Summary:

All articles in House section

TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT
(House of Representatives - November 09, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H12007-H12064] TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 2586) to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 258, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery]. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the subject of this bill, of course, is a short-term extension of the Nation's debt limit. This short-term extension is intended to provide an orderly process, with sufficient time for the Congress and the President to consider the balanced budget bill that will shortly be sent to the President. It is now clear that some type of pressure must be applied to bring the differing views together and to resolve this problem. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2586 would temporarily increase the statutory limit on the public debt to $4.967 trillion. It would do so until December 12, 1995. Under the bill, the limit would then revert to $4.8 trillion. H.R. 2586 also ensures the financial integrity of Government trust funds invested in Government debt obligations subject to the debt limit. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is necessary because the Congress, the legislative branch, under our Constitution, is responsible for authorizing any debt to be incurred by the U.S. Government. That is an obligation which we must take very seriously, and consider very carefully. Some in this Chamber are reluctant to increase the Nation's debt limit at all. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. However, we all recognize that this Government has made commitments and entered into obligations that must eventually be paid, so in an effort to accommodate those obligations and in an effort to accommodate this body and the executive branch with time to deliberate matters of great importance to the country, including balancing this Nation's budget in 7 years, this bill comes to us today. We believe this bill is not only necessary, but entirely appropriate, and we will get into more of the details as the debate continues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my fine and much-admired friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, has stated some of this bill, but perhaps he knows more about it than I do. He says that it is just a temporary legislation. The first page or so is temporary, but the other 400-and-some pages in this bill, and the pages that will perhaps be adopted here by additional amendments, are not temporary legislation. They are very permanent legislation. They do drastic things to this U.S. Government. They do it without debate, without consideration, or anything else. The only reason we are here at this late hour and under this kind of confusing circumstances is because the Republicans have not been able to get their act together, to get their majority control together, and to do the things that should have been done. We are here on November 9 to do the work that should have been done in July of this same year. The Republicans keep howling and screaming that the President will not bargain with them, but how, Mr. Speaker, can the President bargain with them? They have no budget bill. They have not even had a meeting on their budget bill in 2 weeks. I know. I am a conferee. I have not even gotten a notice, or, as one Member said, a postcard about a meeting of the conferees to iron out the differences in the budget resolution. We are about 4 months behind on the budget, the Congress is, because the Republicans cannot muster a majority on their side to get anything done. We are here at this late hour attempting to blackmail the President into signing something that he will never sign. The President is not subject to blackmail. He has enough sense not to give in to that kind of treatment. He is not going to sign this ridiculous trash here, most of which is only put together, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, temporarily, so they can get enough votes together to get this thing through the House. They are going to drop all these amendments. Their Members ought to understand that. None of this is ever going to become law. It is only here so that the Republicans can be coerced or bribed or twisted their arms or whatever you want to call it to vote for this thing. It is not going to happen. It is a terrible way to run the Government. It is a terrible reflection upon the Republican Party that they cannot do a simple thing, which is strike out one figure in a piece of legislation and add another figure. That is all that is here. We have done it hundreds of times in the years that I have been here without all of this rankle, all of this other garbage that has been added to it. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very poor and disastrous way to run the Government. It is a terrible reflection upon the Republican Party. We Democrats do not have control of this body. We do not set the agenda. We do not have the ability to produce a majority vote. It is all within their power. It is all within their ability. It is all within their responsibility. They cannot get up here and pretend that it is anybody's responsibility except theirs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], one of the most distinguished Members of the Chamber, and chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time to me. I guess we will have to put the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] as undecided on this matter. Mr. Speaker, this bill is more, really, much more than an increase in the debt limit. It is really a down payment on the promise that we have made to make government smaller and more responsive to the American people. It is crucial that we refocus government on those essential functions that it must perform, and reconsider whether government should be involved in any activity which it cannot do well. We presently are involved in a great many activities, Mr. Speaker, that we do not do well. The reason we have to [[Page H 12008]] raise the debt ceiling again is that the bureaucracy in Washington has grown unchecked for far too long. Endlessly we have added, bloated, and enlarged the Federal Government, so today we are going to continue to reverse that trend by voting for a second time, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate the Department of Commerce. This has been debated, has been considered before with this body, and we have decided in our wisdom to eliminate the Department of Commerce as part of the reconciliation discussions. In my view, the Department of Commerce is one bureaucracy that, frankly, is not necessary. Functions of the Department overlap with 71 independent agencies of the Government. True, there are, indeed, vital functions performed by Commerce involving trade, weather services, statistical information, and essential components will be retained in a more appropriate home. Other functions will be privatized, sent to the States and localities, or terminated. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that we are doing this just to put a scalp on our belt. That is absolutely not true. We have really taken a very close look at how this Department can be dismantled, how the functions of that Department can be consolidated and made to work much more efficiently, much more productively than they have in the past. Specifically, the commerce title in the debt ceiling bill highlights the importance of a strong trade policy, consolidates the various activities that are now spread all over the Federal Government dealing with trade, presents a cohesive approach to trade promotion. We consolidate the Department of Scientific and Environmental Functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we privatize or eliminate 40 agencies and programs, and we establish a citizens commission on 21st century government to evaluate the entire Federal Government, and determine how we can make this government, yes, smaller, more productive, more efficient, and more responsive to the American people. Let me be clear, however, that we are not cutting just for the sake of saving dollars. If that was the only objective, I do not think it would be worth doing. In fact, we will be saving a great deal of dollars as a result of this exercise. The CBO has recently revised their estimate. We are going to save $6 billion by the elimination or the dismantlement of the Department of Commerce. The other side suggests we are just bloating up other parts of the government. That could not possibly be the case if we are going to save $6 billion. Clearly we are reducing, not enlarging the government. {time} 1415 So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge support for this debt limit extension, and for the elimination of the Department of Commerce. It is long overdue. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue here today is not a balanced budget and it is not a short-term extension to achieve it. Democrats favor an extension to help achieve a balanced budget. Most of us are willing to vote for a clean, short-term extension. Now, why are the Republicans not proposing it? Why is this layered with all of these additional proposals? There are two reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all, leverage on the President. Now, look, I am in favor of pressure. But this goes beyond pressure to try to create a pistol, and I suggest it will not work, it will backfire. The second reason there is not a clean extension is to satisfy some internal pressures within the Republican House Caucus. So they have added a provision on the Department of Commerce and one on regulatory language, a huge bill that few, if any, have read. Why are they doing this? The Senate Republican leadership has made clear that they will not buy the Commerce Department provision, so you are doing this to have some satisfaction internally within the Republican House Caucus. The Senate is working on regulatory reform. So what the Republicans are really doing here today is to play games, but going beyond it and playing with fire. What they are going to do through this, if it were ever to succeed, is to limit the management ability of the President to manage, to manage this situation, to manage this debt. Secretary Rubin has said very clearly, this legislation severely limits options the Secretary has under current law to relieve pressure and to avert default. Let us stop playing with fire with the debt. It would increase the interest rates. It would increase the interest rates for people with variable mortgages, with credit card debt. Look, what you are doing through this kind of proposal is linking chaos in this House with crassness. It will not work. What you should be doing here today is joining on a bipartisan basis to pass a short-term extension of the debt period. That is going to happen sooner or later; let us do it now. I urge defeat of this. Let us get to our senses and work on a bipartisan basis. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman's comments, it might be good to know that the day after the Committee on Ways and Means took the action to bring this bill to the floor, the stock market went up some 55 points and interest rates went down. So I think the fact that we have established a drop-dead date for negotiations to take place between the executive and legislative branches has, in fact, had a salutary effect on the markets and we hope to continue this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of those extra things that are on this bill, that really is not controversial in the broad sense, because it has passed the House a number of times, including this Congress, by overwhelming margins. It is something that really should be enacted into law, and we have an opportunity on this debt ceiling bill to get it down to the President in a timely fashion, which we have not had before, and that is the reform of what is known as habeas corpus laws to try to end the seemingly endless appeals that death row inmates have. Mr. Speaker, I can assure anybody who has paid attention to the death row situation, where people have committed heinous crimes and have been convicted and sentenced to death, that that is an abomination that people can carry out the sentence for as much as 15 or 20 years by procedural gimmicks. What happens, of course, is that they get convicted, they go through a State court appeal posture after they get sentenced to death, they go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and a court says, the conviction is fine, the sentence is fine. They come back and they have an opportunity to go into Federal district court and file what is known as a habeas corpus petition and seek to get out on a procedural matter; for example, they did not have a lawyer who represented them properly at trial. They then take that appeal and go all the way back to the Supreme Court, which takes a considerable amount of time, and after the Supreme Court denies that appeal, they can go back into Federal district court again on some other procedural ground and appeal that, and it could go on and on and on. What we do in this and what the House did earlier this year, and what is part of this bill, if we pass it today and send it to the President and maybe get it enacted into law, we say that after your finish your Federal appeal you can go into Federal court only one time. You have to put all of your apples in that basket, all of your procedural complaints and issues, and let it be decided and get on with the carrying out of the sentence if you do not have any grounds for those. Obviously, anybody who can provide that they are really innocent of the crime, they are not going to have the death penalty carried out. We have been waiting for a long, long time, years battling over this issue. This is a perfect bill, one the President [[Page H 12009]] really has to face and sign, a short-term debt extension, to finally get it enacted into law, the reform of habeas corpus, to end this process of staying and keeping staying, again and again and again, the death penalties in the State courts of this Nation. It is time to act now, and I urge the adoption of this bill. