[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H48-H50]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I offer a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 153) 
making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1996, and for 
other purposes, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as 
passed, and that a motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. OBEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, under my 
reservation of objection, I would first ask the gentleman to explain 
the motion before the House, before I ask a couple of questions about 
it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing resolution that affects 
only the District of Columbia and only their ability to spend local 
funds. It is a continuation of the bill that was passed last year that 
provided continuing funding for the District's own local funds through 
January 3. This is identical to the legislation we passed at the end of 
the last session but this would continue that funding authority until 
January 25.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the gentleman, then, is it 
correct to say this allows only the use of District funds?
  Mr. WALSH. That is correct.
  Mr. OBEY. And that even if this passes, the District will not have 
received any Federal payment since, I believe, December 15?
  Mr. WALSH. That is correct. The District has received about $370 
million of the $660 million Federal formula funds and approximately $8 
million of the $52 million that go toward the pension fund.
  Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation of objection, let me simply say, 
Mr. Speaker, that I am troubled by this, because while I think we want 
the District government to remain open, that there would be no need for 
this specific resolution, as narrowly drawn as it is tonight, if the 
House leadership would simply allow us to bring up the Dole resolution 
which passed the Senate yesterday, which opens up all of the agencies 
of Government.
  We have the ridiculous situation under which some Federal workers 
have been paid for work which they were not allowed to do, and other 
Federal workers are being required to perform work for which they are 
not getting paid. The District is not the only jurisdiction with 
problems. There are 10 States, I am told, that are about to run out of 
needed funds to administer unemployment compensation programs. There 
are 95 percent of workplace safety inspections which are not taking 
place. There are 2,500 mortgage applications a day under SBA that are 
not being attended to. Veterans' education benefits are in question for 
170,000 veterans. Pension fraud cases are not being pursued. The Older 
Americans Act and Meals on Wheels are being put at risk, all because of 
the arrogance, it seems to me, of some Members of this body who put 
their political and economic ideology ahead of the right of taxpayers 
to receive the services for which they have already paid.
  Therefore, I am extremely troubled by the narrow nature of this 
proposition, but I would simply suggest that I do not see any useful 
purpose that would be served for anyone on this side of the aisle to 
engage in the same kind of childish leverage games that we have seen go 
on on the part of the leadership of this House and the Speaker, so I 
very reluctantly will not object.

[[Page H49]]

  However, I would ask, in the process of not objecting, I would ask 
when the House Republican leadership would allow us to bring to the 
floor for a vote the resolution sent over by the Senate, sponsored by 
Mr. Dole yesterday, which would open up the entire Government.
  Mr. WALSH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, 
surely my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, understands that 
this is a very unique situation. It does not involve any Federal funds, 
unlike the other continuing resolution that he is discussing, and these 
are not frivolous matters. These are important and very serious and 
monumental, in fact, discussions about the direction of the Federal 
Government. It obviously has taken some time.
  I am sure that when there is some agreement on the future direction 
of this country and its budget, that we will bring that forward.
  Mr. OBEY. Continuing my reservation of objection, let me say that I 
recognize that the decision on that question is above the gentleman's 
pay grade and above mine, but I would nonetheless simply take this 
occasion to inform the Chair and the House that in the event that there 
is no objection made to this request, that after this is disposed of, I 
would ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's desk H.R. 1643, 
the Dole proposition, in order to permit immediate consideration in the 
House, because that would reopen all of Government and it would pay 
everybody for work that they are doing, which might seem a quaint idea, 
given the Alice-in-Wonderland atmosphere that this House has taken on, 
but nonetheless, I think would meet with considerable support on the 
part of the American taxpayer.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to ask the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the District 
of Columbia several questions.
  The appropriations bill for the District of Columbia was to be 
submitted to the President for signature by October 1 so that the 
ordinary operations of the D.C. Government could continue. Can the 
gentleman from New York tell me when that appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 1996 was submitted to the President?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, this bill obviously has not been concluded; 
its work is still in conference. There are substantial differences 
between the Senate position and the House position. I spoke with 
Senator Jeffords as recently as today to try to get some resolution.
  As the gentleman knows, this has been a very difficult year for the 
District of Columbia. We passed legislation that basically overhauled 
the Home Rule to provide for a control board, a financial control 
board. We never received a budget from the District until 2\1/2\ months 
after it was supposed to be submitted.
  We received a number of budgets. We received the City Council budget, 
a mayoral budget, a control board budget, all of which, as the 
gentleman knows since he serves on the subcommittee, slowed us down 
substantially.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would respond to the 
following question: Would it be necessary to pass any temporary 
spending bill if the subcommittee, which we both serve on, had done its 
job and submitted an appropriations bill to the President on time?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I think the subcommittee did yeoman work, and 
it definitely did do its job. Unfortunately, there are substantial 
differences between the Senate and the House positions. I think the 
House did its job; I think the conference has work to do yet.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, if I might, the fact is that we are over 3 
months into this fiscal year. this subcommittee has failed to produce 
an appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. We are forced to 
lurch from spending bill to spending bill with gross uncertainly among 
the residents of the District of Columbia about their future. To blame 
anyone other than this committee and this Congress for this dereliction 
of duty would be improper.
  I would like to ask the gentleman another question: The District of 
Columbia appropriations bill which came over from the Senate carried 
with it an amendment offered by Senator Boxer, Senator Dole, and 
Senator Daschle entitled No Budget, No Pay. It said that so long as the 
Federal Government was shut down, Members of Congress would not receive 
their paychecks. That provision was included in the bill, the Senate 
version of this appropriations bill, and I am asking the gentleman from 
New York whether it is included in his temporary spending bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. First of all, let me just clarify, I do not really think 
the gentleman meant to say that we are derelict in our duty. I think we 
have worked very, very hard, all of us, both parties, both Houses, to 
try to get these issues resolved and they are substantive issues.
  As far as the issue of pay, I heard the chairman of the Senate 
subcommittee and the chairman of the conference say that it was his 
feeling that it would not be the Senate's position in a final 
conference agreement.
  It is not a part of the House's position. Many Members thought it was 
punitive and it treated the Members of Congress differently than all 
other Federal workers.
  Mr. DURBIN. So if I understand the gentleman's remarks, he does not 
want to be punitive to the Members of Congress during this budget 
crisis? Is that his position?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I think the gentleman is correct. I have no intention to 
be punitive to anyone, any member of the Federal Government.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is the gentleman 
fielding any phone calls in his district about this Government 
shutdown?
  For instance, in my district, Federal prison guards received 1 week's 
pay for the month of December. They are going to work every day and 
putting their lives on the line in prisons, guarding dangerous 
prisoners, and they are being paid for 1 week out of 4 in December.
  Does the gentleman consider that punitive to Federal prison guards 
who are doing their job?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I am sure the gentleman is aware, we passed those 
appropriations bills. The President, as a matter of fact, signed the 
appropriations bill that allowed the prisoners to get paid and vetoed 
the appropriations bill that paid for the guards. So that is a question 
of priorities, and I do not quite understand it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman continue to reserve the 
right to object?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the right to object.
  It is also true that if the Dole resolution were passed by this body 
today, that prison guard and others would be full-time back at work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out that despite 
all of the rhetoric that we have heard on this floor today, there are 
three appropriations bills which have still not even made it to the 
President, the first being the District of Columbia bill which we are 
discussing right now; the second being the Foreign Operations bill 
which is hung up because of differences between Republicans in the 
Senate and Republicans in the House on the issue of family planning and 
abortion; and third, the Labor, Health, 

