[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H193-H216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISPOSING OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1643, EXTENSION OF MOST-FAVORED-
NATION TREATMENT FOR BULGARIA
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 334 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 334
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
1643) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of
Bulgaria, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider
in the House the motion printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the motion are waived. The motion
shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from South Boston, MA [Mr.
Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purposes of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for taking from the
Speaker's table H.R. 1643, with the Senate amendment, and consideration
in the House of the motion printed in the Committee on Rules report
accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion in
the committee report shall be considered as read, and all points of
order against the motion are waived.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on the motion, equally
divided by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The rule further provides that the previous question is
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, from the 1st day of the 104th Congress a year ago
yesterday, the new majority in the House has maintained that balancing
the Federal budget in 7 years is our top priority. To fail in this
effort is to let down America's families, especially our Nation's
children They are the ones that will pay the bill for continuing the
tax, spend, and deficit policies that Washington insiders have
maintained for decades. The bill just for interest payments on our debt
is approaching $187,000 in lifetime tax payments per American child.
That is why we must change the direction of this Government.
Mr. Speaker, the President and Congress made a commitment on November
20 of last year to enact a 7-year balanced budget using honest economic
assumptions. The balanced budget was to reform welfare and provide a
tax cut that lets families keep more of the money they earn. The
balanced budget was to provide an economic stimulus to finally get
family incomes moving upward, something that the Clinton administration
unfortunately has failed to do.
Finally, the balanced budget was to increase spending on health care,
education, and veterans, while maintaining a vibrant national defense.
Mr. Speaker, the majority in this House made one major mistake in our
efforts to reach a balanced budget agreement to save the future for our
children. That mistake, Mr. Speaker, was believing the President of the
United States. We believed the President when he said he would balance
the budget in 5 years. We believed him when he said he would support a
7-year balanced budget. We even believed the President meant it when he
signed the last continuing resolution saying that a 7-year balanced
budget would be enacted by the 1st session of the 104th Congress.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the President is very
committed. He is committed to saving Washington, not to saving
Medicare. He is committed to balancing his poll numbers, not to
balancing the budget. He is so committed to business as usual that he
was willing to see Federal workers thrown out on the street, rather
that putting a balanced budget on the negotiating table.
Mr. Speaker, one thing should be very clear at this point: Those of
us committed to balancing the budget will not go along with business a
usual. This Congress and this country are well into uncharted territory
in this budget showdown because there is finally a majority in Congress
that will say ``no'' to Washington's deficits and Washington's
spending. We are not willing to just declare victory and draw up a
phony budget that will result in the same type of debt and waste in
2002 that we have today. The President has refused to lead, choosing
cheap political rhetoric over a balanced budget. Therefore, Congress
has taken the lead. The President has refused to lead to find common
ground on appropriations bills so that Federal workers can be paid.
Therefore, we are leading with a bill to put Federal workers back on
the job with pay through January 26.
Mr. Speaker, we must be clear. This is not a business-as-usual
continuing resolution. This bill will only fund targeted Federal
programs which enjoy a bipartisan consensus of support. The bill funds
some of those programs through March 15; others, through the end of the
fiscal year.
If the President would really like to satisfactorily see all Federal
programs funded, he should offer his version of a 7-year balanced
budget using honest numbers.
Mr. Speaker, over the past several days, while negotiations have been
going on, I have had a little time, because I have not been in the
midst of those negotiations. I have been spending some of that time
rereading the Federalist Papers. I am more committed than ever to the
belief that the Congress does not work for the Government. The Congress
is here to serve the American people.
How would James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay react to a
Congress so beholden to Government programs that its primary duty was
to ensure that Government is free to spend taxpayer money? Madison
believed that the primary role of Congress was to serve the people by
ensuring a just society that protects individual liberty. Our debt-
ridden status quo Government is not living up to that mission.
Mr. Speaker, our first duty is to deliver a balanced budget to
America's children. The President was prepared
[[Page H194]]
to sacrifice Federal workers to maintain the bureaucracy that he values
more than the people who serve in it. While we will balance the budget,
we will do it without causing undue pain to Federal employees and those
who receive necessary Federal services.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to support this
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering is a small step in the right
direction.
The American people are sick and tired of seeing their Government
services held hostage because Speaker Gingrich disagrees with the
President. The U.S. Government has been closed for 21 days. Of 2
million civilian Federal employees, 280,000 have been sent home, and
480,000 are working, but not getting paid. That means a total of 38
percent of the Federal work force is not getting a paycheck.
This shutdown has gone on entirely too long. It is hurting a lot of
people, and without this bill it would only get worse.
Without this bill, in the next 2 weeks, Meals on Wheels in 12 States
would stop, and senior citizens who rely on Meals on Wheels to help
them live on their own, will be forced to head for a nursing home, or
worse.
Next week, Massachusetts Unemployment Offices would close, and
families who are temporarily out of work would have no way to buy food,
heat their homes, or pay their rent. Our national forests, museums, and
parks would remain closed to tourists who had their hearts set on their
vacations. And small businesses near our national parks would continue
to lose $14 million every day the Government is closed.
These people did nothing wrong. They expect Government services, they
earned Government services, and under no circumstances should they have
to pay the price for this political blackmail.
With this bill, those people will no longer be sacrificed on the
alter of politics.
But others will, what about them?
This month, 49,000 families may be evicted from their homes because
their housing vouchers are not getting renewed. And what about student
loans and small business loans?
Why are we opening the Government piece by piece? These games are
serving no purpose, in fact, they are hurting people. Let us do a clean
continuing resolution, get the Government open, and get on with real
legislation.
Although this bill is better than nothing, Mr. Speaker, it will have
ridiculous consequences.
Under this absurd bill, all Federal employees are to report back to
work, but only some of them are authorized to actually do work. In
other words, if you work in the Passport Office, you go to work, and do
your job. If you work in the Housing Office, you go to work and sit
there.
What on Earth is that? This sounds like a Rube Goldberg situation.
Tell me: Who is working, and who is really working?
Mr. Speaker, this is ludicrous. Let us get the entire Government
open, let us get all the Federal employees back to work, let us get
this country running again. As the Senate majority leader said,
``Enough is enough.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in
order to end the shutdown once and for all. If we defeat the previous
question, in about 6 hours we could open the entire Federal Government.
We would allow time for negotiations by keeping the Government open at
least until January 26.
Mr. Speaker, let us give the American people their Government back.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the only ludicrous thing around here is
this unconscionable, irresponsible Congress that has piled $5 trillion
in debt on my children and my grandchildren, and I resent it. One thing
is for sure, we are putting an end to it this year. This Congress is
going to force this President to accept a balanced budget, no matter
what. In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the
vice chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the time this
morning. I rise, as Members can tell, in the strongest possible support
for this rule and this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we are obviously at a difficult and a very critical
juncture in our efforts to complete work on the important budgetary
decisions for our country, our Government, and our Nation; namely, the
remaining appropriation bills and the 7-year Balanced Budget Act. There
is still no agreement between the Congress and the President over this
7-year balanced budget that I have just been talking about.
The President has vetoed several of our regular appropriation bills
and thereby blocked the reopening of Government. That is the Veterans'
Administration, the Department of Housing, the Environmental Protection
Agency. It is all of these agencies that are not functioning because
this President has vetoed these appropriation bills.
Mr. Speaker, back on November 20 the President signed into law a
commitment by this Congress and this President to enact a 7-year
balanced budget using no smoke and mirrors, but using the impartial
Congressional Budget Office estimates. That legal deadline expired 2
days ago at noon on January 3. Late in November we sent the President
the balanced budget that we Republicans, by law, submitted. It was
properly certified by the impartial Congressional Budget Office. Yet,
on December 6, the President vetoed that bill. There was no movement
from the White House to reach a compromise balanced budget before the
continuing resolution expired on December 15.
As near as I can tell, there has been very little movement since that
time, by the White House, to even submit a CBO-certified balanced
budget that we have asked for every single day since December 15. We
have offered to put everything on the table in those negotiations, it
does not matter whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, welfare reform, the
Defense bill, the tax provisions. We are willing to negotiate anything,
as long as we get figures to negotiate from. The White House table is
not on the level because it still tilts toward a deficit of around $100
billion in the seventh year. That is a far cry from the balanced budget
the President is committed to giving us.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that so much attention has been diverted by the
consequent shutdown of parts of the Government, because it has blurred
our focus on the really big picture, the picture that the American
people want us to focus on. We might all do well to paraphrase that
sign on the wall of candidate Bill Clinton. Do Members remember what
that sign was in his campaign headquarters? That sign said: ``It's the
economy, stupid.'' Now that we have all committed by law to a 7-year
balanced budget, I would suggest that there is a new sign on the walls
of this Capitol and the White House that reads: ``It's not the
Government, stupid, it's the future;'' or, you could change the sign to
read: ``It's not the Government, stupid, it's our children and our
grandchildren.''
That is what the historic debate today is really all about, the
future of our country, of our economy, and the lives and the livelihood
of our children and our grandchildren who are saddled with this
mountain of debt that we have been piling on ourselves for years now,
turning us into no more than a Third World debtor Nation. That is so,
so, sad.
Today, however, provides us that opportunity to get back to what that
big picture is all about, and put it back in focus by putting
Government workers back to work with pay, if they want to work, and by
funding some of the essential services that are so vital to the
American people, such as the elderly, the poor, the children, veterans,
visitors to our parks, and those who need to travel abroad.
But let me emphasize, Mr. Speaker, we are not reopening the
Government by our actions today, so do not think that we are, since
this amendment will not provide for across-the-board funding for all of
the programs, the grants, loans, and other matters for which
appropriations have not been enacted. We may have that opportunity for
a limited and conditional short-term continuing resolution in a
subsequent piece of legislation that we could consider yet today.
[[Page H195]]
As a matter of fact, when this debate is over on this rule, I believe
we will go to the Committee on Rules and we will bring that rule to the
floor. But it would be contingent, if we do that, just so there is
no misunderstanding, on real progress in the current stalled balanced
budget negotiations. It would make that short-term CR contingent on the
President coming to the same table we have been sitting at by
presenting his own CBO-scored 7-year balanced budget. That would be
significant progress to get those negotiations moving again. We were
already burned once by a previous unconditioned congressional
resolution that proved to be no incentive for the administration to get
down to serious business.
{time} 1145
We will not be burned a second time, I assure you.
So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleagues to come
over here, support this rule and the motion it makes in order. As our
minority colleagues on the Committee on Rules admitted, this is a step
in the right direction. At midnight last night, my good friend Joe
Moakley admitted to this, and he was going to come here and support the
rule and support this bill before us.
For this bill to succeed, however, we will need a second step in our
direction from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, over there; that
is the only way we can eventually meet in the middle on a mutually
agreed-upon 7-year balanced budget that will benefit all Americans
across the board.
We fully intend to stay the course on that glide path to a balanced
budget. As I said, we are not about to be burned twice. We will put
this conditional continuing resolution on the floor. If the President
gives us a balanced budget so that we can compare figures to figures,
then this full Government will start to function as early as Monday
morning. That is what this is all about.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado, my good friend
who is retiring from this body and who has been such a valuable Member
for so many years.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I wanted to ask the distinguished gentleman from New
York why the Democrats were not allowed a motion to recommit in this
bill so that we could offer a full and clean resolution to open up the
Government rather than this muddled one. I do not remember that
happening in ages, and I am really surprised the gentleman from New
York denied us that opportunity.
Mr. SOLOMON. I would say to the gentlewoman, because this is not a
resolution, it is not a bill. This is an amendment to a Senate
amendment which does not allow for a motion to recommit.
But you do have the right to pursue a previous question fight, as you
know.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. So clearly we have to defeat the previous question.
That is the only way we get an option to be able to bring to this floor
a resolution to open Government once and for all; is that right?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest a bipartisan effort that we
not do that, because this bill is already agreed to in the Senate by
Senator Daschle, the Senate leader over in the other body.
We want to move this; we want to make sure that the Federal workers
are paid for their back wages and that they are called back to work.
The way to do it is with this legislation. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my classmate, the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mr. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for
yielding me this time.
I must say I am very troubled that we do not have the opportunity
under this rule to be able to move to recommit the bill and do a clean
continuing resolution to open the Government. I really see this body
moving from extremism to fanaticism, and that troubles me. We have had
14 votes so far, the way I count it, to open this Government, and we
will soon have the 15th on the previous question. I think people should
be aware of that.
You do not need keys to unlock this Government, you need a voting
card; and all you have to do is vote right on the 15th vote, even
though we have not on the last 14, and we can get this Government open
and we will stop looking so silly.
There are many things that have been said that I would like to
respond to. I think that this targeted solution that we have, which I
will certainly vote for if that is the only one we get, but it is going
to look very foolish. What we are going to be doing is paying people to
go to work, but there will not be any work for them to do, because
there will be no programs for them to administer or anything else. So
really we have not gotten where we want to be.
Furthermore, for the private sector, for the private contractors, for
the small businessmen who are waiting for SBA loans, for all of that,
they are going to still be shut out, and I would think since they are
the real taxpayers out there, they are going to get a little tired of
being denied these services from the Government.
So I would hope we could have a clean CR.
I also want to say, as one who voted for prior budgets that no one on
that side of the aisle voted for, when we took over, when President
Clinton took over, this deficit was at $300 billion a year, and he
brought it down to $161 billion a year through only votes on this side
of the aisle. We are attempting, and we have a balanced budget
amendment that we can do in 7 years, but the question is, who pays, and
whether or not you give huge tax credits on the rich.
That is what this is about. It is not about whether we have one; it
is, who pays for it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if there is no better option available, I will
certainly vote for this first proposition. But I have to make clear
that this proposition would lead one to believe that last night in the
Republican caucus, Goofy and Mickey Mouse got married. I mean, this is
going to leave such an incredibly ludicrous situation on our hands.
What it means is that the zealots in the Republican caucus are
sounding retreat, but they are still shooting hostages as they
withdraw. Because this proposal that they are bringing to us will deal
with the needs of Government employees, they will take care of the
Washington problem, but it will not deal with the rights of the
taxpayers.
Taxpayers have a right to have their Government fully open; they have
a right to receive all of the services for which they have already paid
taxes; and this proposition will not do it. This proposition will mean,
for instance, that there will still be 20,000 Pell grants per day that
will not be processed. It will mean that States will still be left
holding the bag for $7 billion a month in Medicaid costs. It will mean
that there will be 2,000 NIH research grants which will not be renewed,
including 400 cancer grants.
It will mean that there will be 300 Head Start projects with 200,000
kids that will be out of luck because those projects will not be able
to be funded under the terms of this very limited Government opening.
It will mean that NASA contractors will still be left high and dry. It
will mean that we will be paying Government workers to do some work,
but they will be limited in what work they can do; and we will still
not be paying contractors who are doing much of the work that
Government contracts with them to do.
That will have an immense long-term cost to the taxpayer, because
anybody who does business with the Government as a contractor, the next
time around when they sign a contract, will charge much higher prices
so that they do not wind up taking the kind of financial bath that they
are taking so long as we have this continued partial shutdown.
So I will simply say that I urge Members to vote against the previous
question so that we can offer a substitute which would open up
Government in its entirety, so that we do not only just deal with the
problems of Government workers, but also provide taxpayers with the
full range of services to which they have already been entitled by
virtue of the fact they have already paid taxes to achieve those
services.
[[Page H196]]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Frost], a very important member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this proposition before us, which we will all support
because it is the lesser of the evils, and it is because we have to do
something. This proposition reminds everyone of a Rube Goldberg
cartoon; you may have seen those where they have contraptions and they
have levers and they have something down here.
Let us be very clear what we are doing here, or what the Republican
majority is doing here. Certain programs will run until September 30.
Certain other programs will run until March 15, and then Federal
workers will come in and be able to sit in their chairs on all programs
until January 26, but they will not be able to do anything if they do
not happen to work for one of those programs that runs until September
30 or one of those programs that runs until March 15.
This is a monstrosity created by a Republican caucus in chaos. We
should defeat the previous question and substitute a rational approach
that puts everybody back to work and funds all programs in a clean CR.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, under the rather fitting title of providing
for the consideration of most-favored-nation treatment for Bulgaria, we
are about to pass legislation to do something, not much, but a little,
about the problems of the shutdown of the Government that has been
brought about by my Republican colleagues over here. What we are doing,
however, is doing it under a closed rule.
The Republican Members have very carefully seen to it that the
Committee on Rules again denies this House an opportunity to take care
of the Government employees and to take care of the people who are
paying taxes to provide for Government services which are authorized by
this body and by the Senate.
