[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S358-S359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS WERE NOT ALL CONGRESS' FAULT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I would like 
to address my remarks to those Government employees who were victimized 
by the process of shutting down the Government. I am sorry--and I think 
all of my colleagues would share in that sentiment--for that 
unfortunate set of circumstances. I would like to point out, Mr. 
President, before we, the Members of Congress, are designated as the 
sole villain, consider for a moment that both the House and the Senate 
passed a reconciliation bill to fund the Government fully until all 
appropriations bills were completed. Our President chose to veto that 
reconciliation bill. Had he not, there would not have been a shutdown 
in Government. It seems the media and many have forgotten that, 
including some Government employees.
  Further, Congress passed a significant majority of the appropriations 
bills, sent them to the President, and the President vetoed about half 
of them. The President made that decision, just as he made the decision 
to veto the reconciliation bill. He could have signed the 
appropriations bills, and those Government agencies would not have been 
shut down.
  So, as a consequence, as we look at the fallout associated with the 
shutdown of Government, the blame is not all on the Congress, by any 
means. The President must share that blame. I find it very disturbing 
that the media does not seem to be able to pick up on that 
responsibility. There are legitimate differences of opinion in the 
President's version of the adequacy of the appropriations bills we 
passed, and he has reason to veto them. But, by the same token, I think 
he has to be realistic in recognizing that the responsibility is not 
Congress' alone.
  Now, much has been said about the debt ceiling and the fact that 
sometime in March we are going to be asked to increase that debt 
ceiling from $4.9 trillion to somewhere in excess of $5.3 to $5.4 
trillion, and if we do not, the Federal Government is going to go into 
default. Some of us feel pretty strongly that the only way to turn this 
train around of continued debt is to initiate a process that generates 
a balanced budget in real terms. Real terms means in 7 years--but not 7 
years with cuts in the sixth and seventh year, as President Clinton 
proposes.
  Clearly, in the sixth or seventh year, regardless of the election, 
President Clinton will not be around to bear the brunt of those cuts, 
and those cuts truly are draconian. Congress is not going to have the 
self-discipline to do it either. We simply have to get spending under 
control. We have to reduce the rate of growth of the entitlements. That 
is basically what we attempted to do with Medicare--not cut it, simply 
reduce the rate of growth. Many of the public, the elderly, did not 
seem to catch that difference. Medicare would be increased next year 
over this year and the year after, but not at the same rate of growth. 
The President's own Cabinet suggested that Medicare will be bankrupt in 
7 years if we do not address that. It is not being addressed under the 
President's proposal. The ramifications of that suggest business as 
usual.
  Many do not seem to have really captured what this debate was all 
about. It was not just about a balanced budget. It was about 
redirecting America, rededicating, if you will, that Washington does 
not know all, control all, regulate all; but the responsibility should 
be dictated, as much as possible, to the States and, more directly, to 
the people. They are capable, and they are frustrated with the dictates 
from Washington. But that seems to be lost in this debate.
  So the significance of where we are at this time, I think, needs real 
examination, because if corrective action is not taken, if somehow we 
do not get the attention of the administration to address a real 
balanced budget, we are simply going to add to this accumulated debt, 
which, as I have said, is $4.9 trillion, and the interest on that is 
some $236 billion, which is more than our annual debt. That means that 
what we are spending in excess of what we 

[[Page S359]]
are generating in revenues is about $160 billion. Yet, our interest on 
the accumulated $4.9 trillion is somewhere in the area of $350 billion.
  You do not have to be an accountant to know that if your interest 
costs on the outstanding principal that you owe are more in each year 
and each year you are increasing that by an added debt in the area of 
$160 billion, sooner or later you are going to pay the piper, and you 
are going to pay the piper through the consequences of a loss of 
confidence in America's monetary system. That lack of confidence is 
going to be triggered by too much debt. It happened in Central America, 
it happened in South America, it happened in Europe, and it will happen 
in the United States if we do not address a meaningful balanced budget.
  So as we look at the crucial times ahead, Mr. President, I do not 
know what we are going to have to do to catch the attention of the 
administration to get real about this process. Otherwise, we are going 
to pay the piper. There is a member of my staff whose wife is expecting 
a baby in April. That child will come into this world with a share of 
debt in the area of about $157,000.
  Multiply that per capita in the United States--what are we going to 
do, simply leave a legacy of debt? We must take the medicine now. We 
must address the hard decisions now. Otherwise, it is simply going to 
be too late. I wonder if it is not too late now. If we extend the debt 
ceiling when we come back sometime in the future and we do not have a 
commitment for a real balanced budget, we are doing a tremendous 
disservice to the citizens of this Nation.
  As a consequence, Mr. President, I think it is time that we go home 
and reflect on the significance of this crisis. This is very real. Talk 
to our constituents about the ramifications and share with them the 
dilemma that is going to be facing us when we come back and we are 
asked to increase the accumulated debt, the authorized debt, beyond 
$4.9 trillion. When the only leverage we have is to suggest it should 
not be done, it is irresponsible to increase that until we have a 
commitment for a balanced budget. Only when we achieve a balanced 
budget can we begin to address that 4.9 trillion dollars' worth of 
debt, and every Member of this body knows it, but not every Member of 
this body or the House of Representatives is prepared to take the 
action. That is where we are today.

                          ____________________