Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we find ourselves once again spending time on the floor of the House taking on an action which will not advance the process of completing the fiscal year 1996 appropriation bills. We are way behind in them. They are way past due. They should have been passed in the first session, and here we are at the beginning of the second session of the 104th Congress and we do not have our appropriation bills done. The Commerce-State-Justice bill was vetoed by the President and received by the House on December 19. It was referred to committee at that time, and today, rather than presenting to the House a bill that could be signed into law and one that ends the shutdown of all the agencies funded in this bill, now in the 19th day, we are debating a veto override. Well, I will vote to sustain the President's veto today, Mr. Speaker. At the time the conference report was passed, I indicated that if a vote to override occurred, that I would support the President. My position is based on the belief that the most constructive thing to be doing now is working out our differences on this bill in a rational way, without the Government shutdown being used by the majority in the House of Representatives as leverage in these policy debates. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a pretty clear analogy between just good old hostage-taking and the strategy being pursued by the majority. The similarity is that both in the conventional hostage-taking situation and in the situation where we allow Federal workers to be laid off and not employed and do not pass a continuing resolution, there is an irrationality that is common on both situations. That irrationality is this: In this case by the majority here in the House it is the presumption that by holding these hostages, by keeping these Federal workers unemployed, keeping them out, that that is going to affect the policy debate; that the President of the United States is going to be brought to heel on these issues because these Federal employees and all of the Americans they serve are being held hostage in the debate. That is an irrationality, Mr. Speaker. It is an irrationality in the conventional hostage situation; it is an irrationality here. There is no relationship between these Federal workers going back to work and solving these policy questions. We could pass a continuing resolution here today in a shorter period of time than we take to debate this veto override, get the workers back to work and then sit down in a rational way and solve these policy issues. The Government shutdown in its 19th day is furloughing some 280,000 Federal Government workers, holding them hostage, and keeping 480,000 excepted workers on the job without pay. Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Senate did a sensible thing, a rational thing. It passed a clean continuing resolution lasting until January 12, giving us some time to work on these issues. I believe the quote is ``enough is enough,'' were the words of the Senate majority leader. In fact, he used the word ``pawns'' to describe those employees caught in the middle of this fight that they have nothing to do with and no reason to be involved in. These people want to go back to work, and we should be addressing that situation today with a simple continuing resolution. Various Republican Members have been quoted as indicating that the current shutdown was having no significant effects across the country and should perhaps be extended. I think the statement, the whole idea is irresponsible and I patently disagree, Mr. Speaker. At the Justice Department, most of the law enforcement personnel have been declared essential, but as of this week they will only receive half a paycheck. What a way to ring in the new year. All FBI training, all Federal Bureau of Investigation training of State and local law enforcement has stopped. My good friend and chairman of the committee alluded to the COPS Program, Mr. Speaker, a wonderfully successful program. I know there are some other speakers that are going to be speaking in greater detail about the success of the COPS Program, a program to get community police, federally assisted community police, out on the beat. To date, there are 31,000 cops out on the beat as a result of this program, doing good work, good reviews, real results in reducing crime in the neighborhoods in which they are working. Mr. Speaker, 7,688 more policemen could be added right now to the beat in communities all across this country if the money were available, if we would simply pass a continuing resolution. That's 7,688 more policemen out there fighting crime. Mr. Speaker, also vendors who are supplying food to prisons are continuing to deliver that food, but they are not being paid. How long can that continue before vendors either refuse to deliver more food or go bankrupt? What a reputation for the Federal Government to get, reneging on its obligations, not paying small businessmen, small business women out there trying to make it work for their services. What would this mean to the prisons if that would happen? No food, riots. Mr. Speaker, it is not a pretty picture. More than 200,000 Americans, Mr. Speaker, are now waiting for passports. That is not in effect. Our friends suggest that these workers are unessential? This affects students trying to begin school overseas, individuals who have job offers, and many people who have nonrefundable tickets for overseas travel. The inconveniences are tremendous. Local employers who process visa applications are required to come to work but cannot do their jobs once they get there. Funds to pay for the massive State Department-run worldwide communication system will run out of funding the end of this week. That is the heart of our ability to communicate with our posts around the world. Activities to facilitate American businesses around the world are being hampered with the nongranting of more than 30 export licenses a day worth over $30 million to U.S. businesses, blocking more than $92 million a day in export licenses for defense articles and dual-use technology items. The release of government-generated statistics is being held up that is affecting business decisions, and more than 260 small businesses which receive an average of $40 million in financing guarantees from the SBA are not receiving those guarantees, Mr. Speaker. The impact is real. It is affecting the ability of the Federal Government to provide essential services. Keeping Federal employees off the job is just not being mean-spirited to Federal employees, reducing and eliminating their paychecks, it is meaning that we are not delivering services to the American people across a broad sector, and it is patently irresponsible. These are the impacts of the shutdown, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, we ought to be working today to get the Government open. It is simple to do it, pass the CR and not wasting time on a veto override motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No objection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member on the Committee on Science. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the ranking member. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari]. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman again suggests that money in here has been canceled for this program for the year. Is that what the gentlewoman is implying?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, how is it in jeopardy? This bill is going to come back to committee. No matter what happens to this bill, for my part and the majority's part, no matter what happens to this bill, that money is going to be there. The President was very supportive of this. That was in his request. The violence against women money will be in there. We should not be scaring people out there and suggesting that that money is not going to be there because the President vetoed the bill. The President vetoed the bill for a lot of policy reasons. That money will be there, and we ought not attempt to scare people.