What we are seeing here is that a closed rule is going to deny us the
means to really get the Government up and going.
If I were to come in here on my own and walk down to the well and
offer a piece of legislation like this which says that we are going to
let some Federal employees work and get paid for doing nothing, and
some get paid for doing a little bit or doing almost nothing, and to
allow contractors not to do the job, and to continue a situation where,
for example, in my district, the F-100 Ford truck cannot be certified
by EPA, and that we are going to pay people for doing nothing, they
would say, Dingell, you are out of your cotton-picking mind. This is
nothing more or less than a replay of welfare.
What we are doing is setting up a situation, quite shamefacedly and
improperly under the title of ``Consideration of Most-Favored-Nation
Treatment for Bulgaria,'' to have us move forward to set up people who
are not going to produce and who are going to continue to cost us
somewhere between $40 and $60 million a day for unproductive work,
building an ongoing backlog of work that is not being done to address
the real problems that people are having in this country.
I say that this is an embarrassment, and I do not blame my Republican
colleagues for misnaming it.
Now, I intend to vote for the proposal. I intend to vote against this
rule, because the rule is a disgrace, and I intend to vote to defeat
the previous question, as it well should be, so that we can get a
decent proposal before this body.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, James Madison regularly talked about the importance of
individual liberty, and quite frankly, we have seen the reach of the
Federal Government in this crisis that we are facing right now.
The fact that the F-100 truck cannot be certified, the fact that the
Disney-Cap City's merger cannot go through demonstrates how far-
reaching the Federal Government is, and our goal of trying to reduce
the size and scope is obviously a positive one.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL
[Mr. Goss], my very good friend and the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from greater
downtown Metropolitan San Dimas, CA, for yielding me this very generous
allotment of time; and I rise in support of his rule.
Mr. Speaker, I know that Americans are very frustrated with the
twists and turns the balanced budget debate has taken in these past
weeks, and I know that there have been very real sacrifices out there
made by some Federal employees, their families, some entrepreneurs
whose livelihood depends on the operation of the Federal agencies that
are currently impacted, and some inconvenience to citizens and tourists
alike who want to use facilities.
I think that the bill that this rule makes in order will largely
address these problems and ensure appropriate Government services are
provided, a quick response that was asked for earlier today on this
floor by Members of the other party.
We all wish for a speedy resolution of the specific impasse that we
have here so that we can get back to the work and concentrate on the
main effort. The main effort is to get the President of the United
States on a glidepath toward a true, 7-year balanced budget and a more
efficient, less intrusive Federal Government.
Along with that wish goes the resolve that many of us feel, the moral
imperative; and it is a moral imperative noted by Americans across the
country, not, repeat not, to squander this opportunity to bring balance
to our budget for the first time in three decades and to get our
spending under control.
{time} 1200
Mr. Speaker, during the long debate over the last few months, some of
us have asked why can we not simply restore business as usual and worry
about balancing the budget some other time. In fact I have heard some
of those voices here today. In the short term this probably would
smooth out a few wrinkles, but the long-term implications are
devastating.
It is precisely this inclination to put off the tough arguments, to
postpone the really difficult decisions and to sidestep the most
grueling choices that have brought us to the point where we are in this
country today fiscally. We know that there is never a right time to
effect major change. There are never comfortable ways to fundamentally
alter the status quo, when almost all agree the status quo is broken.
It is an inherently anxious and uncomfortable business that we are
engaged in here. But responsible people all know that it has to be done
and, if we allow this opportunity to pass by, it is going to be gone
forever. The next 40 years, with the same failure rate in society and
the same cost of trillions brought to us by the Democrats over the past
40 years is not a pretty picture, and it certainly is not a worthy goal
for the United States of America as we start the next century.
I am sorry to say that this administration, for all its public
statement about wanting a balanced budget, allowed an entire month to
pass from mid-November to mid-December without a workable or even
serious balanced budget presentation. The President's vetoes on three
major spending bills at the outset of the current shutdown ensured that
tens of thousands of government employees would be in limbo during the
holiday season.
Frankly, it is the view of many that some in the administration have
sought to use Federal employees and their families as sacrificial
public relations pawns to delay committing to the terms of a real
enforceable balanced budget plan. Cynically, these same victims who are
Americans and taxpayers have been used as fodder in a barrage of scare
stories by the White House and its tax and spend allies here on the
Hill.
Mr. Speaker, we do live in extremely uncertain times. We have troops
in Bosnia doing the hard work of peace under extraordinarily difficult
circumstances. In the private sector we
[[Page H197]]
read now that we have some 40,000 employees of a major company who are
faced with losing their jobs due to corporate downsizing. We have
Federal employees worried about when they will get paid and when this
shutdown will end. We have millions of American children facing a
future of extraordinary debt because of years of lousy liberal tax and
spend leadership accepting the easy way out on the question of our
budget.
I hear some today calling for more of that. I know that real people
are suffering real consequences of this struggle. But I also know that
real people will suffer greater consequences if we fail to succeed in
this effort. This rule allows consideration of a targeted bill to put
thousands of Federal workers back to work and to get paid and ensures
the continuation of a handful of vital government services. But as
important as those goals are, they will be lost unless the President
comes to the table with a serious balanced budget proposal so that we
can take further steps to get the Government back on the track. I
suppose also at stake is whether the President will keep his word. He
has promised the voters a balanced budget. He has promised us a
balanced budget. Now is the time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time
remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] has 10 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the American citizens
and taxpayer who have been ringing the phones off the hooks of a lot of
Members of Congress who believe it is ridiculous to keep this
Government shut down over this dispute.
Now, just so everyone understands, people are being paid not to work.
Now they get to go to work but they cannot do their work. At least that
is partial victory. This puts Federal workers back at work getting paid
so they can make their car payments, heating bills, their mortgage
payments, tuition payments, buy some groceries. But why not the whole
Government? Why not put the whole Government back to work and let them
actually do their job?
Yes, this does cover railroad retirement. Yes, it covers Meals on
Wheels, passport services, veterans benefits. That is the good news.
But what about the areas that it does not cover? Federal workers who
will not be able to do the toxic waste cleanups, the environmental
inspections, who will not be able to make the small business loans,
issue the export licenses, or pay vendors who provide Federal services.
What about the West Virginia Legislature which has to meet next week?
What kind of budget does it put forward with this kind of resolution?
What it means is it is going to have to guess and make supplemental
State appropriations to cover what the Federal Government should be
covering.
Yes, I am going to vote for this because it is a partial opening. In
fact, this is a half Congress, is it not, because we had half of a
Government shutdown and now we are going to open it up half again. We
are just going halfway. Why not give the American taxpayers who are
paying the full amount of their taxes, why not give them a full
Government back? That is what this resolution ought to be. Defeat the
previous question and we will get the full Government back up and
running.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have to say this is the kookiest proposal
I have ever heard. I have to oppose the rule. I was in my district last
week, and I went to an EPA lab where they are in charge of Superfund
cleanup and it has all been shut down. There was no one in the office.
Under this proposal, all the employees would go back to the EPA
office in Edison, NJ, but they would not be allowed to do any work.
They would not be allowed to answer inquiries because they would not
have an appropriation to deal with the Superfund. The contractors who
would do the Superfund work would not be able to actually go on the job
and do the cleanup. The people that have to do inspection or
enforcement want an appropriation for the gas for their cars so they
could go out and look at the site.
It is the craziest, I call it the kookiest thing I have ever heard. I
cannot believe that the Republican leadership is now asking us that
this is our only alternative. I will vote for it because I want to see
the workers go back. But I think that we should bring up a clean CR, a
continuing resolution, and we should not be held hostage to this
attitude now, which is approaching fanaticism on the Republican side.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn].
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate those Members of the
Republican Party for their foresight and fortitude in coming forward at
this time with this CR, but it is more like a partial plan rather than
a full plan. Of course, there are times when a half a loaf is better
than no loaf at all. However, there are times when going halfway can be
very, very dangerous, especially for those people who go to work every
day.
What we are doing this with is allowing people to go back to work,
yet we are leaving them exposed to hazardous conditions because we are
not allowing the EPA to its work. We are saying to people who are
exposed to safety problems on highway contracts that you can work but
the OSHA people will not be allowed to check for safety standards.
I believe that what we are doing here is in fact exposing working
people to some untenable situations. So I would say that what we ought
to be doing is looking at how we cannot just go halfway but go all the
way in making sure that people do not only work but are safe when they
carry out their duties and responsibilities.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is both good news and bad news. The
good news is that the Republicans have finally decided to stop holding
three-quarters of a million American Federal workers as hostage. In
Vermont we have close to 2,000 Federal workers who are working today
but are not getting paid. These people have mortgages to pay. They have
children to feed. They have financial obligations to meet. It is
immoral. It is wrong to hold them and every other Federal Worker who is
furloughed and not being paid as hostage.
It is also wrong to hold millions of Americans who need passports,
who need environmental protection, who need Meals on Wheels, who need
all of the services that this Government should be providing as
hostage, who have paid for these services but are not getting them.
The bad news is that, while Federal workers will be paid, many of
them will not be given the resources that they need to do their jobs
properly. That is insane. Why do we give people the money to go to work
but then not allow them the resources to properly fulfill their
function?
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this is not a debate
about a 7-year balanced budget. If our Republican friends were serious
about balancing the budget in 7 years, which I think can be done, they
would not be spending $50 billion more on defense spending despite the
end of the cold war. They would not be spending more money on the CIA
despite the end of the cold war. They would not be giving huge tax
breaks to the rich when the richest people in America today are richer
than they have ever been before.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer].
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, we now learn that the Republicans have a
bill to pay Federal employees, bring them back to work but not fund
their agencies. In other words, what the Republican majority wants is
to have Government workers all dressed up with somewhere to go but
nothing to do. They are going to pay Government workers to go to work
and then do nothing.
The American people should demand to know who came up with this
idiotic
[[Page H198]]
idea. It is the stupidest thing I have ever seen Congress do, and
Congress has done some pretty dumb things. Get this: National parks
will be open; rangers will be paid, but they will not be given gas
money to patrol the parks. EPA will employ their workers but will not
be able to restart cleaning toxic waste dumps. The Small Business
Administration will be running. They will not be giving out loans.
I have a better idea. Let us pay Newt Gingrich and the Republican
freshmen and then not let them do anything. This would truly be a great
accomplishment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Columbus, OH [Ms. Pryce], my very able Committee on Rules colleague.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, today it is time to finally ease the pain of
our Federal employees and to quit blurring the picture. The focus needs
to be on the President's failure to negotiate in good faith and not on
the unfortunate people that he has put in the middle of this. I deeply
regret that our Federal workers have been placed in the middle of this
debate, and I know that they have experienced hardship and uncertainty
over the last 21 days.
I understand their frustration and anger over a situation over which
they have no control. They do not deserve it. Mr. Speaker, today we are
acting in good faith, and it is time for the President to do the same.
Franklin Roosevelt once said it is the duty of the President to propose
and the duty of the Congress to dispose.
The President needs to propose a balanced budget, just as he agreed
to, just as he signed into law weeks ago that he would do, and he needs
to do it now. We cannot negotiate if one side will not even give us
their position. That is what is happening at the White House day after
day as our people go down there to try to balance the budget. The
President will not tell them where he is coming from.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is what our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle have been asking for for weeks. I urge
the White House to join in and finally offer a balanced budget that
will leave nothing left to be said. They will get their CR, the full
CR. Everything will be up and running. So I encourage my colleagues,
tell the President to do the right thing finally. Give us a balanced
budget.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, we do have a dispute, not
about whether to balance the budget but how and by what specifics. But
what the Republican Party has decided to do is to punish the American
people because they do not like the way the President wants to balance
the budget.
The problem is that the American people in fact do not like what they
are doing. So we get one more ludicrous version of an effort to get
themselves out of the hole they dug. Basically this is a resolution
that says stop me before I shut the Government down again.
{time} 1215
Except, Mr. Speaker, they do it incompetently.
We had expected, many of us, a certain degree of fanaticism from the
new Republican majority. I had not expected to see a somewhat new
phenomenon, incompetent fanaticism, dysfunctional extremism. They want
to do drastic things, but they do not know how to make it work, and the
proof of that is that what they have come forward with is so repugnant
that their own majority would not support it except under coercion.
And let us be very clear. They have brought forward a parliamentary
procedure that will prevent any reasonable amendment. Therefore the key
vote on this will be the motion of the previous question.
Some of the Republicans over there who are unhappy at laboring under
the yoke of this ideological incompetence will tell their constituents
that they wish they did not have to support this, that they would like
to have voted to open the Government. Understand, however, that when
they vote for the previous question on this rule, they will be acting
in total variance with that statement. Any Member who says that he or
she wanted to open the Government, but voted for this previous
question, has in fact misrepresented what the situation is.
It was made clear by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr.
Speaker, the only opportunity people will have to fully open the
Government, let the Government function, will be to vote for
amendments, which means defeating the previous question, and those
Republicans who are telling their constituents one thing and vote
another way will be held accountable in November.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Albuquerque, NM [Mr. Schiff].
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support
of the bill and, as well, in support of the rule and the bill in the
next to be offered. I want to say first that I believe that these
proposals will help Federal employees earn the pay that they should
earn for being employees. In fact, this proposal goes even further than
Senator Dole's proposal, in that this will pay Federal employees
through January 26, not just through January 12, and give a longer
period of time where I hope constructive negotiations will occur.
It has to be pointed out that Federal employees and others have been
victims in the impasse between the Congress and the President. They
have not done anything to deserve it. They were caught in the middle.
It should be emphasized that it is the responsibility of both sides
that caused a partial Government shutdown. The President's vetoing
three appropriations bills and the Democrats threatening a filibuster
in the other body to stop a fourth appropriations bill are just as much
a part of the responsibility of the Government shutdown as anything the
Republican side of the Congress has done.
If both sides are responsible for the shutdown, then both sides now
must get together and end it.
Our side is offering a compromise. We are offering to put Federal
employees back to work.
As pointed out, this does not include, in most cases, the operating
funds of the agencies for travel and so forth. That will be delivered
as soon as the President of the United States compromises by offering a
balanced budget proposal. This request on our part is just for the
President to do what he agreed to do in November when both sides agreed
to reach a balanced budget with the same framework, which is 7 years,
using the Congressional Budget Office for economic projections.
The Republicans have offered such a budget. I do not agree with all
of its provisions, but it meets that framework. A number of Democrats
in the House have offered such a budget, a number of Democrats in the
other body have offered such a budget. Only the President of the United
States refuses to offer a balanced budget, and, when he does so, the
whole Government will open.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate I
follow my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], when
he talks about the President not submitting this CBO 7-year, and I have
heard that now for a month. But the Republican side has not submitted a
7-year CBO budget that protects Medicare, protects Medicaid, and
protects education.
Now negotiations are a two-way street. We have heard for a month that
the President has not done something. Well, neither have they.
I am going to support this CR today, and this rule, but it only
recognizes part of the problem. Federal employees go back to work to
process passports, pay for senior citizen nutrition, open the national
parks, and veterans' compensation. I am glad they finally recognized
the need to do that, but we still do not have--the EPA will not be able
to clean up Superfund. Medicaid grants to our States, since they want
to block grant to the States, but yet they are not even giving what
money is supposed to be there now, and also law enforcement functions.
They continue to talk about the need to have a balanced budget, but
they are
[[Page H199]]
not willing to pay Government contractors, people who are now
contracting with the Government to--this resolution does not help those
Government contractors.
We need to go much further, but this is better than nothing.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Albuquerque, NM, Mr. Schiff, to respond to the statement of the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from Texas mentioned my
name, I want to say that the Republican side believes that it has
provided sufficient funds for Medicare. We believe that the Medicare
level of funding we proposed is exactly what the President proposed
last year in his health care reform proposal.
The point is, until we get the President's specific numbers, Mr.
Speaker, we will never know how much he thinks is sufficient funding
for Medicare and other programs and how it differs from ours, and that
is our point.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Coleman].
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley] for yielding me some time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for my colleague, the gentleman
from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], to understand of course that while it is
easy to sit here and just say it is the President's fault, where have
all my colleagues been? We are 9 weeks into the next fiscal year, half
of the time the Government has been shut down, and our colleagues have
not passed all their appropriations bills. Is there a problem that they
cannot govern?
