Volume 141, No. 212 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ASSURING THAT ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WORK AND ARE PAID” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H15642-H15645 on Dec. 30, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ASSURING THAT ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WORK AND ARE PAID
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider in the House the Senate bill (S. 1508) to assure that all Federal employees work and are paid; that the amendment I have placed in the bill be considered as read and adopted, and that the bill, as amended, be considered as passed.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill, as amended, is as follows:
S. 1508
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page H15643]]
SECTION 1. ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DEEMED TO BE ESSENTIAL
EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, is amended for the period December 15, 1995 through February 1, 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.
AMENDMENT TO S. 1508 OFFERED BY MR. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 583(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), as amended by Public Law 104-47, is amended by striking ``December 31, 1995'' and inserting ``March 31, 1996''.
(b) Consultation.--For purposes of any exercise of the authority provided in section 583(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) prior to January 10, 1996, the written policy justification dated December 1, 1995, and submitted to the Congress in accordance with section 583(b)(1) of such Act, shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of section 583(b)(1) of such Act.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE BALANCED BUDGET
BILL.
(a) Introduction of the Balanced Budget Bill.--The balanced budget bill, which is described in subsection (e), shall be introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate on the same day. In the House, the bill shall be introduced by the Chairman of the Budget Committee of the House. In the Senate, the bill shall be introduced by the Majority Leader, after consultation with the Minority Leader.
(b) Consideration of the Balanced Budget Bill in the House.--Consideration of the balanced budget bill shall be made in order pursuant to a special order reported by the Committee on Rules.
(c) Consideration of the Balanced Budget Bill in the Senate.--
(1) Placed on the calendar.--The balanced budget bill introduced in the Senate shall not be referred to committee but shall be placed directly on the Calendar.
(2) Motion to proceed.--The motion to proceed to the balanced budget bill shall not be debatable and the bill may be proceeded to at any time after it is placed on the Calendar.
(3) Reconciliation procedures.--The Senate shall consider the balanced budget bill as if it were a reconciliation bill pursuant to section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, with the following exceptions:
(A) A motion to recommit shall not be in order.
(B) All amendments proposed to the balanced budget bill shall be considered as having been read in full, once the amendment is identified by sponsor and number.
(C) Debate in the Senate on the balanced budget bill, and all amendments, thereto and debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours. Upon expiration of the 10 hours of debate, without intervening action, the Senate shall proceed to vote on the final disposition of the balanced budget bill.
(D) If the Senate has received from the House the balanced budget bill introduced under subsection (a) prior to the vote on final disposition of the Senate bill, the following procedures shall apply:
(i) The balanced budget bill received from the House shall not be referred to committee and shall be placed on the Calendar.
(ii) The Senate shall proceed to and consider the balanced budget bill introduced in the Senate, however--
(I) the vote on final passage shall be on the balanced budget bill received from the House, if it is identical to the balanced budget bill then pending for the vote on final disposition in the Senate; or
(II) if the balanced budget bill received from the House is not identical to the balanced budget bill then pending for the vote on final disposition in the Senate, following third reading of the Senate bill, the Senate shall, without intervening action or debate, proceed to the House balanced budget bill, strike all after the Enacting Clause, substitute the text of the Senate bill as taken to third reading, adopt the Senate amendment, and vote on the final disposition of the House balanced budget bill, as amended.
(E) Consideration of House Message shall be limited to 5 hours. Debate on any motion necessary to dispose of a House Message on the balanced budget bill shall be limited to 1 hour and debate on any amendment to such motion shall be limited to 30 minutes.
(F) Upon proceeding to any conference report on the balanced budget bill, the bill shall be considered as read. Debate on any conference report on the balanced budget bill shall be limited to 5 hours.
(4) Waiver of section 306.--Section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act shall not apply to the consideration of the balanced budget bill.
(d) Revisions to Aggregates, Allocations, and Discretionary Spending Limits.--
(1) Authority to adjust aggregates and discretionary limits.--For purposes of enforcement under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and H. Con. Res. 67 (One Hundred Fourth Congress), upon the introduction of the balanced budget bill in the House and Senate, and again upon submission of a conference report thereon--
(A) the discretionary spending limits; and
(B) the appropriate budgetary aggregates,as set forth in H. Con. Res. 67, shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (3).