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was give permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2586. As a Member who has consistently been responsible and voted to increase the debt ceiling, it saddens me to stand here in opposition. We have heard all sorts of obfuscation from the majority. But let there be no mistake, raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the current level of government spending, and everything to do with financing our prior obligations--living up to our commitments. There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will be raised in the long run. What we should be doing here today is passing a clean temporary debt ceiling as an interim measure to prevent default while a balanced budget agreement can be hammered out. The bill before us today purports to protect trust funds but it has the practical effect of ensuring that Medicare claims won't be paid, tax refund checks can't be cashed and our Armed Forces won't be paid. It also strips the Secretary of the Treasury of all cash management tools--tools that were provided Republican Secretaries of the Treasury by Democratic Congresses. It is nothing more than an attempt to blackmail the President and to ultimately push us closer to default. It is irresponsible and unacceptable. We stand here today and listen to the majority try to blame the President for delay. But, let's look at the facts. It is November 9th, 5 weeks after the start of the fiscal year and congressional Republicans have yet to even send their plan to the President. In 1993, the Clinton budget plan was enacted by August. The majority talks about getting their budget done on time, yet, they've only sent the President 3 of the 13 required appropriations bills. So let us be clear now who is responsible for delay. When all is said and done, the debt ceiling will be increased. We shouldn't hold the economy or average American families hostage to a partisan debate on a balanced budget. We should enact a clean extension in the debt ceiling immediately. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]. Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2586 as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. This bill provides important protections for active and retired Federal workers. It protects the integrity of the civil service retirement and disability fund and the government securities investment fund. Under this bill, the administration will not be able to raid these funds in order to pretend that our national debt does not exceed the debt limit. The civil service retirement and disability fund provides authority to fund annuities paid under the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. It is a tempting target for the administration to raid, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it contains about 374 billion dollars' worth of special nonmarketable government securities that are subject to the debt limit. Many current Federal employees invest their money in the government securities investment fund. This is one of the three funds in which employees can invest under the thrift savings plan. Their money is also invested in special nonmarketable government securities subject to the debt limit. In the past, Mr. Speaker, administrations have raided the civil service retirement and disability fund in order to stay under the debt limit. They have refused to invest the dollars coming into the fund. The administration could even just tear up existing nonmarketable securities in the fund. It has been done before. It is also clear, Mr. Speaker, that the administration intends to raid the civil service retirement and disability fund. I have here a set of administration talking points that make that clear. Mr. Speaker, the civil service retirement disability fund is already woefully underfunded to the tune of $540 billion. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is already an unfunded liability of half a trillion dollars. Our learned colleagues on the other side of the aisle screamed and hollered when the private employers asked to be able to withdraw their excess contributions from their employee retirement funds that were more than 125 percent funded. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they did not even want private employers to reach into expensively funded plans. These same people now have the gall to give the administration a free reign to raid the retirement fund that is so woefully underfunded. Mr. Speaker, we need to manage our public debt and to work hard to reduce it, but allowing the administration to dip into these funds would just be a gimmick. It is a charade. It is time to inject some fiscal responsibility in managing the Government accounts. I support H.R. 2586, Mr. Speaker, because it prevents the administration from raiding the funds behind our employee retirement systems and behind their backs, and it makes sure their annuities are paid. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following information in support of my statement. Excerpt from Department of Treasury Talking Points, Nov. 7, 1995 Finally, by repealing the debt management features of the law relating to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the bill would increase the risk of default by severely limiting the ability of the Secretary of the Treasury to assure that crucial government payments--including benefit payments such as Social Security, as well as payments on the public debt--could be made in a time of debt limit crisis. These provisions were enacted in a Republican Administration and reflect the widely held view that the Secretary should have options to relieve pressure and avert default. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, before this debate gets too rough, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] who knows something about the subject that was just discussed. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have my money in that very retirement fund. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it must be said that this legislation plays politics with people's lives. It is deliberately designed to force a default of Federal debt obligations, and specifically ties the President's hands from being able to avert a debt ceiling crisis under the excuse that this is supposed to save Civil Service retirees. That provision was put in during the Reagan administration precisely to protect the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund. That is why it was put there. Now it is being repealed. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, dated today. This is a nonpartisan board designed to oversee the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. This letter says that this provision, if this bill is passed, will cost Federal retirees' $3.5 million per day, an amount that once lost, will never be recaptured. Do not do this to Federal retirees, do not do it to Social Security retirees. I urge defeat of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to follows: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, November 9, 1995. Hon. James P. Moran, Jr., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Moran: I have reviewed H.R. 2586 which provides for a temporary extension of the Federal debt limit. The proposed legislation provides for the repeal, inter alia, of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8438(g), which was enacted on May 22, 1987, to prevent harming Federal employees with investments in the Thrift Savings Plan's G Fund. It was foreseen at that time that, during periods of constraint on the issuance of Treasury securities brought about by the debt limit, the moneys of Federal employees in the G Fund would irretrievably lose interest (since they could not be invested) but for this carefully drafted, bipartisan ``make-whole'' provision. (The enclosed letter from former Executive Director Francis Cavanaugh forwarded the proposed legislation (not included) to Congress in April 1987, and it was quickly enacted.) A repeal of this provision at this time would cost Federal employees invested in the G Fund more than $3.5 million per day of debt limit constraint, an amount that, once lost, will never be recaptured. That Federal employees' retirement funds might be thus diminished is a matter of great concern to [[Page H 12010]] me and my fellow fiduciaries, as I am sure it is to you. All of the provisions of the proposed legislation can be enacted without harm to Federal employee' retirement funds except for the repeal of Sec. 8438(g) (and its administrative concomitant, Sec. 8438(h). That is, the purpose of the proposed draft legislation can be fully met, as set forth in its accompanying two-page explanation, with the deletion of the words ``, and subsections (g) and (h) of section 8438 of such title'' on page 6, lines 7 and 8. (The other provisions to be repealed pertain to the Civil Service Trust fund; because that fund is not owned by employees directly, their ultimate benefit levels as derived therefrom are unaffected.) If the bill were passed in its present form, the fiduciaries of the Thrift Savings Plan would be obligated to point out the needless and costly removal by Congress of a protection for Federal employees intended to prevent debt limit politics from impairing the integrity of their retirement funds. (The ``make-whole'' provision of Sec. 8438(g) has been employed on four separate occasions in the past to restore interest otherwise lost to Federal employees from debt limit hiatuses.) I have sent a similar letter to Congressman John Mica. I am asking your and his cooperation in preventing any repeal of Sec. 8438(g) in order to safeguard Federal employees' retirement moneys and ensure their confidence in the G Fund, which, at $21.5 billion currently, comprises approximately \2/3\ of total Thrift Savings Plan investments. Sincerely, Roger W. Mehle, Executive Director. Enclosure. ____ Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, April 30, 1987. Hon. Jim Wright, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board respectfully submits the enclosed draft bill to prevent the loss of interest earnings to federal employees in the Thrift Savings Plan (Plan) which would otherwise result from a temporary suspension of the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue public debt obligations to the Plan. The Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (5 U.S.C. 8401-8479) established a tax-deferred Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. Effective April 1, 1987, all government and employee contributions to the Plan must be invested in Treasury securities issued to the Government Securities Investment Fund (GSIF) of the Plan. Since such securities, like other Treasury debt issues, are subject to the statutory limit on the amount of public debt outstanding, the Secretary will be unable to issue such securities to the GSIF after May 15 unless Congress acts on debt limit legislation by that date. The present temporary public debt limit of $2.3 trillion is due to expire on May 15, 1987, on which date the debt limit will revert to the permanent statutory ceiling of $2.1 trillion. We understand that the Treasury Department advised Congress today, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee that the Department expects to have sufficient cash on May 15 so that an increase in the debt ceiling would not be necessary until May 28. Nevertheless, beginning May 16 the Treasury will be unable to issue any securities subject to the debt limit, including securities issued to the GSIF. Thus, if Congress does not act on debt limit legislation prior to May 16, the GSIF will lose interest; there is no authority for the Treasury to pay such interest at a later date to make up for such losses. The proposed legislation would provide the same treatment to the Thrift Savings Plan as is now provided by law (P.L. 99-509) to the Civil Service Retirement Fund. This treatment requires the Treasury to make up any loss of earnings to the Fund created by a suspension of Treasury borrowing authority. Although the bill seeks parity of treatment with the Civil Service Retirement Fund, it is important to note that the Thrift Savings Plan is different from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) in that the Thrift Savings Plan is a wholly voluntary, defined contribution plan; whereas CSRS is a mandatory, defined benefit plan. CSRS plan benefits do not depend directly on the amount of the Fund's interest earnings. The employer-employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan, although held in the custody of the Treasury Department, actually belong to the individual employees. Accordingly, Congress intended that the Thrift Investment Board be a financially independent agency and exempted the Board from the appropriations process, the budget, and the controls of the Executive Office of the President which apply to other federal agencies. Yet, perhaps inadvertently, Congress did not insulate the Board or the Plan from the constraints of the public debt limit. The Board believes that obligations issued to the GSIF should clearly be exempt from the public debt limit constraints. Yet, in view of the urgent need for timely legislative action before May 15, we are requesting only that the Plan be accorded the same treatment as the Civil Service Retirement Fund. Federal employees have been urged to deposit their funds in the Thrift Savings Plan upon the representation that such funds will be safely invested in government securities with a guaranteed rate of return based on a prescribed statutory interest rate formula. The Board has an obligation to federal employees to make every effort to see that this commitment is honored. Now, at the very beginning of the Plan, it is especially important that there be no question as to the integrity of the government's representation as to such investments. In order to prevent unnecessary fear and confusion on this point, we urge Congress to act on the enclosed bill as soon as possible and before any suspension of Treasury borrowing authority occurs. We are sending a similar letter to the President of the Senate. Copies have been sent to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sincerely, Francis X. Cavanaugh, Executive Director. Enclosure. ____ Summary of the Bill The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan (Plan) does not suffer a loss of earnings in its Government Securities Investment Fund in the event of a temporary suspension of borrowing authority of the United States Treasury Department, due to the statutory public debt limit. The bill provides that, in the event the Secretary of the Treasury suspends additional issuance of Treasury securities to the Government Securities Investment Fund because such issuance would exceed the debt limit, immediately upon lifting of the borrowing suspension, the Secretary of the Treasury shall issue securities to the Plan at interest rates and maturities which will replicate the obligations that would have been held by the Plan if the suspension had not occurred. This ``make-whole'' relief will include the payment of any interest the Plan loses as a result of the suspension. Both the obligations and the interest will be determined in accordance with the daily investment decisions made by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board during the suspension period which would have been effective were it not for the suspension. The treatment accorded to the Plan by the bill is similar to that accorded to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in Section 6002 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, except that the bill recognizes the statutory responsibility of the Executive Director (5 U.S.C. 8438(f)(2)(A)), rather than the Secretary of the Treasury, to determine the amounts and maturities of the investments in the Government Securities Investment Fund. