[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H3832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN PREVENTION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill that we call the 
Government Shutdown Prevention Act. This should be of no surprise to 
the Speaker or to any of the Members. For some 10 years now I have 
persisted in introducing this legislation and presenting it through the 
Committee on Rules and the policy committees and to interest groups 
throughout the Nation for their support.
  Everyone says it is a great idea; that we need some mechanism to 
prevent Government shutdown, to make sure that when the budget deadline 
comes and goes that that will not result in a shutdown, but rather a 
mechanism that will allow for a transition until a full budget can be 
produced by the Congress of the United States.
  What is so tough about that concept, Mr. Speaker? This last exercise 
that we had with disaster relief, the administration and the Democrat 
leaders in the House continued to say that this was an extraneous 
measure, the shutdown prevention, added to the disaster relief bill.
  Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the disaster relief bill was made up 
100 percent of money, appropriations, for the flood victims in the 
Midwest. This money, the billions of dollars that were appropriated, 
has to take a long period of time before it settles in the hands and 
the bank accounts of the flood victims. Suppose September 30 comes by 
and we have not completed the work of the budget and the next day a 
Government shutdown occurs? It means those people who were supposed to 
be recipients of disaster relief would get no further checks until we 
reached a budget agreement.
  My bill was very germane then to the disaster relief bill. It made 
certain that the checks that were going to be issued to the disaster 
victims would continue beyond the budget deadline of September 30 in 
the event no full budget was agreed on by the Congress of the United 
States. It was highly germane and relevant, and yet we heard the 
rhetoric from the Democrat leadership and the White House that this was 
extraneous and it would draw a veto because it had nothing to do with 
flood relief.
  It was these same individuals who said this was extraneous, who then 
voted for a disaster relief bill, Mr. Speaker, that contained these 
provisions, or this kind of provision. For instance: Marine Mammal 
Protection Act amendment to allow for the importation of polar bears 
for the purpose of trophy collection. Mr. Speaker, this was in the 
disaster relief bill that we just passed.
  I ask, Mr. Speaker, is that extraneous to the bill or is it relevant 
to the bill? They can accept polar bear trophy amendments but not an 
amendment that would prevent a Government shutdown.
  There were provisions that would allow the Small Business Competitive 
Demonstration Program to provide enhanced competition in the business 
of dredging U.S. waterways. I ask, Mr. Speaker, if that was relevant to 
disaster relief, why was not my Government shutdown prevention 
amendment relevant to disaster relief? I ask these questions but I get 
no answers.
  Further, there was an amendment in this disaster relief that had to 
do with the Susquehanna River Basin Compact, had nothing to do with 
disaster relief for the Middle West; to the Higher Education Act of 
1965. Nothing; the Relief Food Stamp Act of 1977.
  These were amendments, riders, that were in the disaster relief that 
the Democrat leadership supported wholeheartedly, even though they know 
in their heart of hearts that these were extraneous, nongermane, 
irrelevant to disaster relief. Yet they said, Mr. Speaker, that 
preventing Government shutdown is extraneous, irrelevant, nongermane; 
has nothing to do with disaster relief, even though it would be 
personally responsible for a continuation of funding beyond any budget 
breakdown.
  What is this? I know where we stand. The President and the Democrat 
leadership would rather risk Government shutdown than allow a 
transitional budgetary period to make sure that a Government shutdown 
does not occur and allow the Congress and the President to negotiate a 
final budget. That is against their political interests. They want the 
risk of Government shutdown.
  Well, I insist that to the last day that I serve in this Congress I 
will attempt to make sure that the people of the United States know 
that we are trying to prevent Government shutdown and all the chaos 
that accompanies it.

                          ____________________