(2) Authority to adjust committee allocations.--For purposes of enforcement under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and under H. Con. Res. 67 (One Hundred Fourth Congress), at any time after the introduction of the balanced budget bill, but prior to consideration of that bill in the House or Senate, as the case may be, and again upon submission of a conference report thereon, the allocations to the Committees of the Senate and the House pursuant to sections 302 and 602 shall be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (3).
(3) Adjustments.--The adjustments required by paragraphs
(1) and (2) shall be made by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate or the House of Representatives (as the case may be) and shall be consistent with the budgetary impact of the balanced budget bill. The adjusted discretionary spending limits, allocations, and aggregates shall be considered the appropriate limits, allocations, and aggregates for purposes of enforcement of the Congressional Budget Act and for enforcement of provision of H. Con. Res. 67 (One Hundred Fourth Congress).
(4) Reporting revised suballocations.--Following the adjustments made under paragraph (3), the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to sections 302(b) and 602(b) of this Act to carry out this subsection.
(5) Technical adjustments to house allocations.--Upon the enactment of a balanced budget bill introduced under subsection (a), the chairmen of the Committee on the Budget of the House may make necessary technical revisions to the revised allocations made under paragraph (2).
(e) Balanced Budget Bill.--As used in this section, the term ``balanced budget bill'' means any bill that achieves a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002, which is introduced pursuant to subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
Mr. EMERSON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Fairfax County, VA [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, let me explain. This takes S. 1508 and ties to it an expedited procedure for consideration of a budget resolution when it is agreed to by the President and congressional leaders in the Senate that would not make it subject to filibuster, that would move that along so this country could get on with a 7-year CBO-scored balanced budget.
This would, though, allow Federal contractors to continue to work as Federal employees come back to supervise those contracts. The contractors, you talk about unintended victims, are people who have really been cut out of that process, and this would allow Federal employees to get back to do work and do all of these things mentioned.
The difficulty has been that so far there has been an objection in the Senate to this, and hopefully by passing this in this body and sending it over, perhaps the Senate can work out their differences and send it back. It is really in that spirit that we move to this.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation of objection, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to explain to the body that what is being asserted here is the bill that I a moment ago tried to get up, with a very important amendment. The amendment would put into place an expedited procedure for consideration of a balanced budget bill in the Senate, in the other body. It is my understanding from the Democratic leader of the other body that they will not accept this legislation. They would accept the legislation without the expedited procedure on the balanced budget, but they will not accept this. The Members on the other side are not in town to even be consulted to see if they could accept it, so this, in effect, is a poison pill in this piece of legislation that will not allow it to go forward.
I would simply say that if the majority in this House is interested in the Federal Government going back to work, they will allow us to bring up the bill we tried to bring up a moment ago without the poison pill amendment, which will keep it from going through the Senate. If we insist on putting the poison pill in the bill, we are going to be back here next Wednesday right where we are today, without anybody in the Federal Government who is not working today working. We are going to be paying people to stay at home, which is unconscionable and against the interests of Federal employees and the interests of taxpayers.
Mr. EMERSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I do not share the same pessimism my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, has at this point. I understand there was an objection that was interposed last evening by the Democratic side in the Senate. The poison pill the gentleman speaks about simply would allow the Senate to filibuster to death any kind of balanced budget resolution that the President and congressional leaders agree to. That seems almost indefensible to me, but at this point I think that is the best we are going to get.
I wish the gentleman's unanimous-consent request had been adopted by this body. I supported that, and will continue to support that every opportunity I get. But I think this is our next-best shot. We can send it there and hopefully the Senate will work something out that will allow a balanced budget agreement to be debated in a reasonable amount of time and not be filibustered to death, which is why I understand the objection was interposed last evening.
Mr. EMERSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this version. Again, Mr. Speaker, what our aim is, I think together, in a bipartisan way, we want to get our Federal Government operating again fully. We also wanted to balance the budget in 7 years. Basically, that is what we are saying, that we will not allow filibustering around the clock, ad infinitum, but set a period of time that is very reasonable to expedite the balanced budget.