And yet today, and I am going to include in the Record today an
article in the Washington Post where House Republicans say ``turned up
the pressure on the Clinton administration by threatening impeachment
of the Secretary of Treasury.'' Why? Because he wants to avoid
America's default? Boy, that is really bad, is it not? A member of the
administration does not want America to default.
In addition, I will tell my colleagues something: You better start
paying attention to where this country is headed with all of this
turning up the pressure. It is time you start paying attention to
putting America first and the people that are out there wanting the
services of Government first. You know it is not just the Federal
workers we're talking about here. We're talking about Americans who pay
their taxes getting services for the dollar paid in taxes.
The article referred to is as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 5, 1996]
Republicans Threaten To Impeach Rubin if He Borrows Again To Avoid
Default
(By Steven Pearlstein)
House Republicans yesterday turned up the pressure on the
Clinton administration by suggesting they might initiate
impeachment proceedings against Treasury Secretary Robert E.
Rubin if he continued to ignore the will of Congress by
borrowing more money for the Treasury.
Reps. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) and Christopher Cox (R-
Calif.) raised the impeachment specter after Rubin met for 90
minutes with key legislators at the Capitol to discuss the
impasse over increasing the $4.9 trillion ceiling on federal
debt. Raising the debt ceiling is mired in the larger battle
over balancing the federal budget.
``Those of us who are concerned with the constitutionality
of Secretary Rubin's behavior will be watching him closely
and will support impeachment proceedings should he continue
to bypass the Constitution,'' said Solomon, chairman of the
House Rules Committee.
Minutes after Solomon's comments moved on news services,
prices for U.S. Treasury bonds took a sharp dive, losing
about 1 percent of their value. The effect was to raise
yields on the benchmark 30-year bond to 6.03 percent from
5.95 percent late Wednesday. Some stock market analysts also
attributed a portion of the 20.23-point slide in the Dow
Jones industrial average to the impeachment threat.
Solomon and other Republicans were enraged late last year
when Rubin, in an effort to avert a first-ever default on
U.S. government obligations, invoked his authority under the
law to replace government securities held in two federal
employee retirement accounts with IOUs. Rubin then issued new
debt to pay off bondholders when their Treasury bonds came
due.
Yesterday Rubin told House members that he was considering
taking additional steps to avoid default. He said his legal
advisers are exploring similar options should the debt
ceiling be unchanged when the Treasury faces its next cash
crunch in mid-February.
At the meeting, Cox said he warned Rubin that if he tried
again to avert default, ``it would set in motion a series of
hearings and inquiries that would be dedicated to a political
resolution of this matter.''
A ``political resolution,'' Cox explained, might include
removing a Cabinet member from office, but quickly added that
any talk of impeachment was still ``premature.''
Howard Schloss, a spokesman for Rubin, dismissed the
Republican threats yesterday as a ``political ploy'' designed
to take the public attention off the Republican-engineered
partial shutdown of the federal government. And other
Republicans quickly moved to try to downplay the
constitutional confrontation.
The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep.
Robert Livingston (R-La.), said of the impeachment threat,
``It's not in my curriculum,'' the Associated Press reported.
And Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, which would consider any impeachment resolution,
studiously declined comment.
According to House officials, only one Cabinet member,
William Belknap, secretary of war in the Grant
administration, has ever been impeached by the House. Belknap
was later acquitted by the Senate.
Republicans, backed by a legal opinion prepared by former
Republican attorneys general William Barr and Edwin Meese,
argue that the Constitution vests Congress with the sole
authority to decide how much debt the government can take on.
When Rubin exchanged federal debt for non-interest-bearing
IOUs in two federal employee retirement funds last November,
he effectively usurped the power of Congress, they said.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] for yielding this time.
I have tried to lower my voice in the context of this debate because
I am having trouble understanding what my Republican colleagues are
trying to accomplish here. I do not know how they rationally justify
shutting down the Government during the negotiation, either partially
or fully.
I think what we have is a bad case of incompetence on the part of our
new governing majority in the Congress, and I often wonder when I talk
to my constituents, if I were running this Government and I ran it the
way this Congress has run the Congress for the last session, the first
session of this Congress, what they would call me. I can only call them
incompetent. I wonder what they would call me if I ran this Government
the way they are running this Congress.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, Members, sometimes admitting to making a
mistake is difficult, and I think this legislation is evidence of that,
that our colleagues on the Republican side have made a mistake. Senator
Dole showed that they made a mistake the other day, and they are trying
to come back to some sanity, and they have not quite gotten there.
This bill is good for the employees because it honors the contract we
had. They are going to get paid for the time they worked. But it is a
raw deal for the taxpayer. Twelve thousand NASA contractors are not
going to get paid in the Johnson Space Center. Small businesses are not
going to get their loans. Three thousand NIH grants will not be
renewed, including 400 cancer grants. Baylor College of Medicine at the
Texas Medical Center, 327 grants and contracts are going to be
terminated, $78 million at risk. Real employees are going to be laid
off. Homeowners who rely on the Federal Home Administration for FHA
loans are not going to get their loans processed, and that is going to
ripple through the whole real estate economy.
Let us defeat the previous question. Let us do what Senator Dole
asked. Let us put the Government back to work. Let us give the
taxpayers a good deal, and let our colleagues just admit they made a
mistake.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from East
Petersburg, PA [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the Committee on Science.
[[Page H200]]
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, every time we have one of these debates and
they turn into an orgy of name-calling, one wonders whether we are in
the House of Representatives or out in la-la land somewhere, but the
fact is the descriptions I have heard on the House floor today of what
is going on here do remind me of being out in la-la land.
First of all, we have a resolution that is coming to us under this
rule. Under this rule we would, in fact, pay the Federal employees, and
we would, in fact, put some programs back into action through a process
of targeted appropriations. That is a step in the direction that we
think we need to go in terms of opening the Federal Government on terms
that can be sustained into the future.
Second, there will be another resolution to come that will be a
continuing resolution that will open all of the Government up until
January 26. For all of these speeches that we have heard about not
having the Government up and running, we will do it until January 26
provided that the President submits a balanced budget.
Now realize that many of the people who talk about clean continuing
resolutions are really talking about a dirty deal for the American
people. Mr. Speaker, they want a dirty deal in large part because they
want to keep everything running just as it has been running before.
Clean continuing resolutions mean that we just take Government as it
has been practiced for the last 40 years and extend it out into the
future. The American people are saying no to that. The American people
want a balanced budget.
So what we have said is, ``You can get your continuing resolution if,
in fact, what you will do is give us our balanced budget,'' and then I
hear some people on that side of the aisle suggest, well, the President
should not have to actually have to put a balanced budget down. Why,
that would mean hard choices. Well, guess what? Doing the right thing
often means hard choices.
It is time, my colleagues, to do the right thing here. Let us have a
continuing resolution, but we ought to tie it to a balanced budget
because that is what the American people have demanded. We think that
is the right direction to go. Let us do this targeted appropriation
that actually pays the workers, but understand a vote against the
previous question is a vote against paying the Federal workers, a vote
against the previous question is a vote against targeted
appropriations.
{time} 1230
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker in my opinion is absolutely 180
degrees wrong. A vote for the previous question, if we could get 21
Republicans to join Bob Dole, who seeks, of course, to lead all the
Republicans and our country, just 21 voting against the previous
question, we will offer a clean continuing resolution, yes, to open the
Government.
Why do we want to open the Government? So that we will not continue
to pursue a morally indefensible policy, the gentleman from Georgia,
Newt Gingrich, January, this year, of continuing to use Federal
employees as the pawn, as the hostage, as the bludgeon to force the
President to do something. That is not what our democracy is about. Our
democracy is about pursuing constitutional ways and means to pass
legislation and make policy.
Mr. Speaker, let us join together, extricate the Federal employees
from this fight, which as the Speaker says is morally indefensible, and
go on with doing what I think we need to do, a balanced budget, but
with good personnel policies.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend that, of course, the
legislation we are moving ahead will in fact take Federal workers out
of the crossfire and provide them with payment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Del
Mar, CA [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, all Government will be open if the
President agrees to follow his word and give us a balanced budget. That
was due 2 days ago. The President signed a bill with his name on it. He
has not done it yet. So it should not be too hard by January 26 to do
that. All Government will be open. What less could you ask for, for the
President to keep his word, for a change.
If we take a look, in 12 of the 13 bills, my colleagues on the other
side want to spend, want to spend, want to spend. In 1966, you want a
Democrat President? You are going to increase spending and you are
going to increase taxes.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule,
because I wish this legislation would open the Government entirely,
like House Joint Resolution 155, that I introduced, a clean continuing
resolution that would entirely open this Government. This rule does not
allow us to amend to provide a vote on a clean continuing resolution to
open the Government so it can provide full service to the American
people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is a Band-
Aid. It is not even half a loaf. We are creating a wounded, hobbled
government that is still going to hurt a lot of people. It is like
telling the Atlanta Braves to go out and win the World Series again,
but ``without your pitching staff.''
Mr. Speaker, the biggest tragedy here is that Indian Health Service
hospitals are going to suffer enormously. This bill will not provide
funds to heat Indian schools, Indian jails, Indian cells. Next week,
while this body is in recess, the Shiprock Hospital in New Mexico, a
Navajo hospital, is going to run out of IV bags, gauze, and bandages.
This hospital serves 4,800 patients, and they are not going to be able
to order supplies. My hospital is just one of hundreds of Indian Health
Service hospitals throughout the country, serving 1 million people that
are going to face these shortages. There are Navajos and native
Americans in wheelchairs that are going to be turned down. Let us
reject this rule and deal with this issue honorably and
compassionately.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this rule because my constituents are
without health care and food and this bill does not help them.
The Indian Hospital in Shiprock, NM, which serves 4,800 patients
cannot order supplies needed to keep people alive.
The hospital is running out of carbon dioxide which is essential in
operating rooms and intensive care units.
Next week while this body is in recess the hospital will run out of
IV bags, gauze, and bandages.
Before the Congress returns the hospital will have to turn away
wheelchair bound patients with spinal injuries because the hospital
does not have the supplies to help them.
And my hospital is just one of hundreds of IHS hospitals throughout
the country that face these shortages. IHS hospitals provide health
care to over 1 million people.
Forty young people in my district in an alcohol rehab program do not
have food supplies to last until next week.
I cannot support this rule because it does not allow me to make a
difference for millions of people in need.
Althought the leadership chose to include funding for Indians, it is
only limited to general assistance and foster care payments for
American Indians and Alaska Natives remains in the balance.
The Albuquerque area clinics are now able to only treat Indians
facing imminent, serious threats to their health.
In Lawton, OK, the IHS hospital has had to begin turning away
transfer patients from other service areas.
Indian hospitals across the Nation remain crippled by the fact that
they are running on reserves, having had to cut back on community and
prevent programs, being unable to purchase new drugs, blood, and
plasma. Even the purchase of heating fuel is threatened.
The House continuing resolution does not provide any funding for
heating fuels for Indian schools, for Indian police or jails--the Hopi
Tribe and Fort Peck Tribe have begun releasing nonthreatening
prisoners--or for 638 self-governance contract employees.
[[Page H201]]
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to pass a clean CR
which would fund these vital programs which affect the lives, health,
and safety of Indian children and families.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, for those who are listening in this Chamber
and in America, let us think about what this proposal does. We have
gone from the absurd to the ridiculous. We have had a situation that
really has been indefensible. Finally, my Republican colleagues, the
radical right, are starting to follow their leadership a little bit,
that they had an indefensible position where we furloughed workers but
we decided to pay them at the same time.
Now what this resolution does is, we are bringing the workers back,
but we are telling them, ``There is nothing to do,'' because you do not
have to be an MIT economist to understand, as the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson] pointed out, you cannot run a hospital without
an IV, you cannot be a DEA agent without gasoline for your car. It
really is as crazy as it sounds, the proposal. Just as reasoned
Americans changed the radical right, they are going to change the
radical right on this proposal, too. I would ask people out there to
call their Members, 202-224-3121, and let them know.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, in all of this discussion and debate about
who goes to work, who does not go to work, who gets paid, who does not
get paid, who will have the tools and the gasoline and the wherewithal
to do their work, I am reminded of the comment once made by my fellow
Missourian, Mark Twain: ``The more you explain it to me, the more I
don't understand it.''
It was Lyndon Johnson who liked to use the phrase ``Let us come and
reason together.'' If we did that as a body collectively, this Nation
would be far better off. It would drive us irresistibly to two
conclusions: No. 1, we would adopt what the Senate has done, under the
leadership of Senator Dole, from my neighboring Kansas; it would also
cause us to look seriously at the Democratic conservative coalition
proposal that got a substantial number of votes on this floor.
Thre is an answer to this impasse: reason. Adults, people of good
will, can reach those decisions. That is what we should do.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the
gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, it is said to see us stand up here and just keep
throwing spears back and forth. Mr. Speaker, there is a headline here
in one of the papers this morning that says, ``House GOP Backs Off
Shutdown.'' Truly, what Speaker Gingrich has done, believing in this
statement right here, he has bent over backwards for the last 48 hours,
working with a diverse group of Republicans and conservative Democrats,
to try to come to a compromise to see if we cannot get this Government
functioning and get on the road to a balanced budget. That is coming
from the bottom of his heart when he made this statement.
Mr. Speaker, here we have a bill before us today which is going to
provide for nutrition programs for Meals on Wheels, child welfare
programs, administration of unemployment insurance, so terribly
important, passport visas, veterans compensation. This is what this
bill is all about.
But I hear talk about defeating the previous question. I can assure
Members that with Speaker Gingrich for the last 48 hours literally
banging people on the head to get them to come to a consensus to bring
this bill together, to put these people back to work, you are
jeopardizing it with talking about defeating the previous question. If
you defeat the previous question. If you defeat the previous question,
I am going to tell you, we might have trouble putting our consensus
back together, and this whole thing could fall apart. That is not what
you want, that is not what I want, and it certainly is not what Speaker
Gingrich wants. I urge Members to pass the previous question. Let us
get on with the rule, and let us pass this vital piece of legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the amendment I
would offer if the previous question is defeated.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment Text for the Previous Question
In the resolution strike, ``the motion printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution'' and insert in lieu thereof, ``a motion to concur
in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the
text printed in section 2 of this resolution.''
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Section 2. Title I Section 106(c) of Public Law 104-56 is
amended by striking ``December 15, 1995'' and
inserting ``January 26, 1996''.''
TITLE II
Veterans Affairs
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipt, and funds,
for the several departments, agencies, corporations and other
organizational units of Government for the fiscal year 1996,
and for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 201. Ensured Payment During Fiscal Year 1996 of
Veterans' Benefits in Event of Lack of Appropriations.
(a) Payments required.--In any case during fiscal year 1996
in which appropriations are not otherwise available for
programs, projects, and activities of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
nevertheless ensure that--
(1) payments of existing veterans benefits are made in
accordance with regular procedures and schedules and in
accordance with eligibility requirements for such benefits;
and
(2) payments to contractors of the Veterans Health
Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs are made
when due in the case of services provided that directly
relate to patient health and safety.
(b) Funding.--There is hereby appropriated such sums as may
be necessary for the payments pursuant to subsection (a),
including such amounts as may be necessary for the costs of
administration of such payments.
(c) Charging of accounts when appropriations made.--In any
case in which the Secretary uses the authority of subsection
(a) to make payments, applicable accounts shall be charged
for amounts so paid, and for the costs of administration of
such payments, when regular appropriations become available
for those purposes.
(d) Existing benefits specified.--For purposes of this
section, existing veterans benefits are benefits under laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that have
been adjudicated and authorized for payment as of--
(1) December 15, 1995; or
(2) if appropriations for such benefits are available
(other than pursuant to subsection (b)) after December 15,
1995, the last day on which appropriations for payments of
such benefits are available (other than pursuant to
subsection (b)).
Sec. 202. Section 201 shall cease to be effective on
September 30, 1996.
Sec. 203. For the purposes of this title of this Act, the
time covered by this title of this Act shall be considered to
have begun on January 4, 1996.
TITLE III
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds,
for the several departments, agencies, corporations and other
organizational units of Government for the fiscal year 1996,
and for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 301. Such amounts as may be necessary under the
authority and conditions provided in applicable
appropriations Acts for the fiscal year 1995 for paying
salaries of Federal employees during periods when there is
otherwise no funding authority for their salaries. Any period
in which there is a lapse in appropriations with respect
to the agency activity in which the employee is engaged
shall not be considered to be furloughed when on leave and
shall be subject to the same leave regulations as if no
lapse in appropriations had occurred.
