would veto the bills, then we would try to accommodate their veto 
message and work out an understanding between the executive and 
legislative branches. But if that was not done immediately, we would 
provide a continuing resolution so the Government could function.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield on that, 2 years in a row in the 
Reagan administration, the Congress did not pass a single 
appropriations bill that was signed into law.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is right, and----
  Mr. LOTT. And the Democratic-controlled Congress passed continuing 
resolutions that had all 13 appropriations bills lumped into them--just 
lumped them into a pile along with the debt ceiling and everything, and 
left town and said to the President, ``Sign it.''
  Mr. SARBANES. We reached agreement with the President, and the 
Government continued to function on the basis of the continuing 
resolution.
  Now you have an instance in which you have just brought the 
Government to a partial shutdown by not providing a continuing 
resolution and not working out the differences that were connected with 
the veto of the appropriations bills.
  The Senator mentioned the Bureau of the Census, and he sort of 
dismissed it. The United States has done a decennial census every year 
since 1790. That was when the first census was done. We have done a 
census every 10 years since then. Does the Senator think that we should 
do a decennial census in the year 2000?
  Mr. LOTT. Well, I would want to think about that and make sure I gave 
you a fully informed answer. I think the answer is probably yes. But we 
are not talking about not funding the Census Bureau; we are talking 
about the level of funding for the Census Bureau 4 years from when this 
decennial census will occur, and also when it involved vetoing an 
entire Department's appropriations bill. I do not think that 

[[Page S51]]
because the President did not get all the funds he wanted, that is 
enough to veto the State, Commerce, Justice appropriations bill.
  Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator that the President had other 
reasons as well. But since you focused on the Bureau of Census, unless 
the Census Bureau gets additional funds now to begin the work that 
needs to be done to do the decennial census in the year 2000, they will 
not be able to do it.
  Mr. LOTT. But you cannot be concerned here about Meals on Wheels, 
other Federal programs, and monuments being closed and, on the other 
hand, say, ``I am vetoing the bill because you do not give me all of 
the funding I want for the Census Bureau or for the National Endowment 
programs.'' This process could still go forward. My point is that the 
President vetoed these bills, in my opinion, on questionable grounds 
that put all of these Federal workers out of work.
  We passed one continuing resolution, I remind the Senator from 
Maryland, and I was involved in the discussions and suggested some 
language that helped move that continuing resolution through right 
before Thanksgiving, with the idea that there would be sufficient time 
for us to get an agreement on our budget before Christmas. It did not 
happen. We still do not have one. The President signed into law a 
commitment to have a balanced budget in 7 years, using CBO numbers or 
real numbers, which still has not happened.
  So the Congress, frankly, is concerned about sending another CR down 
there that would extend the time without knowing what the result is 
going to be. By the way, how much time does it take? The President has 
known for weeks, for months, that we were moving toward a balanced 
budget in 7 years, yet he did not really get engaged until actually 
right before Christmas. But it is time that we get an agreement. If we 
get an agreement, then all these other problems will fall by the 
wayside.
  What we are trying to do is get a solution that controls the rate of 
growth in the explosive Federal Government spending for the sake of our 
children's future. That is what I worry about. I worry about this 
$185,000-plus a year in interest on the national debt that every child 
owes when they are born. How are we going to control this? That is what 
is really at stake.
  Mr. SARBANES. Can I ask what the time situation is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Mississippi has 
5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think I have made my point for now. I am 
sure we will have continuing discussions. I think we can find solutions 
if men of good will are willing work together and try to find a way to 
work out the disagreements and come to the conclusion and pass these 
bills. I do not see why it could not be done quickly. I certainly hope 
it will be.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to make this observation about 
the comments of the Senator from Mississippi. Never before has the 
Congress used as a coercive tactic to close down the Government in 
order to try to gain its way for a fundamental change----

  Mr. LOTT. Is it not true that, in 1987, I believe, the Democratic-
controlled Congress passed a CR that had every appropriations bill, 
debt ceiling, and a number of other issues, and left town and said to 
the President, ``Sign it and keep the Government operating, or veto it 
and shut it down.''? And they were gone. Did that happen or not?
  Mr. SARBANES. The President could have called the Congress back. The 
Congress gave him a CR so the Government could continue to function. 
Now what is happening is, for the first time ever, the Congress is 
refusing to provide a CR and use that as a coercive tactic in the 
bargaining. That is an irresponsible and, in my view, impermissible 
action. That is what is happening.
  We did not close the Government down with respect to the Republican 
Presidents. We let the Government go on to function.
  Mr. LOTT. The Government has been closed down before during 
Democratic administrations. This is not new. We have had budget 
disagreements every year for the last 15 years.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Government has been closed down for 19 days.
  Mr. LOTT. I know it has been done for at least 11 days, as I 
remember. I do not remember the other times, but we have had these 
shutdowns before.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I want to answer 
that point. There were periods before the Civiletti decision in 1980 in 
which the Government continued to function without an appropriations 
bill because there was not a ruling that under the Antideficiency Act, 
the Government could not go on functioning. So we did not have an 
appropriations bill, but the Government continued to function.
  Then we had this ruling that you are not allowed to do that. 
Subsequent to that, we had maybe a day, or a weekend, or something, in 
which there would be a gap in between having an appropriation bill, and 
either getting an appropriation or getting a continuing resolution. 
This is the first time, clearly, in which an extended period has been 
allowed to develop as a coercive tactic in closing down the Government.
  You cannot find a previous instance--you can find instances before 
the Civiletti opinion in which departments continued to function 
without an appropriations bill, but there was then a ruling that said 
such functioning ran counter to the Antideficiency Act. You can then 
find instances after the Civiletti opinion in which you had a period of 
a day or two or a weekend in which that was the case. But we never had 
an instance, as we have now experienced, where we have had 6 days 
earlier in 1995 and now we have run for 19 days and where it is clearly 
admitted that this is being used as a coercive tactic.
  My distinguished colleagues in the House have been very explicit 
about the fact that they will, as they say, create a ``titanic 
legislative standoff'' with President Clinton. Others have said openly 
that they intended to bring the Government to a halt, to have a 
closedown, in order to provoke a controversy.
  My very basic point is that this is irresponsible. It has not been 
done in the past. It represents, I think, an abuse of the 
constitutional arrangements of power, and it ought to cease.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________