I want to reiterate the fact that we have Federal employees in so many departments who are not working, who have so much to offer, who are demoralized. This shutdown is costly financially, in terms of productivity, and in terms of morale. In the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, by Tuesday I understand that there will not be the funding or the people power to clean the Superfund sites; NASA, Interior, the parks and museums, the State Department. So many people have been in emergency situations where they have not been able to obtain visas or passports.
{time} 1045
I spoke to someone internationally, a consul general, who was actually furloughed, but who went back on the job because of emergency situations.
The Small Business Administration: 250 loans per day are not being offered because of the fact that people who work for the Small Business Administration are furloughed.
The Justice Department: 250,000 home mortgages are not being produced every day because of the fact that Housing and Urban Development is not operating.
So it is time for us to move on. This may not be ideal, but it is the best we can do. It guarantees payment for Federal employees. It puts them back to work, and it says that this Congress and the administration are in favor of a balanced budget scored by CBO in 7 years. I thought that was something we already accepted.
As a matter of fact, my understanding is that President Clinton has said that he is in favor of this plan, and so I hope that we will, by unanimous consent, approve of it as a step in the right direction.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
In the first place, we have a bill here at the desk that has been passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. We know if we passed that bill which we just considered, we just spoke on, S. 1508, Federal employees are put back on the job, and all of the things that the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] said which are certainly so true, we respond in a positive, effective way to that situation.
The problem with this bill is that we have been told, and unequivocally, that the Senate will not accept this bill. There are 46 Senators, Democrats, over in the other body who will feel disenfranchised, who will feel that we are dictating to them something they will not accept, because they have to represent the interests of their constituency.
Now, the fact is that there already are specific provisions dealing with reconciliation bills that streamline the process, that limit debate on these reconciliation bills. There are already rules in place that are designed to expedite the legislation. This is not necessary. This is far more restrictive provisions than they can accept, and regardless of the merits of whether or not they should accept this, the fact remains that this will do nothing to get the job done, to get Federal employees back on the job.
Let me just suggest something to consider: If you are 20 feet from shore and you are drowning and somebody throws you a 15-foot rope, it is well-intentioned, it goes more than halfway, it is what needs to be done, you would assume, to throw a rope, but if the rope is not long enough, the rope does not get to the person who is drowning, it is no good.
That is the analogy that applies to this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation dooms Federal employees to be locked out of their job and the American public locked out of their Government until we begin all over again next week.
If the President agrees to something, then it is clear that the Democrats in the House and Senate are going to follow his lead. So it should not be a problem. There is no reason why we cannot approve the legislation we just talked about. We just got the support; every Member spoke positively who spoke about that legislation. If we do it today, Federal employees are back on the job today. We have done our work, and then we ought to be able to enjoy the holiday. Otherwise, we have no business even being on recess.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, let me try to bring some clarity, to this so everyone understands what we are talking about. I would have supported the other one gladly. I also support this one and hopefully people on the other side, they supported Senator Dole's gladly, so hopefully they will then support this, this gladly.
This process of the expedited procedure is not all unusual process. It is actually in the budget rules now, so, I mean, it really is not any different except for the hourly thing.
Third, I think it is important for this reason, I serve on the Committee on Appropriations, and the Labor-HEW bill has been tied up over in the Senate for well over, I think, 5 or 6 weeks. It has been debated and moved and changed and filibustered whereby it cannot even come up.
So this process brings it up, and it is an expedited process. It is a good procedure. It gives the Senate time, the same way they would under the normal budget things.
The other thing is it gets us to a balanced budget. Both sides say they want a balanced budget. It gets us there. It gets us to a balanced budget in 7 years. It gets us to a balanced budget scored by CBO, and another thing, in a bipartisan nature, the President supports this.
I watched the news last night, and I do not know if it was the 10 o'clock news or 11 o'clock news, that focused in on the President. The President said he supported this process, he supported the expedited procedure.