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, but obviously, like many, I do so with some reluctance. While I have often opposed raising the debt ceiling, because of our efforts this bill includes a pledge to achieve a CBO-scored balanced budget in 7 years. I call attention to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this pledge is in the rule committing the President and Congress to enact in the year 1995, the calendar year, legislation for a balanced budget by the year 2002. It affirms the intent of Congress and the President to do so, and it is in black and white, and it is part of this package that we are voting on. This, my friends, is the crux of our Contract With America. This is why we have the responsibility today to be responsible. Do I like raising the debt? Obviously I do not. But, for this reason, and for this language, I intend to vote for this raising of the debt to ultimately balance the budget. However, Mr. Speaker, what is also a concern of mine is that without certain provisions in this bill, that Chairman Archer made sure were in this bill, the Clinton administration could dip into supposedly safe trust funds such as the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, and the Federal retiree trust fund. {time} 1430 I find this totally unacceptable and, frankly, so do the American taxpayers. Yet the President is threatening to veto this bill because we refuse to let the administration raid the Social Security, Medicare, and Federal retiree trust funds. That is what the people on the other side are saying. These trust funds should not see their assets reduced even temporarily. It sets a bad precedent of encouraging the Treasury Department to raid these funds. Without this amendment in the bill, the money paid into these funds would be diverted to pay for other services. Mr. Speaker, this is not the American way, and this should not be done. The American people have placed their trust in us to manage their funds, to protect their investments. We cannot let them down. I urge my colleagues, it is time to be responsible to pass this bill and to pass [[Page H 12011]] a balanced budget amendment that will eliminate the need after almost 40 years of Democrat control for such legislation in the future. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we should vote this bill down. We should be passing a clean continuing resolution or a clean debt limit extension for a reasonable time. Why are we here today? We are here because this is the most mismanaged legislative session I have seen in 35 years serving in legislative office. It is November 9. The fiscal year began October 1. I fully expected we would need a continuing resolution because the majority would have passed appropriation bills, they would have been vetoed in some cases, and the Congress and administration would be negotiating. Instead, 9 of 13 bills have not passed the Congress. So we need a continuing resolution. Why do we need this bill on the debt ceiling? Because it is now November. The Congress is doing what it should have been doing in July, should have been passing its budget bill, sending it to the President, probably vetoed, then serious negotiations occurring. Instead, we have drifted along all session doing what was not crucial; and here, a month and a half into the fiscal year, the House and Senate is still dealing with the conference report. Shame on us. If we had done our work, this bill would have been on the President's desk before the August recess as it was 2 years ago, negotiations could have occurred in September, maybe into mid-October, and had a solution. Instead, total mismanagement. Mid-November, no budget bill, most of the appropriation bills still hung up in the Congress. Instead, we find ourselves with a debt ceiling extension, with habeas corpus and Commerce and I do not know what all else is in here. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this bill. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that we started this Congress with the Contract With America. There were 10 items essentially. Two out of the first three talked about responsibility. The first item talked about responsibility. The third item talked about personal responsibility. I tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that this bill is neither fiscally responsible nor it is personally responsible; and, yes, we ought to be ashamed of playing with the credit of the United States of America as we are doing. This is not a serious attempt at responsible Government. It contains extraneous matters unrelated to the critical issue of making sure America pays it bills. Every American thinks its Government ought to do that. But that's not what we're doing today. This bill is loaded down with unrelated provisions that have nothing to do with the problem before us and will cause the President to veto this legislation. Just like yesterday's continuing resolution, which the President has also indicated he will veto, this is not a serious attempt at responsible Government. I am afraid that the message to Federal employees is: Don't consider this a holiday weekend because you may not have a job next week. The Republican leadership seems determined to close down Government operations. They are taking the CR and the debt limit extension down the path to the same fate as many of the appropriations bills--stuck in the mud of political partisanship. This Government is not put at risk by this irresponsibility with which we are confronted today. They want to up Social Security and Medicare payments by $151 per recipient in this bill. That ought to be debated fully. Habeas corpus, that may be a good bill, but it is not subject to having an impact on the debt of the United States. Eliminate the Commerce Department, a 200-page bill that the President disagrees with. You put at risk the credit of the United States. This debt limit extension measure also limits the Secretary of the Treasury's ability to manage Federal employee investments in the thrift savings plan as well as their retirement fund. These provisions have nothing to do with allowing the Treasury Department to continue to borrow money. Auctions have already been canceled because of the Republican leadership's failure to act. I am gravely concerned about the impact of not passing a CR and debt limit extension on Federal employees. They have been attacked again and again in this Congress and now the leadership is threatening to send them home on furlough. Those in the Congress who claim to be Federal employee advocates and then vote for these extreme measures are, in my opinion, undermining the security of those Federal employees whom they claim to represent. This is not a rhetorical issue. This is real fear for civil servants who have families to feed and mortgages to pay. The lives of Federal employees are once again being thrown into chaos as the Republicans pursue their extreme agenda. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, ladies and gentlemen of America, this bill is a patently petty political terrorist tactic. That is what it is. An attempt to force the President of the United States to adopt things that you cannot get through your own Senate, not just the Congress. This bill adopts tactics that put America as a hostage to an extremist agenda. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The Clerk will report the words. {time} 1445 Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to repeat them if you would like just so they are clear on the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman shall refrain from speaking. The Clerk will report the words. The Clerk read as follows: Ladies and gentlemen of this House, ladies and gentlemen of America, this bill is a patently petty political terrorist tactic, that is what it is, an attempt to force the President of the United States to adopt things that you cannot get through your own Senate, not just the Congress. This bill adopts tactics that put America as a hostage to an extremist agenda. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules that since this is not a reference to an individual Member, that the remarks are in order. However, the Chair would observe that there is a civility within the House in addressing bills and Members that should be observed, and it would be hoped that in the future that would be observed by all Members. Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for his ruling. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has expired. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a legitimate concern about the use of trust funds that has been mentioned earlier, and that the reason why some who are coming to the floor are suggesting that they want to give the administration total latitude on these issues is because, I think, they are probably aware that the administration intends to use the civil service retirement trust funds, the Government securities investment fund, other cash, and perhaps even the Social Security trust fund as the way of financing our debt into the future. Now, we have heard discussion on the floor about the fact that we do not want to default for the first time in history. The fact is we have never used the Social Security trust fund for anything other than Social Security payments at any time in history, either, and yet what we are being told by this administration and by those defending the administration on the floor, they are prepared, in pursuit of their political agenda, to allow the Social Security trust fund to at some point in the future be invaded for the purposes of paying the bills. Now, our direction has been to try to balance the budget. We realize that that takes a lot of hard work. We realize it has been an uphill fight, with those who are opposed to that agenda fighting us every step of the way to see [[Page H 12012]] to it these bills do not get passed. We realize there has been a concerted effort to try to stop bills in other places in the Capitol Building so that, in fact, the work cannot get completed, and now we come down to the point where there is no longer an ability to pay the debts that have been incurred over the last several years. Now we are being told that the Social Security trust fund should be put in jeopardy in the future. I would suggest that we ought to pass the bill that is before us. Yes, it does contain a number of items in it that we think are good for the country, such as regulatory reform, we hope, after that amendment is adopted, habeas corpus reform, and a number of other things. Fundamentally, what it does is allow the President to borrow temporarily, and does so in a way that assures protection of the trust funds. Why do I say that we believe all this is happening? We have heard it directly from the Department of the Treasury. I have before me materials that indicate that the Department of the Treasury is prepared in fact to begin using the civil service retirement and disability fund. At a press briefing yesterday, they outlined about $28 billion of money they are going to use, first out of the Government securities investment fund, then out of civil service retirement, then out of other petty cash amounts, and the next step down the line, my friends, is the Social Security trust fund. That is, I think, a very grave danger for us all. the way that you can prevent that kind of problem from occurring is to vote for the bill brought to you by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], assure that we do protect the Social Security trust fund now and into the future, assure we do have the ability to raise the debt limit enough to pay our bills and, oh, by the way, get a couple of things done good for America, such as eliminating a Cabinet department and giving this Nation regulatory reform. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am placing in the Record at this point a statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject matter under debate. The referenced material is as follows: Statement of Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Social Security Commissioner Shirley S. Chater As Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds we want to assure the American people that the resources of the Funds are preserved and protected for the benefit of every American who is now, or will in the future become, entitled to receive Social Security benefits. Questions have arisen recently whether, because of the failure by Congress to increase the national debt limit, the resources of the Funds might be used to provide funds for governmental purposes unrelated to the payment of Social Security benefits. This is our reply: The Social Security Trust Funds will not be used for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. We will continue to protect Social Security. Furthermore, Congress should increase the statutory debt limit in a manner so all of the government's obligations will be paid on time. The Ways and Means Committee's bill, however, leaves Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, veterans and military personnel, and obligations such as the principal and interest on the public debt all at risk. This is simply not acceptable. In sum: this Administration will not use Social Security Trust Funds for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and in particular the provision involving death row appeals. Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this bill are different from the provisions in the House-passed bill, and these provisions have been sprung on us in the last 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this will do nothing to reduce crime. Death row inmates are not the ones out there robbing, raping and murdering in the streets. There is not even anecdotal evidence these inmates are the cause of crime in our community. Mr. Speaker, we have not addressed the problem of innocent people being put to death. It was reported in the New York Times this Sunday that a man who had been on death row for 11 years in Illinois was released after being acquitted when a subsequent trial disclosed that a police officer had lied in the first trial. What have we done about the police officer lying? Yesterday we had a hearing on a bill that would limit the civil liability of the police officer who lied, and today we consider legislation that will put the defendant to death quicker so it will be less likely we ever could have found out the truth. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do something about crime, we need to do something different than what we have done so far this year, such as cut funding for attorneys and death row appeals, which will create more complications and more appeals. We have cut funding for crime prevention and cops on the beat; cut funding for summer jobs, putting more youth out on the streets; cut funding for college scholarships and Head Start. All of that will increase crime. If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would increase the money for Head Start, summer jobs, college scholarships, crime prevention and cops on the beat, and not insert these useless sound bites in essential legislation. Mr. Speaker, we should focus on the financial crisis before us and not sneak provisions such as this through a debt ceiling resolution. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution by the chairman to increase the debt limit, but I do so with some reluctance. I hate to see us increase the debt that the taxpayers of this country owe and that I know that our children will someday have to pay. But I also know that if we are going to reach a balanced budget over the 7 years, as we have planned and as we have passed in both bodies, that we will have to extend that debt limit. I understand that there is a lot of confusion and controversy about how we are going to do that, and it will take a couple, 2, 3 more weeks to really rectify those differences. So, therefore, we must increase the funding and the borrowing power of our Government. The thing that I like about this bill or this proposal is it will restrict the use of trust funds. But, Mr. Speaker, you have heard the old saying, ``A day late and a dollar short.'' Well, sir, I think we are years late and several billon dollars short, because out of the $4.9 trillion that we currently owe as the debt, the debt that is owed by the taxpayers that has been created by the Congress, $1.25 trillion of it is actually owed to trust funds, trust funds that people have contributed to that they expect someday to receive in return. Let me give you some of those amounts, Mr. Speaker. The Federal employee's trust fund, some $375 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; the Medicare part A trust fund, $130 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; VA retirement, over $112 billion owed to that trust fund by the Treasury; and Social Security, Mr. Speaker, some $483 billion of old age pension, part of my old age pension, owed to the trust fund by the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record a table concerning the trust fund impact on budget results and investment holdings as of September 30, 1995: [[Page H 12013]] TABLE 8.--TRUST FUND IMPACT ON BUDGET RESULTS AND INVESTMENT HOLDINGS AS OF SEPT. 30, 1995 [In millions of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This month Fiscal year to date Securities held as investments, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ current fiscal year -------------------------------------- Classification Beginning of Receipts Outlays Excess Receipts Outlays Excess -------------------------- Close of This year This month this month -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust receipts, outlays, and investments held: Airport........................ 333 777 -445 6,125 7,242 -1,117 12,206 11,547 11,145 Black lung disability.......... 416 426 -46 987 987 (**) (*) (*) (*) Federal disability insurance... 4,749 3,606 1,143 70,215 41,380 28,835 6,100 34,146 35,225 Federal employees life and health........................ (*) -145 145 (*) -1,240 1,240 22,503 23,601 23,729 Federal employees retirement... 24,375 3,268 21,108 66,821 38,899 27,923 346,317 353,081 374,219 Federal hospital insurance..... 9,150 10,271 -1,121 114,847 114,883 -36 128,716 180,931 129,864 Federal old-age and survivors insurance..................... 26,560 24,569 1,991 326,084 294,474 31,611 403,425 445,944 147,947 Federal supplementary medical insurance..................... 1,746 5,903 -4,157 58,169 65,213 -7,044 21,489 17,675 13,513 Highways....................... 2,115 2,340 -226 23,613 22,688 925 17,694 8,846 8,531 Military advances.............. 967 1,314 -347 12,469 13,417 -948 (*) (*) (*) Railroad retirement............ 451 675 -224 9,093 7,924 1,169 12,203 14,063 14,440 Military retirement............ 918 2,386 -1,468 34,624 27,797 6,827 105,367 114,320 112,963 Unemployment................... 336 1,801 -1,465 32,820 25,282 7,539 39,788 48,660 47,141 Veterans life insurance........ 23 110 -86 1,356 1,231 126 13,477 13,690 13,606 All other trust................ 525 555 -30 6,056 4,346 1,710 12,317 14,180 14,060 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total trust fund receipts and outlays and investments held from Table 6-D................. 72,665 57,893 14,772 763,281 664,521 98,760 1,151,601 1,240,682 1,256,385 Less Interfund transactions.... 27,150 27,150 ........... 212,849 212,849 (*) ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust fund receipts and outlays on the basis of Tables 4 and 5............ 45,515 30,742 14,772 550,432 451,671 98,760 ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Total Federal fund receipts and outlays............... 100,994 108,480 -7,486 835,221 1,097,794 262,573 ........... ........... ........... Less Interfund transactions.... 443 443 (*) 975 975 (*) ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal fund receipts and outlays on the basis of Tables 4 and 5............ 100,551 108,037 -7,486 834,245 1,096,819 -262,573 ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Less: Offsetting proprietary receipts...................... 2,846 2,846 (*) 34,101 34,101 (*) ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Net budget receipts and outlays................... 143,219 135,933 7,286 1,350,576 1,514,389 -163,813 ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *No transactions. Note: Interfund receipts and outlays are transactions between Federal funds and trust funds such as Federal payments and contributions, and interest and profits on investments in Federal securities. They have no net effect on overall budget receipts and outlays since the receipts side of such transactions is offset against budget outlays. In this table, Interfund receipts are shown as an adjustment to arrive at total receipts and outlays of trust funds respectively. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: U.S. Treasury, final monthly Treasury statement of receipts and outlays, September 1995. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first, my thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for his courtesies and tenacity in this debate. Members of the committee, it is pathetic that in a several hundred page bill that was delivered to the Democrats on the Judiciary at 10:45 a.m. this morning, 27 pages of habeas corpus reform of the Senate's that we have never seen, never read, never discussed, never debated, never. Why? This is the short-term debt ceiling limitation bill. What in God's name is habeas corpus doing in this provision? You can pass it, Republicans, anyway separately, I guess. You have been rolling all the votes here for 10 months. But why stick it in overnight? Is there some logic that this could be happening here in the most democratic forum, the most democratic, fairest parliamentary system that we have in the Federal Government? But worse than that, this provision limits review in other habeas cases. And my colleagues who have been so concerned about civil rights violations by Federal law enforcement, read Ruby Ridge and Waco, that now they want to leave Federal law enforcement and judges with no way to protect against overzealous Federal law officers who may not have acted lawfully. It is pathetic that habeas reform has been tucked away in the debt ceiling package. Habeas reform has absolutely nothing to do with short- term debt and I cannot help but wonder why the Republicans, who control both Houses of Congress need to attempt to pass habeas reform in this underhanded manner. My colleagues should make no mistake, this so-called habeas reform bill does not reform habeas corpus law, it all but eliminates Federal appeals in death penalty cases. This bill will also limit review in other habeas cases. My colleagues on the right who have been so concerned about civil rights violations by Federal law enforcement officers may find that they are left with no remedy when a lower court judge finds that those overzealous Federal officers acted lawfully.

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT
(House of Representatives - November 09, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H12007-H12064] TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 2586) to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 258, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery]. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the subject of this bill, of course, is a short-term extension of the Nation's debt limit. This short-term extension is intended to provide an orderly process, with sufficient time for the Congress and the President to consider the balanced budget bill that will shortly be sent to the President. It is now clear that some type of pressure must be applied to bring the differing views together and to resolve this problem. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2586 would temporarily increase the statutory limit on the public debt to $4.967 trillion. It would do so until December 12, 1995. Under the bill, the limit would then revert to $4.8 trillion. H.R. 2586 also ensures the financial integrity of Government trust funds invested in Government debt obligations subject to the debt limit. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is necessary because the Congress, the legislative branch, under our Constitution, is responsible for authorizing any debt to be incurred by the U.S. Government. That is an obligation which we must take very seriously, and consider very carefully. Some in this Chamber are reluctant to increase the Nation's debt limit at all. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. However, we all recognize that this Government has made commitments and entered into obligations that must eventually be paid, so in an effort to accommodate those obligations and in an effort to accommodate this body and the executive branch with time to deliberate matters of great importance to the country, including balancing this Nation's budget in 7 years, this bill comes to us today. We believe this bill is not only necessary, but entirely appropriate, and we will get into more of the details as the debate continues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my fine and much-admired friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, has stated some of this bill, but perhaps he knows more about it than I do. He says that it is just a temporary legislation. The first page or so is temporary, but the other 400-and-some pages in this bill, and the pages that will perhaps be adopted here by additional amendments, are not temporary legislation. They are very permanent legislation. They do drastic things to this U.S. Government. They do it without debate, without consideration, or anything else. The only reason we are here at this late hour and under this kind of confusing circumstances is because the Republicans have not been able to get their act together, to get their majority control together, and to do the things that should have been done. We are here on November 9 to do the work that should have been done in July of this same year. The Republicans keep howling and screaming that the President will not bargain with them, but how, Mr. Speaker, can the President bargain with them? They have no budget bill. They have not even had a meeting on their budget bill in 2 weeks. I know. I am a conferee. I have not even gotten a notice, or, as one Member said, a postcard about a meeting of the conferees to iron out the differences in the budget resolution. We are about 4 months behind on the budget, the Congress is, because the Republicans cannot muster a majority on their side to get anything done. We are here at this late hour attempting to blackmail the President into signing something that he will never sign. The President is not subject to blackmail. He has enough sense not to give in to that kind of treatment. He is not going to sign this ridiculous trash here, most of which is only put together, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, temporarily, so they can get enough votes together to get this thing through the House. They are going to drop all these amendments. Their Members ought to understand that. None of this is ever going to become law. It is only here so that the Republicans can be coerced or bribed or twisted their arms or whatever you want to call it to vote for this thing. It is not going to happen. It is a terrible way to run the Government. It is a terrible reflection upon the Republican Party that they cannot do a simple thing, which is strike out one figure in a piece of legislation and add another figure. That is all that is here. We have done it hundreds of times in the years that I have been here without all of this rankle, all of this other garbage that has been added to it. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very poor and disastrous way to run the Government. It is a terrible reflection upon the Republican Party. We Democrats do not have control of this body. We do not set the agenda. We do not have the ability to produce a majority vote. It is all within their power. It is all within their ability. It is all within their responsibility. They cannot get up here and pretend that it is anybody's responsibility except theirs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], one of the most distinguished Members of the Chamber, and chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time to me. I guess we will have to put the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] as undecided on this matter. Mr. Speaker, this bill is more, really, much more than an increase in the debt limit. It is really a down payment on the promise that we have made to make government smaller and more responsive to the American people. It is crucial that we refocus government on those essential functions that it must perform, and reconsider whether government should be involved in any activity which it cannot do well. We presently are involved in a great many activities, Mr. Speaker, that we do not do well. The reason we have to [[Page H 12008]] raise the debt ceiling again is that the bureaucracy in Washington has grown unchecked for far too long. Endlessly we have added, bloated, and enlarged the Federal Government, so today we are going to continue to reverse that trend by voting for a second time, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate the Department of Commerce. This has been debated, has been considered before with this body, and we have decided in our wisdom to eliminate the Department of Commerce as part of the reconciliation discussions. In my view, the Department of Commerce is one bureaucracy that, frankly, is not necessary. Functions of the Department overlap with 71 independent agencies of the Government. True, there are, indeed, vital functions performed by Commerce involving trade, weather services, statistical information, and essential components will be retained in a more appropriate home. Other functions will be privatized, sent to the States and localities, or terminated. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that we are doing this just to put a scalp on our belt. That is absolutely not true. We have really taken a very close look at how this Department can be dismantled, how the functions of that Department can be consolidated and made to work much more efficiently, much more productively than they have in the past. Specifically, the commerce title in the debt ceiling bill highlights the importance of a strong trade policy, consolidates the various activities that are now spread all over the Federal Government dealing with trade, presents a cohesive approach to trade promotion. We consolidate the Department of Scientific and Environmental Functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we privatize or eliminate 40 agencies and programs, and we establish a citizens commission on 21st century government to evaluate the entire Federal Government, and determine how we can make this government, yes, smaller, more productive, more efficient, and more responsive to the American people. Let me be clear, however, that we are not cutting just for the sake of saving dollars. If that was the only objective, I do not think it would be worth doing. In fact, we will be saving a great deal of dollars as a result of this exercise. The CBO has recently revised their estimate. We are going to save $6 billion by the elimination or the dismantlement of the Department of Commerce. The other side suggests we are just bloating up other parts of the government. That could not possibly be the case if we are going to save $6 billion. Clearly we are reducing, not enlarging the government. {time} 1415 So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge support for this debt limit extension, and for the elimination of the Department of Commerce. It is long overdue. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue here today is not a balanced budget and it is not a short-term extension to achieve it. Democrats favor an extension to help achieve a balanced budget. Most of us are willing to vote for a clean, short-term extension. Now, why are the Republicans not proposing it? Why is this layered with all of these additional proposals? There are two reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all, leverage on the President. Now, look, I am in favor of pressure. But this goes beyond pressure to try to create a pistol, and I suggest it will not work, it will backfire. The second reason there is not a clean extension is to satisfy some internal pressures within the Republican House Caucus. So they have added a provision on the Department of Commerce and one on regulatory language, a huge bill that few, if any, have read. Why are they doing this? The Senate Republican leadership has made clear that they will not buy the Commerce Department provision, so you are doing this to have some satisfaction internally within the Republican House Caucus. The Senate is working on regulatory reform. So what the Republicans are really doing here today is to play games, but going beyond it and playing with fire. What they are going to do through this, if it were ever to succeed, is to limit the management ability of the President to manage, to manage this situation, to manage this debt. Secretary Rubin has said very clearly, this legislation severely limits options the Secretary has under current law to relieve pressure and to avert default. Let us stop playing with fire with the debt. It would increase the interest rates. It would increase the interest rates for people with variable mortgages, with credit card debt. Look, what you are doing through this kind of proposal is linking chaos in this House with crassness. It will not work. What you should be doing here today is joining on a bipartisan basis to pass a short-term extension of the debt period. That is going to happen sooner or later; let us do it now. I urge defeat of this. Let us get to our senses and work on a bipartisan basis. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman's comments, it might be good to know that the day after the Committee on Ways and Means took the action to bring this bill to the floor, the stock market went up some 55 points and interest rates went down. So I think the fact that we have established a drop-dead date for negotiations to take place between the executive and legislative branches has, in fact, had a salutary effect on the markets and we hope to continue this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of those extra things that are on this bill, that really is not controversial in the broad sense, because it has passed the House a number of times, including this Congress, by overwhelming margins. It is something that really should be enacted into law, and we have an opportunity on this debt ceiling bill to get it down to the President in a timely fashion, which we have not had before, and that is the reform of what is known as habeas corpus laws to try to end the seemingly endless appeals that death row inmates have. Mr. Speaker, I can assure anybody who has paid attention to the death row situation, where people have committed heinous crimes and have been convicted and sentenced to death, that that is an abomination that people can carry out the sentence for as much as 15 or 20 years by procedural gimmicks. What happens, of course, is that they get convicted, they go through a State court appeal posture after they get sentenced to death, they go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and a court says, the conviction is fine, the sentence is fine. They come back and they have an opportunity to go into Federal district court and file what is known as a habeas corpus petition and seek to get out on a procedural matter; for example, they did not have a lawyer who represented them properly at trial. They then take that appeal and go all the way back to the Supreme Court, which takes a considerable amount of time, and after the Supreme Court denies that appeal, they can go back into Federal district court again on some other procedural ground and appeal that, and it could go on and on and on. What we do in this and what the House did earlier this year, and what is part of this bill, if we pass it today and send it to the President and maybe get it enacted into law, we say that after your finish your Federal appeal you can go into Federal court only one time. You have to put all of your apples in that basket, all of your procedural complaints and issues, and let it be decided and get on with the carrying out of the sentence if you do not have any grounds for those. Obviously, anybody who can provide that they are really innocent of the crime, they are not going to have the death penalty carried out. We have been waiting for a long, long time, years battling over this issue. This is a perfect bill, one the President [[Page H 12009]] really has to face and sign, a short-term debt extension, to finally get it enacted into law, the reform of habeas corpus, to end this process of staying and keeping staying, again and again and again, the death penalties in the State courts of this Nation. It is time to act now, and I urge the adoption of this bill. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was give permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2586. As a Member who has consistently been responsible and voted to increase the debt ceiling, it saddens me to stand here in opposition. We have heard all sorts of obfuscation from the majority. But let there be no mistake, raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the current level of government spending, and everything to do with financing our prior obligations--living up to our commitments. There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will be raised in the long run. What we should be doing here today is passing a clean temporary debt ceiling as an interim measure to prevent default while a balanced budget agreement can be hammered out. The bill before us today purports to protect trust funds but it has the practical effect of ensuring that Medicare claims won't be paid, tax refund checks can't be cashed and our Armed Forces won't be paid. It also strips the Secretary of the Treasury of all cash management tools--tools that were provided Republican Secretaries of the Treasury by Democratic Congresses. It is nothing more than an attempt to blackmail the President and to ultimately push us closer to default. It is irresponsible and unacceptable. We stand here today and listen to the majority try to blame the President for delay. But, let's look at the facts. It is November 9th, 5 weeks after the start of the fiscal year and congressional Republicans have yet to even send their plan to the President. In 1993, the Clinton budget plan was enacted by August. The majority talks about getting their budget done on time, yet, they've only sent the President 3 of the 13 required appropriations bills. So let us be clear now who is responsible for delay. When all is said and done, the debt ceiling will be increased. We shouldn't hold the economy or average American families hostage to a partisan debate on a balanced budget. We should enact a clean extension in the debt ceiling immediately. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]. Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2586 as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. This bill provides important protections for active and retired Federal workers. It protects the integrity of the civil service retirement and disability fund and the government securities investment fund. Under this bill, the administration will not be able to raid these funds in order to pretend that our national debt does not exceed the debt limit. The civil service retirement and disability fund provides authority to fund annuities paid under the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. It is a tempting target for the administration to raid, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it contains about 374 billion dollars' worth of special nonmarketable government securities that are subject to the debt limit. Many current Federal employees invest their money in the government securities investment fund. This is one of the three funds in which employees can invest under the thrift savings plan. Their money is also invested in special nonmarketable government securities subject to the debt limit. In the past, Mr. Speaker, administrations have raided the civil service retirement and disability fund in order to stay under the debt limit. They have refused to invest the dollars coming into the fund. The administration could even just tear up existing nonmarketable securities in the fund. It has been done before. It is also clear, Mr. Speaker, that the administration intends to raid the civil service retirement and disability fund. I have here a set of administration talking points that make that clear. Mr. Speaker, the civil service retirement disability fund is already woefully underfunded to the tune of $540 billion. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is already an unfunded liability of half a trillion dollars. Our learned colleagues on the other side of the aisle screamed and hollered when the private employers asked to be able to withdraw their excess contributions from their employee retirement funds that were more than 125 percent funded. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they did not even want private employers to reach into expensively funded plans. These same people now have the gall to give the administration a free reign to raid the retirement fund that is so woefully underfunded. Mr. Speaker, we need to manage our public debt and to work hard to reduce it, but allowing the administration to dip into these funds would just be a gimmick. It is a charade. It is time to inject some fiscal responsibility in managing the Government accounts. I support H.R. 2586, Mr. Speaker, because it prevents the administration from raiding the funds behind our employee retirement systems and behind their backs, and it makes sure their annuities are paid. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following information in support of my statement. Excerpt from Department of Treasury Talking Points, Nov. 7, 1995 Finally, by repealing the debt management features of the law relating to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the bill would increase the risk of default by severely limiting the ability of the Secretary of the Treasury to assure that crucial government payments--including benefit payments such as Social Security, as well as payments on the public debt--could be made in a time of debt limit crisis. These provisions were enacted in a Republican Administration and reflect the widely held view that the Secretary should have options to relieve pressure and avert default. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, before this debate gets too rough, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] who knows something about the subject that was just discussed. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have my money in that very retirement fund. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it must be said that this legislation plays politics with people's lives. It is deliberately designed to force a default of Federal debt obligations, and specifically ties the President's hands from being able to avert a debt ceiling crisis under the excuse that this is supposed to save Civil Service retirees. That provision was put in during the Reagan administration precisely to protect the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund. That is why it was put there. Now it is being repealed. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, dated today. This is a nonpartisan board designed to oversee the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. This letter says that this provision, if this bill is passed, will cost Federal retirees' $3.5 million per day, an amount that once lost, will never be recaptured. Do not do this to Federal retirees, do not do it to Social Security retirees. I urge defeat of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to follows: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, November 9, 1995. Hon. James P. Moran, Jr., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Moran: I have reviewed H.R. 2586 which provides for a temporary extension of the Federal debt limit. The proposed legislation provides for the repeal, inter alia, of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8438(g), which was enacted on May 22, 1987, to prevent harming Federal employees with investments in the Thrift Savings Plan's G Fund. It was foreseen at that time that, during periods of constraint on the issuance of Treasury securities brought about by the debt limit, the moneys of Federal employees in the G Fund would irretrievably lose interest (since they could not be invested) but for this carefully drafted, bipartisan ``make-whole'' provision. (The enclosed letter from former Executive Director Francis Cavanaugh forwarded the proposed legislation (not included) to Congress in April 1987, and it was quickly enacted.) A repeal of this provision at this time would cost Federal employees invested in the G Fund more than $3.5 million per day of debt limit constraint, an amount that, once lost, will never be recaptured. That Federal employees' retirement funds might be thus diminished is a matter of great concern to [[Page H 12010]] me and my fellow fiduciaries, as I am sure it is to you. All of the provisions of the proposed legislation can be enacted without harm to Federal employee' retirement funds except for the repeal of Sec. 8438(g) (and its administrative concomitant, Sec. 8438(h). That is, the purpose of the proposed draft legislation can be fully met, as set forth in its accompanying two-page explanation, with the deletion of the words ``, and subsections (g) and (h) of section 8438 of such title'' on page 6, lines 7 and 8. (The other provisions to be repealed pertain to the Civil Service Trust fund; because that fund is not owned by employees directly, their ultimate benefit