[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 2 (Thursday, January 4, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY STATUS FOR FEDERAL WORKERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as this debate has proceeded, I have been 
listening to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about who 
is responsible for the shutdown, and I will go into that in a moment. 
But in the course of the debate it was interesting to hear people refer 
to various symbols of patriotism in our country: the American flag, the 
eagle, Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam, he is a symbol of the Federal Government, 
but he has now become our deadbeat uncle, because across the country as 
we all sat down to our Christmas dinners and the start of a new year, 
many Federal workers were deprived of their pay, even those who were 
working.
  Even further than that, many people who depend on the Federal 
Government to function not only now experience a tightening of the 
belt, but a closing down of their businesses, whether it is a sandwich 
shop near a Federal building or a tourist bed-and-breakfast near 
Yosemite National Park or some other national park throughout the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, as we convene this second session of this Congress, we 
should all be ashamed of the disrespect with which Congress is treating 
hundreds of thousands of our valued Federal employees, public servants 
who want to work, many who are working now, and who perform important 
services for the people of our Nation.
  Federal workers have been caught in the middle, against their will, 
held hostage to the machinations of the 104th Congress. This is a 
personal loss for many, and it is also a loss to the American taxpayer 
who has invested in Federal performance. It is time to end the Federal 
Government shutdown and to allow 260,000 Federal workers to return to 
their jobs. It is self-evident, I think, Mr. Speaker, that people who 
work should get paid for their work. Why should that be a mystery? Why 
is that even an issue here?
  But do not take my word for it. I think it would be important to hear 
the voices of some Federal employees who yesterday rallied across the 
country. Their cry was: We will no longer be sacrificial lambs. Some of 
their individual stories are so definitive, so clear about why we 
should end this shutdown, that I want to share some of their words with 
you.

  Pete, who files papers in the U.S. attorney's office, told the crowd 
of coworkers that she brought her two children to work yesterday 
because she could not afford child care after her paycheck stopped. Her 
children are at work with her as she changes diapers while she does 
work for the Federal Government.
  Howard exclaimed, ``If you do work, you should get paid. This is a 
type of 20th century slavery. We're responsible for our rent and board. 
Nobody else is going to be paying for it. We cannot file for 
unemployment,'' this particular group could not. ``We cannot file for 
food stamps. What can we do?''
  And finally, Eula said that she can now barely afford the gas money 
to get her from home to work. She has a commute between Antioch and 
Richmond, CA. Lajuana Brown had to cancel her 2-week Christmas vacation 
to work, and then had to ask her mother to take care of her children 
because she could not afford day care.
  Mr. Speaker, the stories go on and on and on. In the course of the 
debate, our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have made 
various comments as to where the blame lay for this shutdown. It is 
interesting to hear them talk, because some of the comments seem to be 
contradictory, if the Parliamentarian would allow such a word.
  First of all, they talk about if the President had not vetoed these 
bills. Thank God the President vetoed these totally unacceptable bills. 
They contend that they support a line-item veto, except not for this 
President. How inconsistent of them to argue about a President vetoing 
a bill, supporting a line-item veto, and not giving it to President 
Clinton.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Does my memory fail me? Did we not pass the line-item 
veto in the last session of Congress?
  Ms. PELOSI. We did, in fact. It was one of the provisions of the 
contract, but not to apply to President Clinton.
  Mr. HEFNER. That was not specified, that it would not apply to the 
President. They just have not given it to him yet.
  Ms. PELOSI. They just have not given it to President Clinton, because 
of the delay.
  They also talk about compassion. How many times have we heard our 
colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle say neither party has a 
monopoly on compassion? Well, I say to them, my Republican colleagues, 
that compassion without a positive initiative for change and for action 
is an empty emotion.
  Sure, we are all compassionate, but what does that mean unless it 
translates into action to meet the needs of America's families, and 
certainly not to send them to work without paying them?
  They talk about the capital gains tax and say, ``Oh, President 
Clinton says he will support a capital gains tax.'' President Clinton 
said he would be open to some capital gains tax, not the giveaway to 
the rich for any turnover of any asset that our Republican colleagues 
are advocating.
  Last of all, because I do not have any more time, I want to say the 
other contradiction that I hear is that they say that Congress should 
obey the rules that other people do. If that is the case, then Congress 
should not be receiving a paycheck at a time when other Federal workers 
are not. I call upon the Republican leadership to bring legislation to 
the floor to effect that. It has been proposed by our Democratic 
colleagues. So much to say, so little time.

                          ____________________