Sec. 312. Eligibility for Unemployment Compensation.--
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, beginning on
January 2, 1996, any Federal employee who is excepted from
furlough and is not being paid due to a lapse in
appropriations shall be deemed to be totally separated from
Federal service and eligible for unemployment compensation
benefits under subchapter I of chapter 85 of title 5 of the
United States Code with no waiting period for such
eligibility to accrue.
Sec. 313. For the purposes of this title, Federal employees
returning to work under the provisions of section 310 shall
be deemed to have returned to work at the first regularly
scheduled opportunity after December 15, 1995.
Sec. 314. Appropriations made pursuant to section 301 are
made notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956, section 701 of the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, section 313
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), section 53 of the Arms
[[Page H202]]
Control and Disarmament Act, and section 10 of Public Law 91-672.
TITLE IV
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of the
general fund and enterprise funds of the District of Columbia
for the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 1996, and
for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 401. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 for continuing
projects or activities including the costs of direct loans
and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for
in this title of this Act) which were conducted in the fiscal
year 1995 and for which appropriations, funds, or other
authority would be available in the following appropriations
Act:
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1996:
Provided, That whenever the amount which would be made
available or the authority which would be granted in this Act
is greater than that which would be available or granted
under current operations, the pertinent project or activity
shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the
current rate.
(b) Whenever the amount which would be made available or
the authority which would be granted under the Act listed in
this section as passed by the House as of the date of
enactment of this Act, is different from that which would be
available or granted under such Act as passed by the Senate
as of the date of enactment of this Act, the pertinent
project or activity shall be continued at a rate for
operations not exceeding the current rate or the rate
permitted by the action of the House or the Senate, whichever
is lower, under the authority and conditions provided in the
applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995:
Provided, That where an item is not included in either
version or where an item is included in only one version of
the Act as passed by both Houses as of the date of enactment
of this Act, the pertinent project or activity shall not be
continued except as provided for in section 411 or 412 under
the appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the
applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 and
under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995.
Clarification of Certain Reimbursements
Sec. 501. Clarification of Reimbursement to States for
Federally Funded Employees.
(a) If a State used State funds to continue carrying out a
Federal program or furloughed State employees whose
compensation is advanced or reimbursed in whole or in part by
the Federal Government--
(1) such furloughed employees shall be compensated at their
standard rate of compensation for such period;
(2) the State shall be reimbursed for expenses that would
have been paid by the Federal Government during such period
had appropriations been available, including the cost of
compensating such furloughed employees, together with
interest thereon due under section 6503(d) of title 31,
United States Code; and
(3) the State may use funds available to the State under
such Federal program to reimburse such State, together with
interest thereon due under section 6503(d) of title 31,
United States Code; and
(b) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``State''
shall have the meaning as such term is defined under the
applicable Federal program under subsection (a).
(c) The authority under this section applies with respect
to any period in fiscal year 1996 (not limited to periods
beginning or ending after the date of the enactment of this
Act) during which there occurs a lapse in appropriations with
respect to any department or agency of the Federal Government
which, but for such lapse in appropriations, would have paid,
or made reimbursement relating to, any of the expenses
referred to in subsection (a) with respect to the program
involved. Payments and reimbursements under this authority
shall be made only to the extent and in amounts provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
(2) Amend the title so as to read: ``Making appropriations
for certain activities for the fiscal year 1996, and for
other purposes''.
Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Here we
are in day 21 of what can best be described as a hostage situation. I
wish someone from the other side of the aisle could stand up and
explain the thinking behind all this, because frankly I do not
understand what kind of games are really being played here. The
situation is irrational. It is wasteful. Worst of all, it is hurting
people; Federal workers and their families for sure, but citizens,
senior citizens, underprivileged children, the disabled, and countless
others who need Government services and depend on them for their basic
needs.
May I give the Members an example? Just today I heard from an out-of-
work coal miner in my district. He was supposed to begin school to get
a fresh start, but he cannot. Why? Because the Republican majority in
this Congress is holding up the funds for his retraining. He is being
held hostage, and so are countless other Americans.
Now we are about to consider some kind of a continuing resolution,
and if it comes to a vote, then sure, I will support it because it
releases some of the hostages, but shame on those who will not release
all of the hostages. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way. Let us pass a
clean CR.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote an interesting
piece the other day in which he made it clear that if this were
business as usual, we would see a package agreed to with phony numbers,
phony assumptions, and all; but, quite frankly, this is not business as
usual. Unfortunately, we are in a position where many of my colleagues
on the other side are, unfortunately, representing the party of
government. We, on the other hand, epitomize the party of the people.
We are the party that is trying to do what it is that the American
people sent us here to do, and that is balance the Federal budget.
We are all concerned about the fact that the Federal Government is
shut down. That is the reason we have come up with this package, which
does ensure that Federal employees are not caught in the crossfire. We
hope that business as usual will come to an end. We found,
unfortunately, that this problem has created a clear understanding of
the fact that the Federal Government's reach is way too far. A truck
cannot be certified by the EPA, a private sector business merger cannot
go through, because the Federal Government is closed down.
We need to reduce the size and scope of Government. We need to
balance the budget for our children and their children. Let us move
ahead, pass this responsible package which will pay those Federal
workers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 187, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 6]
YEAS--228
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
[[Page H203]]
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--187
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--18
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Greenwood
Hayes
Lightfoot
Myers
Norwood
Quillen
Rose
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Torricelli
Wilson
Wyden
{time} 1301
Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas and Mr. FORD changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, due to an unavoidable detainment earlier
today I was unable to cast my vote on rollcalls 6 and 7. Had I been
present I would have voted on rollcall vote No. 7, a ``yes''; rollcall
vote No. 6, a ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Request to Modify Motion Offered by Mr. Livingston
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rule just
passed be amended to read as follows: ``It shall be''----
Mr. DREIER. I object.
Mr. OBEY. Can I read it first, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. DREIER. I heard the unanimous-consent request, and I objected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin will proceed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the rule just
passed be amended to read as follows: ``It shall also be in order to
consider an amendment by the minority leader or his designee adding at
the end of H.J. Res. 334 a new title II, consisting of the text of H.J.
Res. 131''----
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. OBEY. ``Continuing funding for many critical Federal departments
through January 26, 1996, and authorizing----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. OBEY. ``A 2.4-percent pay raise for the Armed Forces of the
United States.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. DREIER. Now that he has completed, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. OBEY. Are we at the point in the procedures of this House where
Members are gagged before they can even bring a question to the Chair?
Are we really at that point, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will suspend, the Chair
will give the gentleman an answer.
The Chair was trying to get order, and the gentleman kept reading,
and the Chair would have gotten order, and that is the regular order of
the House.
The objections would have been heard after the gentleman had finished
stating the request. That is the normal order of the House.
Mr. OBEY. I hope the gentleman from California will respect that.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 334, I call
up the bill (H.R. 1643) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of Bulgaria,
with a Senate amendment thereto.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
motion offered by mr. livingston
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate
amendment and the motion.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION.
(a) In General.--Section 106(c) of Public Law 104-56 is
amended by striking ``December 15, 1995'' and inserting
``January 12, 1996''.
(b) Effective Period.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be considered to have taken effect on December 16,
1995.
SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
Beginning on January 2, 1996, any Federal employee who is
excepted from furlough and is not being paid due to a lapse
in appropriations shall be eligible for unemployment
compensation benefits with no waiting period for such
eligibility to accrue. With respect to any person who is
eligible for such benefits by reason of the preceding
sentence, any such benefits received shall be subject to
repayment in the same manner and to the same extent when
eligibility by reason of the preceding sentence ceases as if
such cessation were an end to the period of unemployment.
The text of the motion is as follows:
Mr. Livingston (or his designee) moves that the House
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment, as follows:
(1) In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment,
insert:
TITLE I
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds,
for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and
other organizational units of Government for the fiscal year
1996, and for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 for continuing
the following projects or activities including the costs of
direct loans and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically
provided for in this Act) which were conducted in the fiscal
year 1995:
All nutrition services for the elderly under the account
heading ``Aging services programs'' under the Administration
on Aging in the Department of Health and Human Services;
All grants to States for child welfare services, authorized
by title IV, part B, subpart 1, of the Social Security Act,
under the account heading ``Children and families services
programs'' under the Administration for
[[Page H204]]
Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services;
All Federal Parent Locator Service activities, as
authorized by section 453 of the Social Security Act, under
the account heading ``Children and families services
programs'' under the Administration for Children and Families
in the Department of Health and Human Services;
All State unemployment insurance administration activities
under the account heading ``State unemployment insurance and
employment service operations'' under the Employment and
Training Administration in the Department of Labor;
All general welfare assistance payments and foster care
payments, as authorized by law, funded under the account
heading ``Operation of Indian programs'' under the Bureau of
Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior;
All projects and activities funded under the account
heading ``Family support payments to States'' under the
Administration For Children and Families in the Department of
Health and Human Services;
All projects and activities funded under the account
heading ``Payments to States for foster care and adoption
assistance'' under the Administration For Children and
Families in the Department of Health and Human Services;
All administrative activities necessary to carry out the
projects and activities in the preceding two paragraphs;
All projects and activities funded under the account
headings ``Dual benefits payments account'', ``Limitation on
administration'' and ``Limitation on railroad unemployment
insurance administration fund'' under the Railroad Retirement
Board;
All projects and activities necessary to accommodate
visitors and to provide for visitor services in the National
Park System, the National Wildlife Refuges, the National
Forests, the facilities operated by the Smithsonian
Institution, the National Gallery of Art, the John F. Kennedy
Center for the Performing Arts, and the United States
Holocaust Memorial; and
All projects and activities necessary to process VISAS and
passports and to provide for American citizen services,
notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956: Provided, That whenever the amount
which would be made available or the authority which would be
granted under an Act which included funding for fiscal year
1996 for the projects and activities listed in this section
is greater than that which would be available or granted
under current operations, the pertinent project or activity
shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the
current rate.
(b) Whenever the amount which would be made available or
the authority which would be granted under the Act which
included funding for fiscal year 1996 for the projects and
activities listed in this section as passed by the House as
of the date of enactment of this Act, is different from that
which would be available or granted under such Act as passed
by the Senate as of the date of enactment of this Act, the
pertinent project or activity shall be continued at a rate
for operations not exceeding the current rate or the rate
permitted by the action of the House or the Senate, whichever
is lower, under the authority and conditions provided in the
applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995.
(c) Whenever an Act which included funding for fiscal year
1996 for the projects and activities listed in this section
has been passed by only the House or only the Senate as of
the date of enactment of this Act, the pertinent project or
activity shall be continued under the appropriation, fund, or
authority granted by the one House at a rate for operations
not exceeding the current rate or the rate permitted by the
action of the one House, whichever is lower, and under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 102. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be
available to the extent and in the manner which would be
provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
Sec. 103. No appropriation or funds made available or
authority granted pursuant to section 101 shall be used to
initiate or resume any project or activity for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available
during the fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 104. No provision which is included in the
appropriations Act enumerated in section 101 but which was
not included in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1995 and which by its terms is applicable to more than
one appropriation, fund, or authority shall be applicable to
any appropriation, fund, or authority provided in this Act.
Sec. 105. Appropriations made and authority granted
pursuant to this title of this Act shall cover all
obligations or expenditures incurred for any program,
project, or activity during the period for which funds or
authority for such project or activity are available under
this Act.
Sec. 106. Unless otherwise provided for in this title of
this Act or in the applicable appropriations Act,
appropriations and funds made available and authority granted
pursuant to this title of this Act shall be available until
(a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in this title of this Act, or (b) the
enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by
both Houses without any provision for such project or
activity, or (c) September 30, 1996, except for the projects
and activities under the headings ``Family support payments
to States'' and ``Payments to States for foster care and
adoption assistance'', for which date shall be March 15,
1996, whichever first occurs.
Sec. 107. Expenditures made pursuant to this title of this
Act shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, fund,
or authorization whenever a bill in which such applicable
appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained is enacted
into law.
Sec. 108. No provision in the appropriations Act for the
fiscal year 1996 referred to in section 101 of this Act that
makes the availability of any appropriation provided therein
dependent upon the enactment of additional authorizing or
other legislation shall be effective before the date set
forth in section 106(c) of this Act.
Sec. 109. Appropriations and funds made available by or
authority granted pursuant to this title of this Act may be
used without regard to the time limitations for submission
and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513
of title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall
be construed to waive any other provision of law governing
the apportionment of funds.
Sec. 110. For the purposes of this title of this Act, the
time covered by this title of this Act shall be considered to
have begun on December 16, 1995.
Sec. 111. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
except section 106, funds appropriated under section 101 for
the payment of vested dual benefits under the Railroad
Retirement Act shall be made available so as to fully fund
the payments made on January 1, 1996, and the payments to be
made within the period covered by this Act including those
payments to be made on the first day of each month within the
period covered by this Act. In addition to the funds
appropriated under section 101 of this Act, $12,800,000 is
appropriated to restore full funding for payments made for
the period prior to January 1, 1996.
Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
except section 106, the authorities provided under subsection
(a) of section 140 of the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) shall
remain in effect during the period of this Act,
notwithstanding paragraph (3) of said subsection.
TITLE II
Veterans Affairs
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds,
for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and
other organizational units of Government for the fiscal year
1996, and for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 201. Ensured Payment During Fiscal Year 1996 of
Veterans' Benefits in Event of Lack of Appropriations.--
(a) Payments required.--In any case during fiscal year 1996
in which appropriations are not otherwise available for
programs, projects, and activities of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
nevertheless ensure that--
(1) payments of existing veterans benefits are made in
accordance with regular procedures and schedules and in
accordance with eligibility requirements for such benefits;
and
(2) payments to contractors of the Veterans Health
Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs are made
when due in the case of services provided that directly
relate to patient health and safety.
(b) Funding.--There is hereby appropriated such sums as may
be necessary for the payments pursuant to subsection (a),
including such amounts as may be necessary for the costs of
administration of such payments.
(c) Charging of Accounts When Appropriations Made.--In any
case in which the Secretary uses the authority of subsection
(a) to make payments, applicable accounts shall be charged
for amounts so paid, and for the costs of administration
of such payments, when regular appropriations become
available for those purposes.
(d) Existing Benefits Specified.--For purposes of this
section, existing veterans benefits are benefits under laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that have
been adjudicated and authorized for payments as of--
(1) December 15, 1995; or
(2) if appropriations for such benefits are available
(other than pursuant to subsection (b)) after December 15,
1995, the last day on which appropriations for payment of
such benefits are available (other than pursuant to
subsection (b)).
Sec. 202. Section 201 shall cease to be effective on
September 30, 1996.
Sec. 203. For the purposes of this title of this Act, the
time covered by this title of this Act shall be considered to
have begun on January 4, 1996.
TITLE III
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds,
for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and
other organizational units of Government for the fiscal year
1996, and for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 301. Such amounts as may be necessary under the
authority and conditions provided in applicable
appropriations Acts for the fiscal year 1995 for paying
salaries of Federal employees excepted from the provisions of
the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C.
[[Page H205]]
1341 et seq) who are continuing projects and activities conducted in
fiscal year 1995 who work during periods when there is
otherwise no funding authority for their salaries.
Sec. 302. Appropriations made by section 301 shall be
available to the extent and in the manner which would be
provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
Sec. 303. No appropriation or funds made available or
authority granted pursuant to section 301 shall be used to
initiate or resume any project or activity for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available
during the fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 304. No provision which is included in the
appropriations Act enumerated in section 301 but which was
not included in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1995 and which by its terms is applicable to more than
one appropriation, fund, or authority shall be applicable
to any appropriation, fund, or authority provided in this
Act.
Sec. 305. Appropriations made and authority granted
pursuant to this title of this Act shall cover all
obligations or expenditures incurred for any program,
project, or activity during the period for which funds or
authority for such project or activity are available under
this Act.
Sec. 306. Unless otherwise provided for in this title of
this Act or in the applicable appropriations Act,
appropriations and funds made available and authority granted
pursuant to this title of the Act shall be available until
(a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in this title of this Act, or (b) the
enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by
both Houses without any provision for such project or
activity, or (c) January 26, 1996, whichever first occurs.
Sec. 307. Expenditures made pursuant to this title of this
Act shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, fund,
or authorization whenever a bill in which such applicable
appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained is enacted
into law.
Sec. 308. No provision in the appropriations Act for the
fiscal year 1996 referred to in section 301 of this Act that
makes the availability of any appropriation provided therein
dependent upon the enactment of additional authorizing or
other legislation shall be effective before the date set
forth in section 306(c) of this Act.