levels as derived therefrom are unaffected.) If the bill were passed in its present form, the fiduciaries of the Thrift Savings Plan would be obligated to point out the needless and costly removal by Congress of a protection for Federal employees intended to prevent debt limit politics from impairing the integrity of their retirement funds. (The ``make-whole'' provision of Sec. 8438(g) has been employed on four separate occasions in the past to restore interest otherwise lost to Federal employees from debt limit hiatuses.) I have sent a similar letter to Congressman John Mica. I am asking your and his cooperation in preventing any repeal of Sec. 8438(g) in order to safeguard Federal employees' retirement moneys and ensure their confidence in the G Fund, which, at $21.5 billion currently, comprises approximately \2/3\ of total Thrift Savings Plan investments. Sincerely, Roger W. Mehle, Executive Director. Enclosure. ____ Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, April 30, 1987. Hon. Jim Wright, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board respectfully submits the enclosed draft bill to prevent the loss of interest earnings to federal employees in the Thrift Savings Plan (Plan) which would otherwise result from a temporary suspension of the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue public debt obligations to the Plan. The Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (5 U.S.C. 8401-8479) established a tax-deferred Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. Effective April 1, 1987, all government and employee contributions to the Plan must be invested in Treasury securities issued to the Government Securities Investment Fund (GSIF) of the Plan. Since such securities, like other Treasury debt issues, are subject to the statutory limit on the amount of public debt outstanding, the Secretary will be unable to issue such securities to the GSIF after May 15 unless Congress acts on debt limit legislation by that date. The present temporary public debt limit of $2.3 trillion is due to expire on May 15, 1987, on which date the debt limit will revert to the permanent statutory ceiling of $2.1 trillion. We understand that the Treasury Department advised Congress today, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee that the Department expects to have sufficient cash on May 15 so that an increase in the debt ceiling would not be necessary until May 28. Nevertheless, beginning May 16 the Treasury will be unable to issue any securities subject to the debt limit, including securities issued to the GSIF. Thus, if Congress does not act on debt limit legislation prior to May 16, the GSIF will lose interest; there is no authority for the Treasury to pay such interest at a later date to make up for such losses. The proposed legislation would provide the same treatment to the Thrift Savings Plan as is now provided by law (P.L. 99-509) to the Civil Service Retirement Fund. This treatment requires the Treasury to make up any loss of earnings to the Fund created by a suspension of Treasury borrowing authority. Although the bill seeks parity of treatment with the Civil Service Retirement Fund, it is important to note that the Thrift Savings Plan is different from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) in that the Thrift Savings Plan is a wholly voluntary, defined contribution plan; whereas CSRS is a mandatory, defined benefit plan. CSRS plan benefits do not depend directly on the amount of the Fund's interest earnings. The employer-employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan, although held in the custody of the Treasury Department, actually belong to the individual employees. Accordingly, Congress intended that the Thrift Investment Board be a financially independent agency and exempted the Board from the appropriations process, the budget, and the controls of the Executive Office of the President which apply to other federal agencies. Yet, perhaps inadvertently, Congress did not insulate the Board or the Plan from the constraints of the public debt limit. The Board believes that obligations issued to the GSIF should clearly be exempt from the public debt limit constraints. Yet, in view of the urgent need for timely legislative action before May 15, we are requesting only that the Plan be accorded the same treatment as the Civil Service Retirement Fund. Federal employees have been urged to deposit their funds in the Thrift Savings Plan upon the representation that such funds will be safely invested in government securities with a guaranteed rate of return based on a prescribed statutory interest rate formula. The Board has an obligation to federal employees to make every effort to see that this commitment is honored. Now, at the very beginning of the Plan, it is especially important that there be no question as to the integrity of the government's representation as to such investments. In order to prevent unnecessary fear and confusion on this point, we urge Congress to act on the enclosed bill as soon as possible and before any suspension of Treasury borrowing authority occurs. We are sending a similar letter to the President of the Senate. Copies have been sent to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sincerely, Francis X. Cavanaugh, Executive Director. Enclosure. ____ Summary of the Bill The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan (Plan) does not suffer a loss of earnings in its Government Securities Investment Fund in the event of a temporary suspension of borrowing authority of the United States Treasury Department, due to the statutory public debt limit. The bill provides that, in the event the Secretary of the Treasury suspends additional issuance of Treasury securities to the Government Securities Investment Fund because such issuance would exceed the debt limit, immediately upon lifting of the borrowing suspension, the Secretary of the Treasury shall issue securities to the Plan at interest rates and maturities which will replicate the obligations that would have been held by the Plan if the suspension had not occurred. This ``make-whole'' relief will include the payment of any interest the Plan loses as a result of the suspension. Both the obligations and the interest will be determined in accordance with the daily investment decisions made by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board during the suspension period which would have been effective were it not for the suspension. The treatment accorded to the Plan by the bill is similar to that accorded to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in Section 6002 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, except that the bill recognizes the statutory responsibility of the Executive Director (5 U.S.C. 8438(f)(2)(A)), rather than the Secretary of the Treasury, to determine the amounts and maturities of the investments in the Government Securities Investment Fund. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, but obviously, like many, I do so with some reluctance. While I have often opposed raising the debt ceiling, because of our efforts this bill includes a pledge to achieve a CBO-scored balanced budget in 7 years. I call attention to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this pledge is in the rule committing the President and Congress to enact in the year 1995, the calendar year, legislation for a balanced budget by the year 2002. It affirms the intent of Congress and the President to do so, and it is in black and white, and it is part of this package that we are voting on. This, my friends, is the crux of our Contract With America. This is why we have the responsibility today to be responsible. Do I like raising the debt? Obviously I do not. But, for this reason, and for this language, I intend to vote for this raising of the debt to ultimately balance the budget. However, Mr. Speaker, what is also a concern of mine is that without certain provisions in this bill, that Chairman Archer made sure were in this bill, the Clinton administration could dip into supposedly safe trust funds such as the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, and the Federal retiree trust fund. {time} 1430 I find this totally unacceptable and, frankly, so do the American taxpayers. Yet the President is threatening to veto this bill because we refuse to let the administration raid the Social Security, Medicare, and Federal retiree trust funds. That is what the people on the other side are saying. These trust funds should not see their assets reduced even temporarily. It sets a bad precedent of encouraging the Treasury Department to raid these funds. Without this amendment in the bill, the money paid into these funds would be diverted to pay for other services. Mr. Speaker, this is not the American way, and this should not be done. The American people have placed their trust in us to manage their funds, to protect their investments. We cannot let them down. I urge my colleagues, it is time to be responsible to pass this bill and to pass [[Page H 12011]] a balanced budget amendment that will eliminate the need after almost 40 years of Democrat control for such legislation in the future. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we should vote this bill down. We should be passing a clean continuing resolution or a clean debt limit extension for a reasonable time. Why are we here today? We are here because this is the most mismanaged legislative session I have seen in 35 years serving in legislative office. It is November 9. The fiscal year began October 1. I fully expected we would need a continuing resolution because the majority would have passed appropriation bills, they would have been vetoed in some cases, and the Congress and administration would be negotiating. Instead, 9 of 13 bills have not passed the Congress. So we need a continuing resolution. Why do we need this bill on the debt ceiling? Because it is now November. The Congress is doing what it should have been doing in July, should have been passing its budget bill, sending it to the President, probably vetoed, then serious negotiations occurring. Instead, we have drifted along all session doing what was not crucial; and here, a month and a half into the fiscal year, the House and Senate is still dealing with the conference report. Shame on us. If we had done our work, this bill would have been on the President's desk before the August recess as it was 2 years ago, negotiations could have occurred in September, maybe into mid-October, and had a solution. Instead, total mismanagement. Mid-November, no budget bill, most of the appropriation bills still hung up in the Congress. Instead, we find ourselves with a debt ceiling extension, with habeas corpus and Commerce and I do not know what all else is in here. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this bill. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that we started this Congress with the Contract With America. There were 10 items essentially. Two out of the first three talked about responsibility. The first item talked about responsibility. The third item talked about personal responsibility. I tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that this bill is neither fiscally responsible nor it is personally responsible; and, yes, we ought to be ashamed of playing with the credit of the United States of America as we are doing. This is not a serious attempt at responsible Government. It contains extraneous matters unrelated to the critical issue of making sure America pays it bills. Every American thinks its Government ought to do that. But that's not what we're doing today. This bill is loaded down with unrelated provisions that have nothing to do with the problem before us and will cause the President to veto this legislation. Just like yesterday's continuing resolution, which the President has also indicated he will veto, this is not a serious attempt at responsible Government. I am afraid that the message to Federal employees is: Don't consider this a holiday weekend because you may not have a job next week. The Republican leadership seems determined to close down Government operations. They are taking the CR and the debt limit extension down the path to the same fate as many of the appropriations bills--stuck in the mud of political partisanship. This Government is not put at risk by this irresponsibility with which we are confronted today. They want to up Social Security and Medicare payments by $151 per recipient in this bill. That ought to be debated fully. Habeas corpus, that may be a good bill, but it is not subject to having an impact on the debt of the United States. Eliminate the Commerce Department, a 200-page bill that the President disagrees with. You put at risk the credit of the United States. This debt limit extension measure also limits the Secretary of the Treasury's ability to manage Federal employee investments in the thrift savings plan as well as their retirement fund. These provisions have nothing to do with allowing the Treasury Department to continue to borrow money. Auctions have already been canceled because of the Republican leadership's failure to act. I am gravely concerned about the impact of not passing a CR and debt limit extension on Federal employees. They have been attacked again and again in this Congress and now the leadership is threatening to send them home on furlough. Those in the Congress who claim to be Federal employee advocates and then vote for these extreme measures are, in my opinion, undermining the security of those Federal employees whom they claim to represent. This is not a rhetorical issue. This is real fear for civil servants who have families to feed and mortgages to pay. The lives of Federal employees are once again being thrown into chaos as the Republicans pursue their extreme agenda. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, ladies and gentlemen of America, this bill is a patently petty political terrorist tactic. That is what it is. An attempt to force the President of the United States to adopt things that you cannot get through your own Senate, not just the Congress. This bill adopts tactics that put America as a hostage to an extremist agenda. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The Clerk will report the words. {time} 1445 Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to repeat them if you would like just so they are clear on the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman shall refrain from speaking. The Clerk will report the words. The Clerk read as follows: Ladies and gentlemen of this House, ladies and gentlemen of America, this bill is a patently petty political terrorist tactic, that is what it is, an attempt to force the President of the United States to adopt things that you cannot get through your own Senate, not just the Congress. This bill adopts tactics that put America as a hostage to an extremist agenda. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules that since this is not a reference to an individual Member, that the remarks are in order. However, the Chair would observe that there is a civility within the House in addressing bills and Members that should be observed, and it would be hoped that in the future that would be observed by all Members. Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for his ruling. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has expired. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a legitimate concern about the use of trust funds that has been mentioned earlier, and that the reason why some who are coming to the floor are suggesting that they want to give the administration total latitude on these issues is because, I think, they are probably aware that the administration intends to use the civil service retirement trust funds, the Government securities investment fund, other cash, and perhaps even the Social Security trust fund as the way of financing our debt into the future. Now, we have heard discussion on the floor about the fact that we do not want to default for the first time in history. The fact is we have never used the Social Security trust fund for anything other than Social Security payments at any time in history, either, and yet what we are being told by this administration and by those defending the administration on the floor, they are prepared, in pursuit of their political agenda, to allow the Social Security trust fund to at some point in the future be invaded for the purposes of paying the bills. Now, our direction has been to try to balance the budget. We realize that that takes a lot of hard work. We realize it has been an uphill fight, with those who are opposed to that agenda fighting us every step of the way to see [[Page H 12012]] to it these bills do not get passed. We realize there has been a concerted effort to try to stop bills in other places in the Capitol Building so that, in fact, the work cannot get completed, and now we come down to the point where there is no longer an ability to pay the debts that have been incurred over the last several years. Now we are being told that the Social Security trust fund should be put in jeopardy in the future. I would suggest that we ought to pass the bill that is before us. Yes, it does contain a number of items in it that we think are good for the country, such as regulatory reform, we hope, after that amendment is adopted, habeas corpus reform, and a number of other things. Fundamentally, what it does is allow the President to borrow temporarily, and does so in a way that assures protection of the trust funds. Why do I say that we believe all this is happening? We have heard it directly from the Department of the Treasury. I have before me materials that indicate that the Department of the Treasury is prepared in fact to begin using the civil service retirement and disability fund. At a press briefing yesterday, they outlined about $28 billion of money they are going to use, first out of the Government securities investment fund, then out of civil service retirement, then out of other petty cash amounts, and the next step down the line, my friends, is the Social Security trust fund. That is, I think, a very grave danger for us all. the way that you can prevent that kind of problem from occurring is to vote for the bill brought to you by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], assure that we do protect the Social Security trust fund now and into the future, assure we do have the ability to raise the debt limit enough to pay our bills and, oh, by the way, get a couple of things done good for America, such as eliminating a Cabinet department and giving this Nation regulatory reform. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am placing in the Record at this point a statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject matter under debate. The referenced material is as follows: Statement of Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Social Security Commissioner Shirley S. Chater As Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds we want to assure the American people that the resources of the Funds are preserved and protected for the benefit of every American who is now, or will in the future become, entitled to receive Social Security benefits. Questions have arisen recently whether, because of the failure by Congress to increase the national debt limit, the resources of the Funds might be used to provide funds for governmental purposes unrelated to the payment of Social Security benefits. This is our reply: The Social Security Trust Funds will not be used for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. We will continue to protect Social Security. Furthermore, Congress should increase the statutory debt limit in a manner so all of the government's obligations will be paid on time. The Ways and Means Committee's bill, however, leaves Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, veterans and military personnel, and obligations such as the principal and interest on the public debt all at risk. This is simply not acceptable. In sum: this Administration will not use Social Security Trust Funds for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and in particular the provision involving death row appeals. Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this bill are different from the provisions in the House-passed bill, and these provisions have been sprung on us in the last 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this will do nothing to reduce crime. Death row inmates are not the ones out there robbing, raping and murdering in the streets. There is not even anecdotal evidence these inmates are the cause of crime in our community. Mr. Speaker, we have not addressed the problem of innocent people being put to death. It was reported in the New York Times this Sunday that a man who had been on death row for 11 years in Illinois was released after being acquitted when a subsequent trial disclosed that a police officer had lied in the first trial. What have we done about the police officer lying? Yesterday we had a hearing on a bill that would limit the civil liability of the police officer who lied, and today we consider legislation that will put the defendant to death quicker so it will be less likely we ever could have found out the truth. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do something about crime, we need to do something different than what we have done so far this year, such as cut funding for attorneys and death row appeals, which will create more complications and more appeals. We have cut funding for crime prevention and cops on the beat; cut funding for summer jobs, putting more youth out on the streets; cut funding for college scholarships and Head Start. All of that will increase crime. If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would increase the money for Head Start, summer jobs, college scholarships, crime prevention and cops on the beat, and not insert these useless sound bites in essential legislation. Mr. Speaker, we should focus on the financial crisis before us and not sneak provisions such as this through a debt ceiling resolution. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution by the chairman to increase the debt limit, but I do so with some reluctance. I hate to see us increase the debt that the taxpayers of this country owe and that I know that our children will someday have to pay. But I also know that if we are going to reach a balanced budget over the 7 years, as we have planned and as we have passed in both bodies, that we will have to extend that debt limit. I understand that there is a lot of confusion and controversy about how we are going to do that, and it will take a couple, 2, 3 more weeks to really rectify those differences. So, therefore, we must increase the funding and the borrowing power of our Government. The thing that I like about this bill or this proposal is it will restrict the use of trust funds. But, Mr. Speaker, you have heard the old saying, ``A day late and a dollar short.'' Well, sir, I think we are years late and several billon dollars short, because out of the $4.9 trillion that we currently owe as the debt, the debt that is owed by the taxpayers that has been created by the Congress, $1.25 trillion of it is actually owed to trust funds, trust funds that people have contributed to that they expect someday to receive in return. Let me give you some of those amounts, Mr. Speaker. The Federal employee's trust fund, some $375 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; the Medicare part A trust fund, $130 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; VA retirement, over $112 billion owed to that trust fund by the Treasury; and Social Security, Mr. Speaker, some $483 billion of old age pension, part of my old age pension, owed to the trust fund by the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record a table concerning the trust fund impact on budget results and investment holdings as of September 30, 1995: [[Page H 12013]] TABLE 8.--TRUST FUND IMPACT ON BUDGET RESULTS AND INVESTMENT HOLDINGS AS OF SEPT. 30, 1995 [In millions of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This month Fiscal year to date Securities held as investments, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ current fiscal year -------------------------------------- Classification Beginning of Receipts Outlays Excess Receipts Outlays Excess -------------------------- Close of This year This month this month -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust receipts, outlays, and investments held: Airport........................ 333 777 -445 6,125 7,242 -1,117 12,206 11,547 11,145 Black lung disability.......... 416 426 -46 987 987 (**) (*) (*) (*) Federal disability insurance... 4,749 3,606 1,143 70,215 41,380 28,835 6,100 34,146 35,225 Federal employees life and health........................ (*) -145 145 (*) -1,240 1,240 22,503 23,601 23,729 Federal employees retirement... 24,375 3,268 21,108 66,821 38,899 27,923 346,317 353,081 374,219 Federal hospital insurance..... 9,150 10,271 -1,121 114,847 114,883 -36 128,716 180,931 129,864 Federal old-age and survivors insurance..................... 26,560 24,569 1,991 326,084 294,474 31,611 403,425 445,944 147,947 Federal supplementary medical insurance..................... 1,746 5,903 -4,157 58,169 65,213 -7,044 21,489 17,675 13,513 Highways....................... 2,115 2,340 -226 23,613 22,688 925 17,694 8,846 8,531 Military advances.............. 967 1,314 -347 12,469 13,417 -948 (*) (*) (*) Railroad retirement............ 451 675 -224 9,093 7,924 1,169 12,203 14,063 14,440 Military retirement............ 918 2,386 -1,468 34,624 27,797 6,827 105,367 114,320 112,963 Unemployment................... 336 1,801 -1,465 32,820 25,282 7,539 39,788 48,660 47,141 Veterans life insurance........ 23 110 -86 1,356 1,231 126 13,477 13,690 13,606 All other trust................ 525 555 -30 6,056 4,346 1,710 12,317 14,180 14,060 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total trust fund receipts and outlays and investments held from Table 6-D................. 72,665 57,893 14,772 763,281 664,521 98,760 1,151,601 1,240,682 1,256,385 Less Interfund transactions.... 27,150 27,150 ........... 212,849 212,849 (*) ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust fund receipts and outlays on the basis of Tables 4 and 5............ 45,515 30,742 14,772 550,432 451,671 98,760 ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Total Federal fund receipts and outlays............... 100,994 108,480 -7,486 835,221 1,097,794 262,573 ........... ........... ........... Less Interfund transactions.... 443 443 (*) 975 975 (*) ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal fund receipts and outlays on the basis of Tables 4 and 5............ 100,551 108,037 -7,486 834,245 1,096,819 -262,573 ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Less: Offsetting proprietary receipts...................... 2,846 2,846 (*) 34,101 34,101 (*) ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Net budget receipts and outlays................... 143,219 135,933 7,286 1,350,576 1,514,389 -163,813 ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *No transactions. Note: Interfund receipts and outlays are transactions between Federal funds and trust funds such as Federal payments and contributions, and interest and profits on investments in Federal securities. They have no net effect on overall budget receipts and outlays since the receipts side of such transactions is offset against budget outlays. In this table, Interfund receipts are shown as an adjustment to arrive at total receipts and outlays of trust funds respectively. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: U.S. Treasury, final monthly Treasury statement of receipts and outlays, September 1995. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first, my thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for his courtesies and tenacity in this debate. Members of the committee, it is pathetic that in a several hundred page bill that was delivered to the Democrats on the Judiciary at 10:45 a.m. this morning, 27 pages of habeas corpus reform of the Senate's that we have never seen, never read, never discussed, never debated, never. Why? This is the short-term debt ceiling limitation bill. What in God's name is habeas corpus doing in this provision? You can pass it, Republicans, anyway separately, I guess. You have been rolling all the votes here for 10 months. But why stick it in overnight? Is there some logic that this could be happening here in the most democratic forum, the most democratic, fairest parliamentary system that we have in the Federal Government? But worse than that, this provision limits review in other habeas cases. And my colleagues who have been so concerned about civil rights violations by Federal law enforcement, read Ruby Ridge and Waco, that now they want to leave Federal law enforcement and judges with no way to protect against overzealous Federal law officers who may not have acted lawfully. It is pathetic that habeas reform has been tucked away in the debt ceiling package. Habeas reform has absolutely nothing to do with short- term debt and I cannot help but wonder why the Republicans, who control both Houses of Congress need to attempt to pass habeas reform in this underhanded manner. My colleagues should make no mistake, this so-called habeas reform bill does not reform habeas corpus law, it all but eliminates Federal appeals in death penalty cases. This bill will also limit review in other habeas cases. My colleagues on the right who have been so concerned about civil rights violations by Federal law enforcement officers may find that they are left with no remedy when a lower court judge finds that those overzealous Federal officers acted l

Summary:

All articles in House section

TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT