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself, and I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] if she would engage me in a colloquy. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman, she was not intending to imply that because the President vetoed this bill that was sent to him almost 2 months after the time it was supposed to be sent to him, that, for example, they money that is in here, the $175 million for the violence against women will not be funded. The gentlewoman is not suggesting that, is she?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, will the gentlewoman acknowledge that she was engaged in a bipartisan effort to get this money in the bill, and it was supported by the President?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, but the gentlewoman is not suggesting that money will not be in this program one this bill is processed and signed by the President?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I hope I have given the gentlewoman a little assurance. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentlewoman does not agree that if we get a continuing resolution passed, we would be able to do that?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the President has vetoed the fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill. As everyone knows, this is the third appropriations bill the President has vetoed this week, and his action on this bill is not unexpected. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is anything but unexpected. When the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary conference report was on the floor 2 weeks ago, it was clear that the President was going to veto it. In fact, when this bill passed the House in July, the President clearly indicated that he would veto any version of the bill that did not fund the Cops on the Beat Program in its already- authorized last-year form. The President has, from the beginning of this process this year, indicated his priorities for the bill, and the bill Congress sent to him does not fund those priorities. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a perfunctory motion we debate this afternoon. It is absolutely perfunctory. We should not even be here debating this motion to send this bill back to the committee. We ought to be debating a continuing resolution so that we can get the Government up and operating, so that we can get these agencies funded, so that we can get this COPS program funded. Mr. Speaker, there are 8,000 additional community policemen, on top of the 26,000 that the President has already gotten out during the last year. There are 8,000 new cops that have been appointed, but they cannot be funded because this bill has not passed, or because we have not passed a continuing resolution while we debate the policy priorities that are contained in this bill. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason, there is no reason that these Justice Department programs, that these crime-fighting initiatives that were started under President Clinton's program 2 years ago cannot now be funded. We could be operating under a continuing resolution. No reason why we could not be operating under a continuing resolution if we were not trying to use the appropriations process as leverage to bring the President to tow. Now, that is what the majority is doing. They are saying, oh, we are not funding all of these crime-fighting program because the President has vetoed this bill. This bill was supposed to be passed the 1st of October. This bill, and six other appropriations bills that are not passed, were supposed to be passed 3 months ago. They are not passed, and now we are sending it back to committee to try to rework the bill to accommodate the President's concerns. In the meantime, unless we pass a continuing resolution, which is what we ought to be debating here, unless we pass that continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker, these agencies are going to be continued to be shut down. The point is, we could be funding these programs right now if we were debating passing a CR and going forward, funding them while we debate these policy priorities and while we consider the reconciliation bill. Mr. Speaker, let us move forward with the CR. The President was granted applications for 8,000 additional policemen to go into every community, every State, every congressional district across this Nation. Last year we appointed 26,000. We have 8,000 more ready to go as soon as this money is released. It can be released with a continuing resolution. If the majority wants to debate the priorities, if it wants to debate block grants, fine, let us debate block grants. Let us debate priorities before this bill passes. Let us allow these policemen to get on the street by debating a CR, getting a CR out and passed so we can implement some of these crime-fighting programs that the majority alludes to. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman acknowledge that if we pass a continuing resolution here on this bill, that we would be able to immediately fund this program while we go forward and debate these other issues, and we could immediately fund it, get everybody back to work and get back them back to work now and pass the rest of the programs and the violence against women programs? Does the gentlewoman agree with that?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the dean of this House and a very good friend, Congressman John D. Dingell. John Dingell is, without question, one of the most respected Members of this institution. And so it is highly appropriate that we gather to recognize his remarkable 40-year record of service and achievement. When you look at that record, you have to marvel at Congressman Dingell's sphere of influence, for it is far reaching. Most Members of Congress, either through conscious choice or subconscious tendency, choose a level at which to focus their energies. For some, it is on national policies. For others, it is on local issue. It is rare to find a legislator who has the energy, the intellect, and the political savvy to do both. John Dingell is just such a legislator, one who shapes national policies and works with great diligence for Michigan's 16th District. I would invite you to first look at the national policy arena, where John Dingell has worked to better the lives of the American people through his powerful committee position. He has been--and remains--an effective advocate of consumers and taxapayes, whose interests he vigilantly defends. He also has worked to help disabled Americans gain access that the rest of us sometimes take for granted. And his service has benefited all who value a healthy environment and the protection of rare lands and species. Closer to home, well, the citizens of the 16th are hardworking people; people who understand and appreciate the value of a hard- working Representative. That's why, 20 times and by overwhelming margins, they've chosen John Dingell as their voice here in the Nation's Capital. And he's a powerful voice for them. Congressman Dingell works hard here to protect Michigan jobs and create new ones. He fights for working families, for veterans, for seniors, for students. He also has developed important environmental initiatives on local waterways. Finally, I would like to point out that this House, too, benefits greatly from Mr. Dingell's service. He is a man of integrity. Of course, he is also a tremendous source of institutional knowledge. And he is a master of House rules and procedures. I am honored to serve with him and count him as a personal friend. Let me note again, Mr. Speaker, that it is a true pleasure to recognize the gentleman from Michigan and commemorate his four decades of distinguished service.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].