Sec. 309. Appropriations and funds made available by or
authority granted pursuant to this title of this Act may be
used without regard to the time limitations for submission
and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of
title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall be
construed to waive any other provision of law governing the
apportionment of funds.
Sec. 310. All Federal Employees Deemed To Be Excepted
Employees.--
(a) In General.--Section 1342 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended for the period December 15, 1995 through
January 26, 1996--
(1) by inserting after the first sentence ``All officers
and employees of the United States Government or the District
of Columbia government shall be deemed to be performing
services relating to emergencies involving the safety of
human life or the protection of property.''; and
(2) by striking out the last sentence.
Sec. 311. Excepted Employees Under Normal Leave Policy.--
Federal employees considered excepted from furlough during
any period in which there is a lapse in appropriations with
respect to the agency activity in which the employee is
engaged shall not be considered to be furloughed when on
leave and shall be subject to the same leave regulations as
if no lapse in appropriations had occurred.
Sec. 312. Eligibility for Unemployment Compensation.--
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, beginning on
January 2, 1996, any federal employee who is excepted from
furlough and is not being paid due to a lapse in
appropriations shall be deemed to be totally separated from
Federal service and eligible for unemployment compensation
benefits under subchapter I of chapter 85 of title 5 of the
United States Code with no waiting period for such
eligibility to accrue.
Sec. 313. For the purposes of this title, Federal employees
returning to work under the provisions of section 310 shall
be deemed to have returned to work at the first regularly
scheduled opportunity after December 15, 1995.
Sec. 314. Appropriations made pursuant to section 301 are
made notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956, section 701 of the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, section 313
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), section 53 of the Arms Control
and Disarmament Act, and section 10 of Public Law 91-672.
TITLE IV
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of the
general fund and enterprise funds of the District of Columbia
for the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 1996, and
for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 401. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 for continuing
projects or activities including the costs of direct loans
and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for
in this title of this Act) which were conducted in the fiscal
year 1995 and for which appropriations, funds, or other
authority would be available in the following appropriations
Act:
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1996:
Provided, That whenever the amount which would be made
available or the authority which would be granted in this Act
is greater than that which would be available or granted
under current operations, the pertinent project or activity
shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the
current rate.
(b) Whenever the amount which would be made available or
the authority which would be granted under the Act listed in
this section as passed by the House as of the date of
enactment of this Act, is different from that which would be
available or granted under such Act as passed by the Senate
as of the date of enactment of this Act, the pertinent
project or activity shall be continued at a rate for
operations not exceeding the current rate or the rate
permitted by the action of the House or the Senate, whichever
is lower, under the authority and conditions provided in the
applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995:
Provided, That where an item is not included in either
version or where an item is included in only one version of
the Act as passed by both Houses as of the date of enactment
of this Act, the pertinent project or activity shall not be
continued except as provided for in section 411 or 412 under
the appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the
applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995 and
under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 402. Appropriations made by section 401 shall be
available to the extent and in the manner which would be
provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
Sec. 403. No appropriation or funds made available or
authority granted pursuant to section 401 shall be used to
initiate or resume any project or activity for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available
during the fiscal year 1995.
Sec. 404. No provision which is included in the
appropriations Act enumerated in section 401 but which was
not included in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1995 and which by its terms is applicable to more than
one appropriation, fund, or authority shall be applicable to
any appropriation, fund, or authority provided in this title
of this Act.
Sec. 405. Appropriations made and authority granted
pursuant to this title of this Act shall cover all
obligations or expenditures incurred for any program,
project, or activity during the period for which funds or
authority for such project or activity are available under
this title of this Act.
Sec. 406. Unless otherwise provide for in this title of
this Act or in the applicable appropriations Act,
appropriations and funds made available and authority granted
pursuant to this title of this Act shall be available until
(a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in this title of this Act, or (b) the
enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by
both Houses without any provision for such project or
activity, or (c) September 30, 1996, whichever first
occurs.
Sec. 407. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title
of this Act, except section 406, none of the funds
appropriated under this title of this Act shall be expended
for any abortion except where the life of the mother would be
endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the
pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Sec. 408. Expenditures made pursuant to this title of this
Act shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, fund,
or authorization whenever a bill in which such applicable
appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained is enacted
into law.
Sec. 409. No provision in the appropriations Act for the
fiscal year 1996 referred to in section 401 of this title of
this Act that makes the availability of any appropriation
provided therein dependent upon the enactment of additional
authorizing or other legislation shall be effective before
the date set forth in section 406(c) of this Act.
Sec. 410. Appropriations and funds made available by or
authority granted pursuant to this title of this Act may be
used without regard to the time limitations for submission
and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of
title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall be
construed to waive any other provision of law governing the
apportionment of funds.
Sec. 411. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title
of this Act, except section 406, whenever the Act listed in
section 401 as passed by both the House and Senate as of the
date of enactment of this Act does not include funding for an
ongoing project or activity for which there is a budget
request, or whenever the rate for operations for an ongoing
project or activity provided by section 401 for which there
is a budget request would result in the project or activity
being significantly reduced, the pertinent project or
activity may be continued under the authority and conditions
provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal
year 1995 by increasing the rate for operations provided by
section 401 to a rate for operations not to exceed one that
provides the minimal level that would enable existing
activities to continue. No new contracts or grants shall be
awarded in excess of an amount that bears the same ratio to
the rate for operations provided by this section as the
number of days covered by this Act bears to 366. For the
purposes of this title of this Act the minimal level means a
rate for operations that is reduced from the current rate
by 25 percent.
[[Page H206]]
Sec. 412. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title
of this Act, except section 406, whenever the rate for
operations for any continuing project or activity provided by
section 401 or section 411 for which there is a budget
request would result in a furlough of Government employees,
that rate for operations may be increased to the minimum
level that would enable the furlough to be avoided. No new
contracts or grants shall be awarded in excess of an amount
that bears the same ratio to the rate for operations provided
by this section as the number of days covered by this Act
bears to 366.
Sec. 413. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title
of this Act, except sections 406, 411, and 412, for those
programs that had high initial rates of operation or complete
distribution of funding at the beginning of the fiscal year
in fiscal year 1995 because of distributions of funding to
States, foreign countries, grantees, or others, similar
distributions of funds for fiscal year 1996 shall not be made
and no grants shall be awarded for such programs funded by
this title of this Act that would impinge on final funding
prerogatives.
Sec. 414. This title of this Act shall be implemented so
that only the most limited funding action of that permitted
in this title of this Act shall be taken in order to provide
for continuation of projects and activities.
Sec. 415. The provisions of section 132 of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 1988, Public Law 100-202, shall
not apply for this title of this Act.
Sec. 416. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title
of this Act, except section 406, none of the funds
appropriated under this title of this Act shall be used to
implement or enforce any system or registration of unmarried,
cohabiting couples whether they are homosexual, lesbian,
heterosexual, including but not limited to registration for
the purpose of extending employment, health, or governmental
benefits to such couples on the same basis that such benefits
are extended to legally married couples; nor shall any funds
made available pursuant to any provision of this title of
this Act otherwise be used to implement or enforce D.C. Act
9-188, signed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia on
April 15, 1992.
TITLE V
Clarification of Certain Reimbursements
Sec. 501. Clarification of Reimbursement to States for
Federally Funded Employees.--
(a) If a State used State funds to continue carrying out a
Federal program or furloughed State employees whose
compensation is advanced or reimbursed in whole or in part by
the Federal Government--
(1) such furloughed employees shall be compensated at their
standard rate of compensation for such period;
(2) the State shall be reimbursed for expenses that would
have been paid by the Federal Government during such period
had appropriations been available, including the cost of
compensating such furloughed employees, together with
interest thereon due under section 6503(d) of title 31,
United States Code; and
(3) the State may use funds available to the State under
such Federal program to reimburse such State, together with
interest thereon due under section 6503(d) of title 31,
United States Code.
(b) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``State''
shall have the meaning as such term is defined under the
applicable Federal program under subsection (a).
(c) The authority under this section applies with respect
to any period in fiscal year 1996 (not limited to periods
beginning or ending after the date of the enactment of this
Act) during which there occurs a lapse in appropriations with
respect to any department or agency of the Federal Government
which, but for such lapse in appropriations, would have paid,
or made reimbursement relating to, any of the expenses
referred to in subsection (a) with respect to the program
involved. Payments and reimbursements under this authority
shall be made only to the extent and in amounts provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
(2) Amend the title so as to read: ``Making appropriations
for certain activities for the fiscal year 1996, and for
other purposes.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 334, the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized
for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
request to modify motion offered by mr. livingston
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify the motion
at the desk to include the following amendment at the appropriate
place: In section 101, insert ``all authorized projects and activities
and programs of the Department of Veterans' Affairs not otherwise
provided for in this act.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
request to modify motion offered by mr. livingston
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
motion at the desk to include the following amendment: ``At the
appropriate place under section 101, insert the following new citation:
Black lung benefits administered by the Department of Labor and the
Social Security Administration and the related administrative costs.''
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
request to modify motion offered by mr. livingston
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to modify the
motion at the desk to include the following amendment: ``At the
appropriate place under section 101, insert the following new citation:
Rehabilitation services administered by the Department of Education.''
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
general leave
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the motion to dispose of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1643,
now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have another unanimous-consent request.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, who is recognized for the purposes of
time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has the time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to floor a motion
to dispose of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1643.
This bill originated in the House as a grant of most-favored-nation
status to Bulgaria. The Senate amended this bill by striking all of the
text of the House-passed version and inserting a provision that would
extend the expired continuing resolution until January 12.
The motion that I am offering today would strike the Senate-proposed
provision and insert instead a targeted appropriations bill. Most of
the targeted activities are the same ones the Senate proposed in
another bill it originated, S. 1508.
Mr. Speaker, the targeted appropriations bill we have offered today
would provide funding until September 30, 1996, for the following
activities: nutrition programs for the elderly, which includes the
Meals on Wheels Program, which serves 600,000 elderly; child welfare
programs that provide assistance in 2,500,000 child maltreatment cases
and the Federal Parent Locator service, affecting 20,000 child support
cases; administration of unemployment insurance; general assistance
payments affecting 53,000 native American families and foster care
payments affecting 3,000 native American children; railroad retirement
payments for 170,000 retired railroad workers; visitor services in the
National Park System and the wildlife refuges, affecting 383,000
visitors per day, in the 155 national forests, and in the national
museums, affecting 102,000 visitors per day; passports, visa, and
American citizen services abroad to enable processing 23,000 passports
and 20,000 visas per day; veterans compensation, pensions for over
2,500,000 veterans, and educational program payments for 170,000 GI
bill students; and the operation of the District of Columbia using its
own revenues.
{time} 1315
The bill provides two other targeted appropriations until March 15,
1996. They are aid to families with dependent children, affecting 13
million recipients and foster care and adoption services.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to these targeted appropriations, this bill
declares any Federal worker who has been furloughed to be an excepted
employee, and when these workers return to their jobs they, and all the
currently excepted employees, would be paid and would receive back pay
from December
[[Page H207]]
16, 1995. This provision would be effective until January 26, 1996.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are the major provisions of this targeted
appropriations bill. Other more minor provisions cover authorization of
payments to States for furloughed State employees whose salaries are
reimbursed by the Federal Government, and authorizations dealing with
the leave policy of Federal employees and eligibility for unemployment
compensation.
Adopting this motion, which provides a targeted appropriations bill,
will provide funding for some of the most important of our governmental
services that have been shut down since the last continuing resolution
expired and will eliminate most of the inequity problems this situation
created for our Federal workers. We need to pay the people who have
been working, and we need to pay the others who want to come back to
work. This bill will do exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will rectify some major problems of the
current partial shutdown of the Government.
Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill while the bigger negotiations
continue that will lead to the reopening of the entire Government. It
is not a total answer to the situation we are in, but it is a step
forward. I strenuously urge the adoption of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as everyone in this House knows, the gentleman from
Louisiana and I are very good friends, although he made the mistake of
joining the wrong political party, and I think if our friendship can
withstand these differences, it will be quite a testimony to the
possibilities in life.
But let me simply say that I think we are at a very serious point in
the history of this institution. We have seen for the last month an
incredibly silly situation in which Government workers were first paid
for work that they were forbidden to do, and now they are forbidden to
be paid for work which they are being required to do. I have had a
situation in my own district where a very large number of people who
are not Government employees have had their lives severely messed up by
this silly situation.
Mr. Speaker, I have such affected persons in Superior. I have a
student at the University of Wisconsin in Superior who is Finnish. He
is from Finland. He is a member of the university hockey team. He
cannot get his entry visa into the United States because the Government
is shut down. People like Tyler Radenz in my district, George Rohmeyer
of Marshfield, Carrie Linder of Ashland, David Weber of Wausau, Carolyn
Hern of Dedolth, Buckley Gilk of Merrill, Robert Vandeslice of Sheldon,
Klaus Kroner of Stevens Point. These are real live human beings, with
real names and real problems, and all of those problems have been
caused by the Congress of the United States.
I think we need to make certain people understand why we are in this
situation, so let me go back to basics. The fiscal year began on
October 1. By October 1, this Congress had not passed a single
appropriation bill of the 13 bills before us, so a continuing
resolution was required in order to keep the government open. One short
continuing resolution was passed.
But since then the situation has been quite different. Since then a
number of appropriation bills have been passed. Six of them are still
not passed. Three of them have been vetoed. Three have not even gotten
to the President.
We have been told time and time again by our friends on the
Republican side of the aisle that the reason the Government is shut
down is because the President vetoed appropriation bills. That is
simply not the case. We have had Presidents veto appropriation bills
throughout the entire history of this Congress.
Since the Civiletti memo, which first required the shutdown of
Government when appropriation bills were not passed in a timely
fashion, and that was in 1981, we have had only 8 working days in 14
years during which the Government has been shut down. Yet today we have
gone an enormous amount of time with chaos, not just for Government
employees, but for the taxpayers who we are supposed to be serving as
well, and that is not because the President vetoed appropriation bills.
The President, when he vetoed those three appropriation bills, asked
the Congress to keep the Government open while those differences
between the Congress and the President were resolved.
Mr. Speaker, 70 percent of the dollars in dispute on appropriation
bills, 70 percent are contained in appropriation bills which have yet
to reach the White House desk. The District of Columbia appropriations
bill, the foreign operations bill, and the Labor, Health, Education,
and social services bill, none of those bills has gotten to the
President because of disputes within the Congress itself.
So let us not hear any more nonsense about the President shutting
down the Government, because that is exactly what it is. That assertion
is nonsense. The Government is shut down because this country was told
since April by the Speaker of this House, Mr. Gingrich, and a good many
others in the Republican leadership, that they intended at the end of
the fiscal year to shut down the Government unless they got the
President to buy into their budget deal. So that is why the Government
is shut down today.
Now we have had some new developments. We had Senator Dole, the
leading Republican candidate for President, who decided to break with
the Republicans in the House, and he offered a proposal to keep the
Government open. I applaud him for that. That is exactly what we ought
to do.
First the Republican House caucus resisted that. Now, belatedly, they
have decided to have a partial Government opening. But the problem is
that the way they intend to reopen these parts of the Government will
deal with some of the problems of Government workers, but they will not
deal with the problems of taxpayers, who still will not get the full
array of services to which they are entitled.
As I said earlier, Pell grants will be held up; 400 cancer research
grants are being held up; 300 Head Start programs are going to be
squeezed; we are not going to be seeing contractors with the Government
paid for the services they are providing. That is irresponsible, and it
will be a very expensive decision long term, because contractors will
demand higher reimbursement in the future, having seen the mess that
has been created by the majority party.
Then, the worst of all offenses, in my view, is that yesterday one
Member of this House, a distinguished committee chairman, threatened to
try to impeach the Secretary of the Treasury if he did everything
possible to keep Government open, as he has been trying to do since
this impasse first began. As a result of that threat, the stock market
went down, the bond market sagged, and I would submit to you that means
that millions of Americans have lost some of their own wealth, the
value of some of their own hard-earned savings, including a lot of
pensioners, because of some of the irresponsible and extreme comments
coming at us from the majority side of the aisle.