Senator Dole has been supportive of theirs, hopefully they will be supportive of this. And Tom Daschle, who is a good Member of the Senate, served here in the House, has a lot of Federal employees in his district, last night on one of the shows they focused in on Mount Rushmore which I believe is in his area; I believe this would be good for the body. I think it would be good for the Congress. I think it would be good for Federal employees. But perhaps more importantly than anything, this expedited procedure process in moving this along would be good for the country. That is what we are here for, to do the best interests of the country.
Had the other one been OK, fine. I even voted for it on the rollcall we did a week ago. I was one of three Republicans that did this. That process is there. This process is here. Let us pass this today so the Senate will have the opportunity, and hopefully take the opportunity, to work it and pass it whereby Federal employees can come back early next week.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the frustration of Members on both sides in trying to deal with this in a fair-handed way.
Once again I supported the minority leader's request to bring this up clean. That was the surest and safest way to get Federal employees and contractors back to work.
This can work, too. The only objection that could be interjected here are by Senators who feel a balanced budget agreement agreed to by the President and congressional leaders and brought back here would not be subject to the same expedited consideration that we usually undergo in budget reconciliation, that would allow a handful of Members to filibuster to death a balanced budget.
No one here, I think, favors that. I cannot believe when it goes back to the Senate they will not be able to work that out. This is not necessarily the preferred mode. This moves us closer to the balanced budget and moves us closer to getting Federal employees back to work.
In the absence of the minority leader's request today being objected to, this is the next best option. I hope it will be adopted.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield very briefly to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have been relatively rational, reasonable sounding in the course of this day's proceedings. But I want to tell the Speaker and this House there is a great deal of anger in America, not just in my district or that of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], or that of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], or that of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], or that of the gentlewoman from Maryland
[Mrs. Morella], a great deal of anger, I suspect in yours as well, Mr. Speaker, anger that the politicians cannot get it done.
The difference between the last resolution, yes, it was offered by the minority leader, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, a Republican running for President, and, yes, President Clinton agreed with it as the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] has pointed out, and our side agreed with it in a bipartisan, nonpartisan, common sense, let us get the Government back to work and stop playing politics with one another.
There is a difference with this resolution. This resolution attempts to muzzle the minority in the Senate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to object to this resolution. My friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], points out that this is the next best thing. I suggest the best thing is to pass a simple continuing resolution which could have been done in 5 minutes before we left here to go on recess ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I fear very much that the analogy made by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] that this is a 15-foot rope for a 20-foot victim may be apt. It may be correct. And that is a tragedy, and those in America who are angry are angry because they see this as politics as usual, not doing what everybody on this floor has said ought to be done, everybody today has said ought to be done, put the Government back to work while we make the difficult decisions.
But I think the inevitable decision is to get us to balance. I am for that. As everybody knows, I voted for that.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that in the next few hours, the leadership, who, as the gentleman from Missouri, a decent, honest Member who serves his district and country well, said of the objection on the last amendment, that it was for certain procedural amenities. I appreciate that. That is important to us on the minority side that we cannot offer a unanimous-consent request if they do not agree, and they cannot offer if we do not agree. That is an important principle. I understand that.
But when Americans hear that the Government is shut down because of certain procedural amenities, very frankly, their anger is heightened.
I do not mean to mischaracterize what the gentleman said. The gentleman referred to what both sides feel is an important consideration that each gives to the other. I want to make that clear to the American public. The gentleman honestly and correctly stated that principle.
But, Mr. Speaker, we should in a very simple, straightforward way, with no political objections on either side, pass Majority Leader Dole's resolution clean. Let that be the law, and then let us resolve the difference between us and adopt what I believe that more than two-
thirds of this body and, frankly, more than two-thirds of the Senate agree ought to be done, that is, a balanced budget in 7 years honestly scored by CBO so that America and America's children could have a better future.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, if no one else seeks recognition, let me say that the resolution that was objected to would have permitted a minority of a minority of a minority in the Senate to filibuster interminably. The issue now before the House, the resolution now before the House, would put the issue right on the dime and get on with business.
Mr. Speaker, in consideration of the superior nature of this resolution, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schiff). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Senate bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up