[[Page H50]]
Education and Social Services appropriations bill, a huge share of the 
Federal Government.
  All of those programs at this point are in limbo because we still 
have not had resolutions worked out between the House and the Senate. 
So it seems to me that there is a high degree of congressional 
culpability for the fact that this Government is not operating under 
regular appropriations bills; and it also seems to me that it comes 
with considerable ill grace to blame the President for the fact that he 
has not even been able to consider whether to veto bills, because three 
of them have not gotten to him yet.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve my right to object, I 
think it is clear that one of the reasons this temporary spending bill 
is being brought to the floor is to avoid any debate over no budget, no 
pay, to make sure that this House does not go on record on the 
proposition as to whether or not Members of Congress will continue to 
take recesses and vacations, will continue to receive paychecks while 
this group of Republicans decides that 280,000 Federal employees will 
be furloughed and hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be 
penalized by the strategy. That is part of the strategy behind this 
temporary spending bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. I would just remind my colleague that the reason that 
those employees are not at work is because the President vetoed those 
appropriations bills----
  Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman----
  Mr. WALSH. And we just had an opportunity to override that veto, and 
we did not get it done.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman from 
Illinois controls the time under his reservation.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia demands the 
regular order. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Can I continue my reservation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has demanded the 
regular order. The gentleman will have to choose the regular order. The 
gentleman will have to choose whether or not to object at this time.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will withdraw his regular order request, 
I promise to conclude my remarks momentarily.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my right to object.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would say 
to my friend and fellow committee member, we have all worked very hard 
on this committee to try to get the District of Columbia back to work 
and get the appropriations bill passed and so forth. Unfortunately, it 
is one of the bills that is getting caught in this massive debate over 
the size and scope of Government over the next 7 years.
  I think, as the gentleman knows well and certainly the ranking 
Committee on Appropriations member knows well, that the chairman has 
worked very hard on that process and will continue to do so. What we 
are trying to do now is at the request of the District of Columbia 
folks to let them continue to work.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve, I would like to ask 
the gentleman from New York one final question: Why are we passing this 
temporary spending bill for the District of Columbia?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, the delegate from the District of Columbia 
has asked us to try to get the people back to work. This is their 
money, it is not ours, and that is the reason. It is a very narrow CR 
that affects only their money, no Federal money.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would just say to the gentleman from New York, I hope 
he will remember those words when the next D.C. appropriations bill 
comes up, because the gentleman has taken a position in the past that 
this Congress has some responsibility even over the local funds of the 
District of Columbia, and now he is saying that we should let them have 
their own money with no strings attached. I think that may not be 
consistent with the gentleman's overall position.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the 
gentleman's dialog. I think the gentleman has made an important 
connection here between the point of suspending the pay of the Members 
while we are suspending the pay of other people.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has renewed his 
request for regular order. Does the gentleman from Illinois object?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________