I think the time has come for this Congress not just to provide this
limited opening up of Government services, but to open up the
Government to provide the full range of services to which the taxpayers
are entitled. That is what we wanted to do on the previous motion.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote for this resolution, but I
would also urge the majority to bring forward another resolution which
fully opens up Government, because if you do not do that, what you are
simply doing is engaging in a political retreat, but still shooting
American taxpaying hostages as we go.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman should get time from his own
side.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to yield 6 minutes to
the distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
Why I was asking the gentleman from Wisconsin to yield is the
gentleman from Wisconsin is trying to rewrite history. The gentleman's
claim that the reason that the appropriations bills are not passed is
because the Republicans have not passed them and sent them to the
President. The gentleman is correct that three of the bills
[[Page H208]]
were vetoed by the President. What he fails to show you on his chart,
the biggest part of that pie, the red part, is the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill being held up in the Senate by liberal Democrats.
We could pass that bill today if the liberal Democrats would stop their
filibuster.
So I come to this floor in support of this legislation that takes a
dramatic step toward fiscal responsibility, while freeing the Federal
workers from the perils of the President's poisoned veto pen and his
lack of memory of commitments that he has made.
This bill marks the beginning; this bill is the first day of the rest
of the year. Let me explain. I am convinced that the President does not
want a balanced budget. For 46 days the President could negotiate a
balanced budget, and he has chosen not only not to negotiate, but the
President has not even chosen to uphold the law that he signed on
November 20 that expired last Wednesday. So I am convinced that there
is not going to be a balanced budget. So what do we do for the rest of
the year? We do what we were sent here to do, and that is to pass
appropriation bills and send them to the President.
Now, this President wants more spending. That is why he does not want
a balanced budget, because the minute he lays a 7-year balanced budget
on the table he has just cut $1 trillion of spending over the next 7
years, and the liberals are fighting that with every fiber of their
soul. They want to continue to spend the American family's money, they
want to continue to raise the debt on the American family. That is what
this is all about.
So, we have found another way of funding these agencies, a very
creative way. This is not giving in. This is not moving toward the
President. This is what we were sent here to do. We are going to do a
targeted appropriations, and we are going to fund those agencies that
we want to fund. We are not going to fund those agencies that we do not
want to fund.
Now, I was asked, well, then why are you only paying the Federal
employees to January 26? The reason I do not want to pay them for the
rest of the year is I could guarantee, if this process continues, there
are going to be some Federal employees sometime around January 26 or
around February that are going to get notices that they better go look
for another job because their agency or their program is not going to
be funded.
That is why we only paid them to January 26. That is where we are
today. And I might say, later on this afternoon we are going to pass a
CR triggered by the President.
{time} 1330
Finally, if he just will lay out a 7-year balanced budget, honestly
scored by CBO using honest numbers, he can open the Government and give
those workers that my colleagues say have nothing to do, something to
do, because he could open the Government until January 26. It is in the
President's hands to give these people, especially the furloughed
workers, something to do to earn their pay. The President could just
simply do it by honoring his promises that actually started in his
campaign.
To those who question our resolve about getting to a balanced budget,
let me just say that the Republicans will never surrender in our
efforts to get a balanced budget, but we will not keep Federal
employees on the firing line when it is Bill Clinton who should be
fired for not coming up with a real budget using honest numbers.
This legislation is a very important step to getting to that balanced
budget. After all, we will not make targeted appropriations for
programs that waste taxpayers' money for no reason. Do not expect
Republicans to make targeted appropriations for Ron Brown's Commerce
Department or Hazel O'Leary's Energy Department, or other wasteful
Government agencies.
We, in the House, are now in control. Members, we do not have to
consult with the Senate, we do not have to consult with the Democrats.
If we do not like an agency, we just do not have to bring it up here to
vote on it and it is unfunded. It will not be funded.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the gentleman to say that
the second resolution that will come up this afternoon will, in effect,
say we will fund the entire Government; that all the President has to
do is file his balanced budget amendment; is that correct?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct; all the President
has to do is keep his promise, or at least obey the law that he signed.
Mr. ROGERS. And if the gentleman will continue to yield, if the
President files a 7-year balanced budget amendment, just files it, we
do not have to act upon it, just file it, we will open up the entire
Government?
Mr. DeLAY. That is right. It has to be certified by CBO as being
honest.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has done a wonderful
job and I commend him for it.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and reclaiming my time,
let me just finish by saying that the American people have seen the
future of Government that is partially closed, and many have found that
it works just fine.
We will get to a balanced budget by weeding out wasteful and
inefficient Washington spending, and this is a good way to start that
process. So I urge all of my colleagues to support this very historic
legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
Since my friend from Texas mentioned the issue of travel in his
remarks, let me raise a question to the distinguished gentleman from
Louisiana. The gentleman opened his remarks on this debate by saying
that this resolution that we have before us right now would open up the
most important Government services that have been shut down in this
Government, and he listed them; named them.
He also mentioned in that list all projects and activities necessary
to process visas, passports, and to provide for American citizens'
services. Now, American citizens' services abroad can very well mean
and, in fact, does mean providing for taking care of legislators,
Federal legislators, who travel abroad.
request to amend motion offered by mr. livingston
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this resolution
be amended to prevent congressional travel abroad.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Louisiana yield for
that purpose?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would
say to the gentleman that the gentleman might have a valid point and
this may be an issue we have to take up later on, but it is not the
purpose of this legislation.
Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman in the well be willing
to include the White House travel office in that proposal?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I
do not think the gentleman included the Secretary of Energy's
incredibly wasteful travels around the world, but because that may be a
good subject for this House to resolve in the coming days and weeks, I
would put that one on the table.
Mr. Speaker, I object at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I expected there would be objection, but
that just shows my colleagues where we are with this debate. Here we
have a situation where we have really a half-baked resolution before
us. To show Members how insane it is, we are opening up some areas of
the Government, but we still have a resolution that does not address
the issues of contractors who process Medicare claims. It will affect
over 24,000 private sector jobs and millions of Medicare claims.
We have no funds for small business loans, meaning that 260 small
businesses are losing tens of millions of dollars a day, no funds for
cleaning up the poisonous waste that is affecting our neighborhoods and
our lands and our industrial sites around America.
[[Page H209]]
Thousands of people are going to be laid off because they cannot do
those jobs.
Funds for home loans, people who have saved and scrimped to put the
money together to get a home loan to make the American dream of
ownership real for their families are being denied, and here we are
going to allow Members of Congress to travel all over the world? And
when I asked for a unanimous consent that they be excluded until we get
this resolution problem with the budget taken care of there was
objection.
So I say to my colleagues, we are at this impasse, an unprecedented
impasse. We have been through 220 years of government, 10 wars, a Civil
War, they came in here and burned this building down and went over to
the White House and burned the White House down, and we have never had
the Government shut down longer than we have right now. And after 21
days, even though my colleagues over here have not seen the light yet,
they are starting to feel the heat, and part of the heat is keeping us
here, doing our work, not globe trotting around the world while this
crisis is before the American people.
Now, my friend from Louisiana said, well, maybe another time we will
do this. There is going to be a third continuing resolution today,
maybe we can include that. That is another time. Maybe we can include
that in that continuing resolution. So I urge my colleagues, as half
baked as this is, we need to support the resolution, but believe me, we
have a long way to go before we can get this thing straightened out.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute, and would say
to the previous speaker that he has raised a good point. In fact, there
have been Republicans and Democrats who have abused the travel rules.
Personally, I think that we ought to take the travel abuse question
before the standing committees, and thoroughly review the criteria
under which travel is abused, not only in the House of Representatives
and the other body but throughout the executive branch.
This is a real and critical issue, and, in fact, I am going to invite
my friend from Florida [Mr. Young], to conduct hearings on the use of
military aircraft for the purpose of travel by the executive branch and
the legislative branch that does not benefit the taxpaying citizen.
Good and valuable travel is worthwhile and helps the relationship of
this country to other countries around the world, but certainly we have
seen evidence that there has been abuses. We have to look at the matter
more closely.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Every day I have said during this shutdown, let our people go back to
work. This resolution that we have before us is going to do that. It is
not the answer to the entire situation of the shutdown, but it is a
major and very important first step.
Some 760,000 Federal employees throughout the country, whether they
are working or not working, whether they are accepted or not accepted,
have not been receiving a salary. Like all of us, they have mortgages,
rent, utilities, tuition, other living expenses that they have to pay
and the check has not come in.
This measure is going to do that. It is not only going to pay them,
it is going to let them go back to work, because we do not believe that
anybody who works for the Federal Government is not essential. They are
there because they are essential.
This is going to have targeted appropriations; targeted
appropriations for the elderly, for the children, for child support
enforcement, passports and visas, for administration of unemployment
offices, for museums and parks, a long litany of the emergency
situations where we do need to have funding. AFDC would be funded
through March, the rest would be funded and be assured of that through
the entire fiscal year, September 30.
I think this is important. Now, we need more than that, I agree. We
need to have our Federal contractors know that they can be involved
with the Federal Government for those contracts. We need to make sure
that those grants that NIH has are going to be able to be allocated
where they belong, the National Science Foundation, and that will come
with the next resolution that we are going to pass.
Now we can say to the President, ``Mr. President, just submit what
you said you would submit, a balanced budget scored by CBO in 7
years.'' If I were he, I would submit one. I would probably submit it
with no tax cuts in it. Let him do it. As soon as he does that, that
triggers off the entire Federal Government fully operating in
conjunction with the private sector and all the services.
Please vote for this and encourage the President to come up with a
balanced budget in 7 years scored by CBO.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today we will consider legislation that
represents a retreat by the extremist wing of the Gingrich Republicans.
Their agenda was to punish old people, punish children, punish
veterans, and others by holding this Government hostage. Today, after
relentless and rightful pounding public pressure, they are sounding
retreat and some Federal workers will go back to work.
This is a curious piece of legislation. The Republicans' strange
strategy of shutting down the Government has been followed by an even
stranger strategy of bringing employees back to work but not giving
them the operating funds to do their jobs. They are going to pay
Federal employees now to do nothing. Once again, the American people
and the American taxpayers lose.
{time} 1345
My Republican colleagues' strategy to link the budget to shutting
down the Government failed, and now, quite frankly, they are
scrambling. It failed because the values of these extreme Republicans
do not represent the values of the American people, neither on a
shutdown of the Government nor on the issue of the balanced budget.
The American people believe that we must balance the budget, but only
if we protect Medicare and Medicaid, education and the environment, and
not provide one of the biggest tax breaks in this Government's history
to the wealthiest Americans.
In November, the Congress voted and the President agreed to a
continuing resolution that would balance the budget by protecting
America's values and America's priorities, including Medicare,
Medicaid, education, and the environment. We need to honor that
agreement.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
(Mr. GILCHREST asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Mr.
Speaker, we have all heard the awesome crash when an irresistible force
hits an immovable object. Maybe in the last week we have gotten some
insight into that particular explosion. We have seen the crash between
a 30-year culture of deficit spending and the resolve of a nation to
have some sense of fiscal responsibility.
To my great regret, we have seen Federal employees and others
squeezed between the forces of the past and those of a frugal future.
For those of us who support a balanced budget, perhaps we were naive to
think that the tradition of deficits would die quietly and easily, but
today we have to govern. We have to recognize that the White House in
all likelihood will probably not come to the table with a balanced
budget any time soon, and we must put the Federal employees back to
work.
As George Will has pointed out, Britain's parliamentary system does
not lend itself to train wrecks; we do not see this kind of showdown in
Cuba; but the Founding Fathers vested Congress and this particular
House with the power of the purse and the power of debate. The
President, our Founding Fathers gave, apparently, which seems obvious
now, the power to be an obstructionist.
Unlike previous Congresses who chose to blame the President with the
[[Page H210]]
fiscal deficit, we have accepted the responsibility and the people have
given us this idea to balance the budget. It is a superior idea, for
today we will end the shutdown as prudent government requires, but the
fight for a balanced budget will not stop here and it will ultimately
succeed.
As has been pointed out before, history knows no force more powerful
than an idea, and the idea to balance the Federal budget; its time has
come.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this resolution.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this resolution because
it is what I call a one-third measure. Not a half measure, it does not
go that far, but a one-third measure.
My friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] who preceded
me, is a gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect and even
more than that, affection, but I would remind the gentleman that when
he talks about the President of the United States being an
obstructionist, I would remind him in 1980, the entire debt of this
Nation was $945 billion. It grew by $3.5 trillion over the next 12
years under President Reagan and President Bush. Were they not
obstructionists? Did they not care about this deficit? They could have
stopped it, as the gentleman claims the President is stopping this
process.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, we work together on policies
to try to move this Government forward. The gentleman from Texas [Mr.
DeLay], the whip, and so many of the Republicans have been talking
about the President not meeting his obligation under the law. This is
the law. It says nothing, nothing in section 203 about the President
putting a balanced budget on the table. Nothing, my friends.
Read it. Stop misleading the American public and intimating that the
President has not told the truth or has not met his commitments. In
fact, this President has spent more time negotiating with the
Republican leadership in the Senate and the House than any President in
history. Apparently, Senator Dole thought it was negotiation in good
faith, because he unanimously led a unanimous consent for a continuing
resolution to put Government workers back to work and to put Government
back to service for the American public.
My friends, we will pass this resolution, this bill. In my opinion,
it is flawed at best; but it is necessary, and I will support it. But
let us tell the truth.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume just to say that I am reminded that Bush and Reagan had
Democrat Houses of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from Michigan
who spoke a few minutes ago brought up the travel situation, because
Hazel O'Leary, the Democrat, the Clinton appointee, the Secretary of
Energy, spent $500,000 going to Pakistan, $729,000 going to India,
$663,000 going to South Africa, not to mention trips, trips, trips,
Vienna, Paris, Moscow, all over the world.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is incredible that the Democrat Party is not
outraged and demanding her resignation so that we can go on to try to
balance the budget and get a firm grip on the situation right now, so
that we can cut down on the deficit.
It is absolutely absurd for her to be spending money like that when
Federal employees are out of work because President Clinton will not
negotiate, will not come to the table.
The gentleman talked about history. I think it is important to bring
history into it. Yet, when we talk about our Founding Fathers, we
should always be reminded that they did not have a $5 trillion deficit.
They would be alarmed to know that we spend $20 billion each month in
interest on the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, I think we need to pass this. We need to get the
Government working again and we need to balance the budget.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am new to Congress, but when I reread the
Constitution last night, I reminded myself again that the Constitution
provides for systems of checks and balances, vetoes and veto overrides.
Nowhere is there a provision to shut down the Government when we do not
succeed in getting our own way.
But as the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] said:
``We are only going to vote today on what the Republicans want to do.''
I think it is important that the gentleman said that. We are only going
to allow those agencies to go back to work that the gentleman from
Texas and the Republicans like.
One of the questions I have, although I will vote for this because I
want the retirees from the railroads to get their money, is what
happens to startup industries in Silicon Valley? If a startup industry
wants to go public after next week, because the Securities and Exchange
Commission is running out of money, this company, even after 18 months
of work, will not be able to do so. It may be that we do not think that
the Securities and Exchange Commission should be involved in this
process at all, but we should not leave these companies hanging out to
dry. We should be grown-ups, like Senator Dole.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Livingston motion, the Back to Work bill. This legislation will, for
the first time in this Congress, bring furloughed Federal employees
back to work with pay; and those employees who have been working, make
sure they are also paid.
It also has a very important additional element. It will make sure
that there will be full funding through September 30, 1996, for the
following agencies: the Nutritional Services for the Elderly, Federal
Parent Locator Service, the State Administration of Unemployment
Benefits, general assistance and foster care payments for Native
Americans, grants to States for child welfare services, railroad
retirement benefits, Visitors Services for the National Parks System,
the National Wildlife Refuges, and National Forests, the Smithsonian
Institution, the National Gallery of Art, the John F. Kennedy Center,
and the Holocaust Museum.
In addition, the issuance of passports and visas, the consular
services for American citizens abroad, veterans' benefits and payments
to the VA contractors for medical services, and, of course, the
District of Columbia for their funds.
This legislation is the right move and a bipartisan Congress should
in fact adopt it. I expect that once we adopt it, the Senate will
follow suit and hopefully the President will sign it into law. But at
the same time we will also hopefully pass, this afternoon, legislation
which will finally fund all government operations, only after Congress
receives notice from the Congressional Budget Office that they have
certified the President has submitted an honest 7-year balanced budget.
Mr. Speaker, the country wants a balanced budget, and they want it
for the reason that we can reduce for the first time the overburdening
cost of carrying a deficit too large, too expensive, and one that has
cost every single man, woman, and child more than the Defense
Department's annual budget.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, therefore, to join me in supporting
this legislation which will make sure that we have our balanced budget,
but we also make sure that our Federal workers who are providing
constituent services and who want to support their families get back to
work and are paid.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode
Island [Mr. Kennedy].
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, this bill is better than
nothing, but for the 2,000 Almacs employees who just got their pink
slips on September 15, this bill means nothing to them.
There was a glimmer of hope, because the President and the Department
of Labor promised them $2 million, one-third of which was going to go
to them immediately to help get them the new jobs. For Richard and
Robert
[[Page H211]]
LaBreche, they went to the competitor and the competitor would only pay
them $4.75 an hour. That is not enough for them to make ends meet. They
were used to getting $30,000 a year.
Mr. Speaker, they could get those new jobs if they got the retraining
dollars they needed, but this bill does not open up the whole
Government and that is what is wrong with it. We should open up the
whole Government and let all the people get the representation that
they are paying for as taxpayers of this country.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to
the gentleman that just spoke in the well.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the gentleman that after this bill
is through, we are going to come up with a bill that will allow the
President of the United States to put the entire Government back to
work, completely, unequivocally, and without exception, at least until
January 26.
Mr. Speaker, all the President has to do to trigger this bill is put
a balanced budget on the table, which is scored by CBO as being honest
and legitimate, that balances the budget by the year 2002.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation, it is creative
legislation, but it is made necessary by the unusual circumstances in
which we find ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Federal employees are innocent
victims, caught in a crossfire between the White House and Congress. It
is not only unfair, but really immoral to deprive them of their
salaries. they are in this situation through no fault of their own and
any remedy righting the situation requires that they get paid.
So that is what this effort accomplishes and it is very worthwhile.
More than that, it is an effort to bring the President to the table,
living up to his word when he signed a bill on November 20 promising to
produce a balanced budget scored by the Congressional Budget Office
with honest numbers. He has yet to do that, and that is the real
sticking point.
I have heard people on the other side criticize us for not doing our
job, for not coming forth with the appropriations bills. But, of
course, we have. It is the Senate, the other body, rather, that has
strange and peculiar rules that permit filibuster, and that has halted
in its tracks the appropriation for Health and Human Services.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, would the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary tell this House whether in the Constitution
it has shutdown as an alternative form of forcing a dialog between the
executive branch and the legislative branch? Because I understood the
Constitution to read that the President would have the power to veto,
and in that instance the Congress and the President would get together
and negotiate. The gentleman from Illinois is making a good point that
the House is in between.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has consumed
all my time. I am sure that was not his nefarious purpose. I am out of
time; otherwise, I would have a very learned answer for the gentleman.
{time} 1400
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is a document back
here that says the President and the Congress shall enact. It does not
say that he is going to bring forth. But I am more concerned about the
continuing resolution that is before us.
Just a few minutes ago, I offered a unanimous consent to put back in
rehabilitation services because we have a major problem out there,
folks. I have to tell Members, I got a letter from my community
college, this is happening all over the State of Florida, it is
happening all across this country, where in fact our departments of
labor no longer can finance their agreement to provide these dollars
for students to go back to school. They are walking into classes and
being told that there is no money available to them. Here is a woman,
shutdown effects rehabilitation. A woman who had been in a coma. She
came out of the coma. She has gone back trying to get services so that
she can be a productive citizen, so she can pay taxes to this country.
She wants to be a good person. She is being denied this by this
Government.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations for yielding time to me.
I would like to ask a couple of questions. We have, in addition to
the Federal employees who have been furloughed and unpaid since
December 15, in my district thousands of Federal contractors, a
majority of whom have been working with fiscal year 1995 money, and
their employees have been unpaid by the Federal Government because
their contracting officers have not been able to work, according to
EPA, and the contracting officers, technical representatives, and those
who oversee these contracts. Under this these people would be put back
on the work, those key contracting officers.
Does the gentleman see any reason why the fiscal year 1995 money then
could not be spent to these contractors at that point?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman understands that
all Federal employees are now going to be paid because of the
gentleman's valiant efforts. There seems, to this gentleman, to be no
impediment toward using fiscal year 1995 money in its entirety to pay
whatever contractors are out there who are eligible to receive those
funds.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, would it not seem to the gentleman reasonable
that the administration, we would hope the administration would do
everything possible at that point to utilize these contracts in the
interest of the Government?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
unless the administration has political reasons for acting in such a
manner, I would think there would be no reason for them not to pay
those contractors.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Let me finally say that I will support this, the bill before us
today. It is not everything I had hoped for, as a representative of
many Federal employees who have been furloughed and not paid during
this time period, but it is a step in the right direction.
We have really let the hostages off the plane today. Now the budget
battle can be engaged between the President and Congress. I hope that
leaders from both sides will sit together, act like grownups, and work
out these agreements and we will not have to go through this again.
This has been a long and difficult period for Federal employees. I
want to personally thank those who have stayed in there, working over
Christmas vacation, working through the new year, many of them being
unpaid while we here have not been able to do our job in agreeing with
the President. I think the Federal employees during this period have
been the unsung heroes of this and the only people who can hold their
heads high while Congress and the President have dithered.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the national embarrassment of
this Government shutdown is at least coming to an end temporarily.
Throughout the shutdown I have been arguing for no budget, no pay. It
was a simple concept. If Members of Congress did not do their duty and
keep the Government running, Members of Congress would not receive
their paychecks.
That did not sit very well with some of the Republican leaders, and
it has never been brought to the floor. And that is unfortunate. But
today I have a compromise proposal for the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston]. I would like to suggest that we say in the future
that the very last appropriations bill which can be sent by
[[Page H212]]
this Congress to the President is the legislative appropriations bill.
After we have done all the other appropriations bills, we will take
care of ourselves.
The concept is simple. We do not get dessert until we have cleaned
our plates. And when Members of Congress realize that they cannot play
with the lives of innocent Federal employees unless they risk their own
staff and their own time here in Congress, I think they will take it
more seriously. Let us hope this embarrassment is not just over
temporarily. Let us hope it is over permanently. But let us get down to
a balanced budget but not on the backs of innocent people.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bunning of Kentucky). The gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to make a couple of points
here.
I am glad to see that we are finally moving in the right direction.
This absolutely does not do a whole heck of a lot, but it gets people
back on the payroll. I am hearing so much from many from this side of
the aisle about a balanced budget, that the President is not bringing
forward a balanced budget. I did a little research. The last Republican
President to offer a balanced budget was Richard Nixon. There were two
budgets offered by Ronald Reagan.
There were two votes taken on budgets by Ronald Reagan, neither one
of which was balanced. One of them got one vote, Jack Kemp gave it one
vote; and the other got 37 votes. So to say it is an obligation of the
President of the United States to offer a balanced budget and hold the
President hostage and these people hostages because the President will
not present a balanced budget.
I would like to know what compromises the Republicans have made on
the budget that passed here and was legitimately vetoed. We do not know
what concessions they have made. They have not come by. They have not
come back with a budget that is balanced in 7 years and scored by CBO
and done the protection that the President insisted on. So I think it
is a little bit unusual to demand that the President offer a balanced
budget before we can negotiate to put all these people back to work. It
is a little bit, I would say, in my opinion, it is a little bit
hypocritical to blame the President of the United States for us not
doing our job and sending these appropriations bills to us, at least 2
months overdue and then even objected to from the majority of this
body.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas
[Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this
morning, Mr. Speaker, I wanted us to approach this in a bipartisan
manner. I was before the Committee on Rules last evening at about 10:30
to offer to them House Joint Resolution 155, a resolution that would
comply with the intent of this Congress to put Federal workers back to
work on behalf of the American people but in fact give them the
resources to do their job.
With this present legislation on the floor of the House, we still
will have--come Monday or whenever this Government opens--Federal
mortgages and housing vouchers will be halted. Contractors handling
Medicare claims will still not be paid. Federal funds to States for
Medicaid will still be limited. Grants for State JOBS programs and
social services will still not be issued. Assistance to small
businesses, the very backbone of America, small businesses that in fact
provide the opportunity for people to work, will not be able to get SBA
guaranteed loans.
We can do this together, Mr. Speaker, if we pass a continuing
resolution to fund the entire Government, a clean CR, House Joint
Resolution 155. This is not a good piece of legislation. It does not
help workers do the job for America.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. McDermott].
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.
Sometimes we look at all of this and we wonder where these numbers
come from, a 7-year balanced budget. What is magic about the 26th of
January? Why does this only go to the 26th of January? Is it tied to
the State of the Union Message?
I would suggest that this is a resolution to allow the Speaker to go
on a fundraising trip across this country. He will be in Seattle on the
10th of January. I do not know where else he is going to be, but this
is simply to get people out of town so they can raise money for the
next election. It is not to deal with the problems of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican plan to
partially reopen the Government and will not be a part of their cynical
political game to hold the Federal Government hostage until they can
pass their extreme and irresponsible agenda.
The House Republicans are offering two separate bills today. They
want to partially reopen the Government by paying some Federal
employees to go back to work, but without giving them the resources to
serve the American people. For example, they want to send the Small
Business Administration employees back to work, but will prohibit them
from disbursing loans. They want to send Environmental Protection
Agency employees back to their offices, but not allow them to make sure
that the Nation's waterways remain clean. Everywhere you look, the
lights will be on, but no one will be allowed to serve and the public's
business will go undone.
All Federal workers should be allowed to go back to work immediately,
with full pay, but, in my view it is absurd and foolish to put Federal
employees back to work without giving them the resources to serve the
people who rely on them.
The second part of the Republican strategy seeks to blackmail the
President by holding Federal employees and the services they provide
hostage until he agrees with their extreme political agenda. This
legislation states that Congress will pass a clean continuing
resolution, one that would both put Federal employees back to work and
allow them to adequately serve the American people, if and only if the
President supports their economic agenda of destroying the safety net
and giving a huge tax cut to America's wealthiest.
I will not vote for legislation which seeks to blackmail the
President and engages in a blatant attempt to supersede the powers
given to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, we could avoid passing this ruinous legislation
altogether, if the House Republican leadership would be willing to join
their Senate colleagues in passing a clean continuing resolution--with
no strings attached. In doing so, they could easily reopen the
Government without holding the American people who rely on it for
needed services hostage.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they are unwilling to even allow the
Senate-passed continuing resolution to come to a vote.
Let's get America back on track, let's pass a clean continuing
resolution. Most importantly though, let's not put Federal employees
back to work without allowing them to do their job.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I think the previous speaker has just summed up what is
at hand here or what is afoot, is a better way to put it. What this
simply is is a very strange and goofy way to provide an opportunity for
Members of Congress to get out of town for the next 2 weeks, put
Government people back on the payroll, but limit what they can do.
It solves the problems of Government workers who are not getting
paid, but it leaves an awful lot of problems for taxpayers who are
still not getting served. That is a fundamental problem. If that is as
far as the majority party will go, then we have no choice but to
support it because it is a partial opening up of the Government.
I wanted to point out another interesting bit of strangeness. The
Prompt Payment Act requires that the Government pay its bills within 30
days. If no payments are made, the Government is required by law to pay
interest on those outstanding obligations at a rate of 6 percent. That
means that, because these obligations are piling up, we are going to
have to pay added interest, added interest at a time of such a large
debt, because of the stubbornness of Members in this House who insist
on putting their ideology ahead of our obligation to serve all of the
taxpayers
[[Page H213]]
whether they be Republican, Democrat, Independent, or anything else.
I would urge Members to vote for this resolution, but would urge the
majority party to bring a resolution before this House that truly opens
up all of Government so that we can provide all of the services that we
are obligated to provide.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], a member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and this
effort before us today.
Mr. Speaker, this is about the President keeping a promise that he
made, a promise that he made on November 20 to the American people that
he was going to participate, participate in creating balanced budget
over the next 7 years, a balanced budget that would be with honest
numbers, no more smoke and mirrors. That is really what we have before
us. Is this opportunity to unite as Americans in favor of a balanced
budget, something my friends in the minority have long expressed
support for, something the President of the United States has long
expressed support for.
Going back to 1992, when he was a candidate for the Presidency of the
United States, he said he wanted a balanced budget. We have pleaded
with him, we have begged him. We have spent 20 hours in concert with
the President of the United States, 20 hours of face-to-face
negotiations begging and pleading, Mr. President, bring us the balanced
budget. Here is the blank slate, Mr. President. Tell us how you want to
balance the budget and we will be with you.
We have an opportunity today to give the President again another
opportunity to fully open up the Government, move forward on a balanced
budget and let us get Americans back to work.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
{time} 1415
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I detect a breath of
bipartisanship as we approach a vote on this important piece of
legislation, not a heavy breeze, or not a big wind, but at least a
breath of bipartisanship, and that is what it is going to take to get
our job done. We need to pass this legislation, which I strongly
support, and allow the people, who are not responsible at all for the
dilemma that we find ourselves in, to get back to work and to get paid.
There have been a lot of delays. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], our friend, has presented charts so many times indicating the
delays and the bills that did not get to the President. The fact is all
but three of the appropriations bills got to the President, and he
vetoed four of them.
But that is not the issue today. The idea is not who do we blame, but
how do we get most of the job resolved, and that is what we are going
to do by passage of this legislation today.
In addition I wanted to say to my dear friend, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], who raised a very good point about the use of
Federal funds for travel, that I plan to pursue this issue. During the
early consideration of the defense appropriations bill I announced to
the House that we intended to find out how much money was being spent
for the use of military aircraft for nonmilitary travel by all branches
of Government.
We would have already had those hearings, except for the delays that
were caused by the many issues preoccupying the President and Congress.
But all of that is in the past now, Mr. Bonior. We are going to have
those hearings that the gentleman is interested in.
But I would like to close on this thought. The bipartisanship that we
feel today would serve this Nation and this Congress well if we could
remember that here in this hallowed Chamber is where we do the people's
business, and if we would take our political activities and our
campaigning for the next election back to the precincts and our
districts where they belong, then the people's business would be better
served.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman].
(Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my support for the effort to reopen the Government. The
shutdown is costing taxpayers $50 million a day. The total cost of the
21-day shutdown, by far the longest in history, now exceeds $600
million. Democratic appropriations members have made over 30 attempts
to reopen the Government without restrictions while budget negotiations
continue. However, all of these attempts have been blocked by the
Republican majority.
I have also been opposed to all motions to adjourn and/or recess
before the Congress has passed all of its appropriations bills. The
Gingrich revolution has not allowed the necessary work of the Congress
to be completed. We should not go home until our work here is
completed.
I have been a member of the Appropriations Committee when the
Democrats held the majority in the House and we served under a
Republican President. During this period, the Republican President
vetoed appropriations bills many times. However, the Democratic
majority allowed the Government to continue operations while the
parties settled their differences. In fact, while President Reagan was
in office, the Government functioned under a continuing resolution that
lasted for 1 year.
By October 1, not 1 of the 13 appropriations bills had been passed by
this Congress. Today, six appropriations bills have not become law.
Instead of working out the differences and passing this critical
legislation, the Republicans have staged this showdown between Congress
and the President. In every instance in the past where Congress failed
to pass one or two appropriations bills, the majority has passed a
continuing resolution to allow those agencies to be funded at no
increased level of spending. It is simply wrong to hold millions of
Federal workers and Americans who rely on the Government services to
the whim of this majority.
Today, the Republicans are offering a targeted continuing resolution.
I am in opposition to this targeted approach. While this approach
represents progress toward ending the Gingrich Republican shutdown, it
still does not cover critical needs such as Federal Medicaid matching
funds, payments to Medicare contractors, small business loans, worker
protection, environmental protection, and Superfund cleanup.
Under this bill, some workers would be provided pay until January 26,
others until March 15, and still others until September 30. This
chaotic approach is ludicrous. The Republicans are already allowing
people to stay home from work and get paid, now they are allowing
people to go back to work but not to perform all of their duties. Why
not give the American taxpayers the full value of their Government? Why
approve only a restricted temporary Government?
The Republican effort to tie budget negotiations to appropriations
funding is one I disagree with. This tactic is economically and morally
wrong. The President of the United States has the power, under the
Constitution, to veto any legislation he feels is not in the best
interest of the country. The Congress has the ability to either
override the veto or negotiate with the administration. Congress does
not have the constitutional right to hold Federal workers hostage
because the President has acted in opposition to their efforts.
This bill is the result of the fanaticism by a minority of
Republicans. There are enough votes in the House to open the Government
without these ridiculous restrictions. However, because the Republican
freshmen have been opposed to compromise, the leadership has not
allowed a clean continuing resolution to be voted on.
Although I am opposed to the limited nature of this bill, it is the
only effort the splintered Republican majority is able to offer and I
will support it as a better alternative over the current shutdown.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished Democrat
leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance and
disappointment that I rise in support of this legislation. I have been
disappointed by suggestions by those on the other side of the aisle
that the President of the United States has somehow broken a promise or
gone back on his word. I think that assertion is absolutely wrong.
[[Page H214]]
If we look back at the agreement and the original continuing
resolution, the President did not agree to put down a 7-year budget
scored by CBO by a certain time, no more than the Republican side
agreed that they would put down a budget that he would score as being
sufficient for his priorities of saving Medicare and Medicaid and not
giving tax cuts to the wealthy paid for by the cuts in Medicare and
Medicaid. The agreement was that when a negotiation yielded a hoped-for
settlement or agreement, that that agreement would balance the budget
in 7 years. The President has kept that agreement, not just the letter
of that agreement, but the spirit of that agreement.
When we go from working in the Congress, as we do under the
Constitution, to either override a veto or to pass another bill, we
move into a different realm. That realm is now a room in the White
House. It is a negotiation in private to try to reach an agreement that
is good for the country. I have been in the meetings. I find it
abhorrent for people to say that he is not acting in good faith. That
is not what I have seen and heard.
I participated in the summit in 1990 with President Bush. The
negotiators spent all of about an hour with President Bush in 1990. I
am not complaining. We talked with Richard Darman who was his
representative in the negotiation.
In this negotiation, which has been going on for days, this President
has sat in the room for at least 40 hours, face-to-face with the
Speaker of the House and the Senate majority leader, and he is
painstakingly working the details to find an agreement that, yes, will
balance the budget in 7 years, by CBO judgment, but which will also
meet his requirements of saving Medicare and Medicaid, saving education
and the environment, and not slashing those programs to pay for tax
cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Now because somehow the President has not passed somebody's sincerity
test, and for what reason I cannot tell my colleagues, we now have
before us a measure which makes no sense. Who can explain to anybody
why we are going to bring people back to work and pay them, in some
cases for doing nothing? Last week we paid people to stay at home; next
week I guess we are going to pay them to do nothing. We ought to put
another proviso in this to provide people crossword puzzles so they
will have something to do in the office. This makes no earthly sense.
I beg the majority to come to their senses. They have achieved what
they wanted to achieve. This President is negotiating in good faith.
In the name of sense and decency, let these negotiations go on, and
let us get an honest compromise and a balanced budget that recognizes
the priorities of the American people.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, decency, common sense, good-faith, all
of those great words are nice but here is the agreement, in case we
forget. But here is the resolution that passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate and went to the President and he agreed
to it. The wording in the law is as follows: ``The President and the
Congress shall enact legislation in the first session of the 104th
Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002
as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office,'' et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera.
I will say that the words are very clear in that law and the
President is in violation of this agreement.
Now where, Mr. President, is the balanced budget to be achieved in
the next 7 years? The President has not produced it, and, when he does,
according to the next piece of legislation that will clear this House
of Representatives today, the Government will go back to work as
planned on a normal basis. Until then, Mr. President, we are going to
continue to be faced with a problem. The President wants the status
quo. He wants to continue to fund the big bureaucracies. He wants to
take the taxpayers' money and he wants to spend it as normal. We do
not. We want to cut Government. We want to slice back the role of the
Federal bureaucracy that the Democrats have created over the last 40
years.
And there it is the current situation, Mr. Speaker and my friends and
colleagues. Let us put Government back to work temporarily, right now,
until January 26.
But the crisis is not over. The President must fulfill his
responsibilities under this agreement to balance the budget in 7 years.
If he does not, the crisis will go on because we are indeed committed
to save this country, to save the economic future of our children and
our grandchildren by putting the country back on a firm and normal
fiscal track so that we pay our bills, and we save this Nation from
economic catastrophe.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a balanced
budget. In fact, I have consistently cosponsored and voted for a
balanced budget amendment. However, I continue to be disappointed that
we are in a stalemate about how to reach this goal.
The Federal Government has been shut down for 21 days. This
shutdown--the longest in history--has cost the taxpayers in excess of
$600 million to date. Over 200,000 Federal workers have gone without
pay since December 16. They, like other Americans, have mortgages, car
payments, utility bills, and mouths to feed. In addition, millions of
Americans depend on a variety of Government services that they have
already paid for. Americans have needs that are not being met because
the Republicans in the House refuse to agree on a compromise balanced
budget.
Today, the House will pass a resolution to provide funding for
selected Government functions, including the Meals on Wheels Program;
visitor services in the National Parks; passport and visa services;
railroad retirement payments and unemployment insurance. While this is
a small step in the right direction for our Nation, I am gravely
concerned because this targeted approach does not cover other critical
needs such as payments to Medicare contractors, Federal Medicaid
matching funds, small business loans, worker protection, environmental
protection, and Superfund cleanup. It could also lead to the ludicrous
situation of paying Federal workers to do nothing.
President Clinton and the majority leader in the Senate were right
weeks ago when they agreed to separate the issues of funding the
Government this year and finalizing a 7-year plan to balance the
Federal budget. We should pass a clean continuing resolution to fund
all operations of the Government, including small businesses that rely
on Government contracts. Then we must focus on the people's business to
get the budget balanced in 7 years.
We operate in a democracy, not a dictatorship. People have paid in
advance for Government services, they are not receiving. It is time to
sit down and work out a 7-year balanced budget without denying the
people Government services.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, though I do have some concerns with this
measure, as a Member that represents over 4,000 Federal workers I will
vote for this bill in attempt to end the plight currently plaguing my
constituents.
I am heartened at the fact that with the passage of this measure we
will end the current practice of punishing Federal workers because the
President is unable to offer a 7-year balanced budget with real
numbers. I believe strongly in our efforts to sign into law a 7-year
balanced budget with real numbers, but believe it can be accomplished
through tough negotiations, and not by punishing our Federal workers.
I do wish that Congress could offer a clean continuing resolution
which would allow contractors with the Government to obtain the payment
needed to continue performing the vital services they offer throughout
our local communities.
It is important that we in the Congress bear in mind that those
Federal workers currently furloughed want to work. They have not been
furloughed because of bad performance, but because they have been pawns
in the budget impasse.
Let me be clear. I believe strongly in the need for a balanced budget
with real numbers, and I am encouraged that Congress is serious about
achieving this goal. Accordingly, tough negotiations must continue
between the President and the Congress. We must achieve a balanced
budget.
But I believe there is no reason why these tough negotiations cannot
continue while Federal employees are on the job doing the work for
which they are being paid.
I ask my colleagues to support this measure and get our Federal
employees back to work.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, during my tenure in Congress I
have been witness to a whole lot of things, but I have never seen such
a despicable display of political gamesmanship and purely partisan,
selfish maneuvering as is coming from the Gingrich Republicans these
days. While I reluctantly
[[Page H215]]
support the very limited continuing appropriations bill we are
considering today, I am appalled at the tactics that have been employed
by the GOP over the last 21 days to hold the Federal Government and the
American people hostage to their extreme ideological agenda.
Despite the fact that the majority leader in the other body, Senator
Dole, said a few days ago, ``Enough is enough,'' and rightly called on
the House to pass a clean continuing resolution to reopen the entire
Government, the Gingrich groupies continue to play games. While H.R.
1643 will reopen the Government for selected Federal activities, it
remains an inadequate measure in that it leaves many critical Federal
responsibilities unmet. In addition, while it properly returns our
dedicated Federal employees to work with full pay, it neglects to fund
many of the programs which they are charged to administer. In other
words, it takes some of the political heat off the Republicans, without
providing a real solution to the crisis we face.
For instance, the legislation before us fails to reinstate much-
needed Federal Medicaid matching funds, payments to Medicare
contractors, dollars for EPA toxic waste cleanup, student loans, HUD
home loans, small business loans, Centers for Disease Control flu-
tracking and public health oversight activities, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's food and shelter program, just to name a
few.
My constituents are fed up with the lack of respect shown by the
Republican majority of this Congress for their needs and concerns. They
are fed up with the shutdown of services vital to the proper
functioning of their communities. They are fed up with the arrogance of
the GOP Members that proclaim ``It's my way or no way at all.''
Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans at every turn of these budget
negotiations have simply refused to carry out their constitutional
responsibilities to govern. It is unbelievable, it is childish, it is
dangerous, and it is wrong. Believe me when I say that the American
people realize this and the American people will act accordingly to
make their displeasure known.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about our Federal
workers and the need to find a way to end this shutdown.
While no one wants to see this situation continue, there is an even
more overwhelming concern that is being voiced by the majority of the
Members in the House. Their greatest fear is that if we comply with
requests to pass a continuing resolution [CR] to get us through this
month then the President will renege on his promise once again.
As we all know, in an effort to work in a bi-partisan manner, back in
November we passed a CR that would run through December 15. We did this
in good faith. What happened to the promise made by the President to
produce a balanced budget in 7 years using congressional budget
numbers? We are still waiting that document to be put on the table. You
know, Mr. Speaker, it makes it tremendously difficult to negotiate when
only one side has produced the necessary budget that meets all the
requirements that were previously set down by the President in his
State of the Union Address in January of 1993.
What caused this shutdown? Quite simply, the President vetoed
appropriations bills that currently force this partial shutdown. The
agencies that have not yet had funds appropriated for 1996 are the
State Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, Interior
Department, Small Business Administration, Veterans Affairs Department,
Forest Service, Housing and Urban Development Department, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
People need to realize that most of the Federal Government would be
open today if the President had either signed a balanced budget or
signed the funding bills for the affected agencies. We are willing to
work out a compromise with the President, but he has to tell us what he
wants. So far, he has simply vetoed every bill that has hit his desk.
That's not leadership, it's gridlock.
Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago there was no national debt to speak of, and
Americans paid only 3 percent of their income to the Federal
Government. Today, we have a $5 trillion national debt, and the average
American family pays a full 25 percent of its income to the Federal
Government. Taxes at all levels of government now consume 40 percent of
the average family's income--more than they spend on food, clothing,
and shelter combined.
The fiscal year 1996 appropriations process is proof of our
commitment to balance the budget through thoughtful and sound spending.
The representatives of the people of America have some very difficult
spending. We have had to make cuts in many important programs; we have
been forced to prioritize our spending--just as American families have
been doing for years. We have done this because we are interested in
the future of our country. We have put aside partisanship and self-
interest so that our country will not buckle under the burden of its
debt, so that our children may have a future.
I find it not only frustrating but also terribly disheartening that
the President has chosen to veto a majority of the appropriations bills
we have sent to him. He says that the appropriations bills don't
provide enough money. The President feels that the Government does not
spend enough money. Mr. President, we have a $5 trillion debt. This
President has made it clear that his administration's goals are quite
different from the vast majority of the American people.
These Presidential vetoes make it abundantly clear that he is
committed to more of the tax-and-spend policies that have nearly ruined
our country financially; the bills he vetoes have caused the shutdown
of portions of the Federal Government, thus punishing his own employees
simply because he refuses to adhere to the promise he made to produce a
7 year balanced budget using Congressional Budget Office [CBO] numbers.
Congress has done what it had to do. We have proven our commitment to
reduce Federal spending and to make the Government more efficient.
Apparently, the President has a different agenda.
Why is a 7-year balanced budget so important? Many leading economists
believe that a balanced budget would result in a drop in interest rates
of up to 2 percent. For a 30-year, $75,000 mortgage, that's $37,000
saved over the life of the loan. Americans will have more take home pay
because our budget includes a $500 per-child tax credit. We also have
true welfare reform which is a No. 1 priority for most Americans.
What happens if we don't achieve our goal of a balanced budget in 7
years? Five years from now all Federal revenues will go to just five
programs--health care entitlements, federal retirement, Social
Security, and interest on the debt. Our children will be faced with
lifetime tax rates of 80 percent just to pay interest on the debt.
That's why it is so important that we stick to our principles. Our
country needs to go in a new direction. We must cut taxes and cut
spending. We must think of our children and their children. Currently,
future generations will have to deal with a soaring debt and
outrageously high taxes. Is this the legacy we want to leave them? I do
not think so. I believe we will work out an agreement with the
President. I pray that we do so for all those federal employees who
have been asked to bear the brunt of this budget impasse.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask my colleagues to please give
consideration to cosponsoring legislation I have introduced, H.R. 2828.
This bill provides for the comparable treatment of Federal employees,
Members of Congress, and the President during a period in which there
is a Federal Government shutdown. Let's put our paychecks where our
values are and disavow special treatment.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, the shutdown of the Government has affected
Americans all across the country. The Federal government should be
predictable and certain, but due to the inaction of this House under
GOP leadership, the extreme accusations by some Republicans of an
incompetent Federal Government are being made a self-fulfilling
prophecy by these same Republicans.
As just one good example, I have received dozens of calls from
railroad retirees in Minnesota who live on fixed incomes and have had
their retirement benefits cut because of the shutdown! In fact, the
Railroad Retirement Board has had to cut January vested dual benefit
payments by 64% for 160,000 railroad retirees across the Nation. This
means that retirees who earned their pensions through many years of
hard work and who live on fixed incomes are having trouble meeting
their rent payments. And of course there are no assurances that they
will receive any of their benefits in the future if this shutdown
continues.
The sad reality here is that these retirees are being denied the
benefits they earned as the Republicans play political games
and shutdown the Government and shut out Federal workers. This Congress
ought to do its job and act today on a real continuing resolution to
keep the full Government running--and provide the 160,000 railroad
retirees with their earned benefits.
This isn't about who is for a balanced budget, rather it's how to
balance the budget. Nor is this shutdown about political honesty, in
fact the more some boast of their monopoly on truth and honesty, the
more firm you should hold on to your wallet. We are thirteen weeks into
the fiscal year and have had four weeks of Federal Government shutdown
because of GOP straw man arguments about economic forecasts and games
to seek political advantage. This resolution finally provides some
relief but leaves many programs, and most importantly the people we
serve, in a lurch. Ironically, it pays Federal workers but ties their
hands so they can't do their jobs. As Mark Twain stated, ``The more you
explain it to me the more I don't understand it''.
Mr. Speaker, it isn't the Federal Government that's incompetent,
rather it is the Republican-
[[Page H216]]
led, know-it-all, arrogant Congress, which after a year can't have its
actions blamed on inexperience. No, the problem is indifference and
political one-ups-manship. Enough is enough. Free the hostages and let
the railroad retirees have their pensions. Put the American people's
Federal Government back to work--the full Government, not this half-
baked GOP political fig leaf designed more for political relief and
which will just result in more shutdown threats and Federal Government
uncertainty.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am going to join reluctantly in
voting for this measure. It will send our Federal employees back to
work and restore normal operations to our national parks, Meals on
Wheels, the passport office, and several other vital programs. We will
end for now this cruel game that has made innocent Federal workers
pawns in a political dispute over which they have no control.
As Senate Majority Leader Dole said Wednesday: ``Enough is enough.''
And this measure is better than nothing.
But let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker: This legislation is the
most bizarre measure that I have seen in 8 years as a Member of
Congress.
With it, we'll send HUD's employees back to work, but they won't be
able to perform all of the duties and services that they're charged
with.
Everyone would be back on the job at the Education Department, but
there would be no new student loans.
And for the many Federal contractors who have been burned badly by
this Government shutdown, this measure offers no relief. Medicare
contractors, NASA contractors, and even those who supply food to
Federal prisons will be among those who will continue to be harmed by
the games that some people are playing in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, 1 year and 1 day ago, the Republican majority came to
power pledging to run government like a business.
Well before coming to Congress I built and operated businesses. And I
have employed hundreds of people. And let me tell you something: This
is not how you run a business.
You don't send people to work and deprive them of the money or
material they need to do their jobs and still expect to be successful.
We need a clean continuing resolution to put the Government back to
work, and then let's spend our time and energy balancing the budget in
7 years. That's what we were sent here to do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 334, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 401,
nays 17, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No 7]
YEAS--401
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--17
Barr
Barton
Chabot
Chenoweth
Dickey
Ganske
Gibbons
Graham
Hastings (FL)
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Largent
Sanford
Shadegg
Smith (WA)
Souder
Tiahrt
NOT VOTING--15
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Hayes
Lightfoot
Myers
Quillen
Rose
Stark
Stockman
Studds
Wilson
Wyden
{time} 1443
Mr. FROST changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``a bill making
appropriations for certain activities for the fiscal year 1996, and for
other purposes''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________