(House of Representatives - November 09, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H12007-H12064] TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 2586) to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 258, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery]. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the subject of this bill, of course, is a short-term extension of the Nation's debt limit. This short-term extension is intended to provide an orderly process, with sufficient time for the Congress and the President to consider the balanced budget bill that will shortly be sent to the President. It is now clear that some type of pressure must be applied to bring the differing views together and to resolve this problem. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2586 would temporarily increase the statutory limit on the public debt to $4.967 trillion. It would do so until December 12, 1995. Under the bill, the limit would then revert to $4.8 trillion. H.R. 2586 also ensures the financial integrity of Government trust funds invested in Government debt obligations subject to the debt limit. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is necessary because the Congress, the legislative branch, under our Constitution, is responsible for authorizing any debt to be incurred by the U.S. Government. That is an obligation which we must take very seriously, and consider very carefully. Some in this Chamber are reluctant to increase the Nation's debt limit at all. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. However, we all recognize that this Government has made commitments and entered into obligations that must eventually be paid, so in an effort to accommodate those obligations and in an effort to accommodate this body and the executive branch with time to deliberate matters of great importance to the country, including balancing this Nation's budget in 7 years, this bill comes to us today. We believe this bill is not only necessary, but entirely appropriate, and we will get into more of the details as the debate continues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my fine and much-admired friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, has stated some of this bill, but perhaps he knows more about it than I do. He says that it is just a temporary legislation. The first page or so is temporary, but the other 400-and-some pages in this bill, and the pages that will perhaps be adopted here by additional amendments, are not temporary legislation. They are very permanent legislation. They do drastic things to this U.S. Government. They do it without debate, without consideration, or anything else. The only reason we are here at this late hour and under this kind of confusing circumstances is because the Republicans have not been able to get their act together, to get their majority control together, and to do the things that should have been done. We are here on November 9 to do the work that should have been done in July of this same year. The Republicans keep howling and screaming that the President will not bargain with them, but how, Mr. Speaker, can the President bargain with them? They have no budget bill. They have not even had a meeting on their budget bill in 2 weeks. I know. I am a conferee. I have not even gotten a notice, or, as one Member said, a postcard about a meeting of the conferees to iron out the differences in the budget resolution. We are about 4 months behind on the budget, the Congress is, because the Republicans cannot muster a majority on their side to get anything done. We are here at this late hour attempting to blackmail the President into signing something that he will never sign. The President is not subject to blackmail. He has enough sense not to give in to that kind of treatment. He is not going to sign this ridiculous trash here, most of which is only put together, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, temporarily, so they can get enough votes together to get this thing through the House. They are going to drop all these amendments. Their Members ought to understand that. None of this is ever going to become law. It is only here so that the Republicans can be coerced or bribed or twisted their arms or whatever you want to call it to vote for this thing. It is not going to happen. It is a terrible way to run the Government. It is a terrible reflection upon the Republican Party that they cannot do a simple thing, which is strike out one figure in a piece of legislation and add another figure. That is all that is here. We have done it hundreds of times in the years that I have been here without all of this rankle, all of this other garbage that has been added to it. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very poor and disastrous way to run the Government. It is a terrible reflection upon the Republican Party. We Democrats do not have control of this body. We do not set the agenda. We do not have the ability to produce a majority vote. It is all within their power. It is all within their ability. It is all within their responsibility. They cannot get up here and pretend that it is anybody's responsibility except theirs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], one of the most distinguished Members of the Chamber, and chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time to me. I guess we will have to put the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] as undecided on this matter. Mr. Speaker, this bill is more, really, much more than an increase in the debt limit. It is really a down payment on the promise that we have made to make government smaller and more responsive to the American people. It is crucial that we refocus government on those essential functions that it must perform, and reconsider whether government should be involved in any activity which it cannot do well. We presently are involved in a great many activities, Mr. Speaker, that we do not do well. The reason we have to [[Page H 12008]] raise the debt ceiling again is that the bureaucracy in Washington has grown unchecked for far too long. Endlessly we have added, bloated, and enlarged the Federal Government, so today we are going to continue to reverse that trend by voting for a second time, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate the Department of Commerce. This has been debated, has been considered before with this body, and we have decided in our wisdom to eliminate the Department of Commerce as part of the reconciliation discussions. In my view, the Department of Commerce is one bureaucracy that, frankly, is not necessary. Functions of the Department overlap with 71 independent agencies of the Government. True, there are, indeed, vital functions performed by Commerce involving trade, weather services, statistical information, and essential components will be retained in a more appropriate home. Other functions will be privatized, sent to the States and localities, or terminated. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that we are doing this just to put a scalp on our belt. That is absolutely not true. We have really taken a very close look at how this Department can be dismantled, how the functions of that Department can be consolidated and made to work much more efficiently, much more productively than they have in the past. Specifically, the commerce title in the debt ceiling bill highlights the importance of a strong trade policy, consolidates the various activities that are now spread all over the Federal Government dealing with trade, presents a cohesive approach to trade promotion. We consolidate the Department of Scientific and Environmental Functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we privatize or eliminate 40 agencies and programs, and we establish a citizens commission on 21st century government to evaluate the entire Federal Government, and determine how we can make this government, yes, smaller, more productive, more efficient, and more responsive to the American people. Let me be clear, however, that we are not cutting just for the sake of saving dollars. If that was the only objective, I do not think it would be worth doing. In fact, we will be saving a great deal of dollars as a result of this exercise. The CBO has recently revised their estimate. We are going to save $6 billion by the elimination or the dismantlement of the Department of Commerce. The other side suggests we are just bloating up other parts of the government. That could not possibly be the case if we are going to save $6 billion. Clearly we are reducing, not enlarging the government. {time} 1415 So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge support for this debt limit extension, and for the elimination of the Department of Commerce. It is long overdue. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue here today is not a balanced budget and it is not a short-term extension to achieve it. Democrats favor an extension to help achieve a balanced budget. Most of us are willing to vote for a clean, short-term extension. Now, why are the Republicans not proposing it? Why is this layered with all of these additional proposals? There are two reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all, leverage on the President. Now, look, I am in favor of pressure. But this goes beyond pressure to try to create a pistol, and I suggest it will not work, it will backfire. The second reason there is not a clean extension is to satisfy some internal pressures within the Republican House Caucus. So they have added a provision on the Department of Commerce and one on regulatory language, a huge bill that few, if any, have read. Why are they doing this? The Senate Republican leadership has made clear that they will not buy the Commerce Department provision, so you are doing this to have some satisfaction internally within the Republican House Caucus. The Senate is working on regulatory reform. So what the Republicans are really doing here today is to play games, but going beyond it and playing with fire. What they are going to do through this, if it were ever to succeed, is to limit the management ability of the President to manage, to manage this situation, to manage this debt. Secretary Rubin has said very clearly, this legislation severely limits options the Secretary has under current law to relieve pressure and to avert default. Let us stop playing with fire with the debt. It would increase the interest rates. It would increase the interest rates for people with variable mortgages, with credit card debt. Look, what you are doing through this kind of proposal is linking chaos in this House with crassness. It will not work. What you should be doing here today is joining on a bipartisan basis to pass a short-term extension of the debt period. That is going to happen sooner or later; let us do it now. I urge defeat of this. Let us get to our senses and work on a bipartisan basis. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman's comments, it might be good to know that the day after the Committee on Ways and Means took the action to bring this bill to the floor, the stock market went up some 55 points and interest rates went down. So I think the fact that we have established a drop-dead date for negotiations to take place between the executive and legislative branches has, in fact, had a salutary effect on the markets and we hope to continue this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of those extra things that are on this bill, that really is not controversial in the broad sense, because it has passed the House a number of times, including this Congress, by overwhelming margins. It is something that really should be enacted into law, and we have an opportunity on this debt ceiling bill to get it down to the President in a timely fashion, which we have not had before, and that is the reform of what is known as habeas corpus laws to try to end the seemingly endless appeals that death row inmates have. Mr. Speaker, I can assure anybody who has paid attention to the death row situation, where people have committed heinous crimes and have been convicted and sentenced to death, that that is an abomination that people can carry out the sentence for as much as 15 or 20 years by procedural gimmicks. What happens, of course, is that they get convicted, they go through a State court appeal posture after they get sentenced to death, they go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and a court says, the conviction is fine, the sentence is fine. They come back and they have an opportunity to go into Federal district court and file what is known as a habeas corpus petition and seek to get out on a procedural matter; for example, they did not have a lawyer who represented them properly at trial. They then take that appeal and go all the way back to the Supreme Court, which takes a considerable amount of time, and after the Supreme Court denies that appeal, they can go back into Federal district court again on some other procedural ground and appeal that, and it could go on and on and on. What we do in this and what the House did earlier this year, and what is part of this bill, if we pass it today and send it to the President and maybe get it enacted into law, we say that after your finish your Federal appeal you can go into Federal court only one time. You have to put all of your apples in that basket, all of your procedural complaints and issues, and let it be decided and get on with the carrying out of the sentence if you do not have any grounds for those. Obviously, anybody who can provide that they are really innocent of the crime, they are not going to have the death penalty carried out. We have been waiting for a long, long time, years battling over this issue. This is a perfect bill, one the President [[Page H 12009]] really has to face and sign, a short-term debt extension, to finally get it enacted into law, the reform of habeas corpus, to end this process of staying and keeping staying, again and again and again, the death penalties in the State courts of this Nation. It is time to act now, and I urge the adoption of this bill. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was give permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2586. As a Member who has consistently been responsible and voted to increase the debt ceiling, it saddens me to stand here in opposition. We have heard all sorts of obfuscation from the majority. But let there be no mistake, raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the current level of government spending, and everything to do with financing our prior obligations--living up to our commitments. There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will be raised in the long run. What we should be doing here today is passing a clean temporary debt ceiling as an interim measure to prevent default while a balanced budget agreement can be hammered out. The bill before us today purports to protect trust funds but it has the practical effect of ensuring that Medicare claims won't be paid, tax refund checks can't be cashed and our Armed Forces won't be paid. It also strips the Secretary of the Treasury of all cash management tools--tools that were provided Republican Secretaries of the Treasury by Democratic Congresses. It is nothing more than an attempt to blackmail the President and to ultimately push us closer to default. It is irresponsible and unacceptable. We stand here today and listen to the majority try to blame the President for delay. But, let's look at the facts. It is November 9th, 5 weeks after the start of the fiscal year and congressional Republicans have yet to even send their plan to the President. In 1993, the Clinton budget plan was enacted by August. The majority talks about getting their budget done on time, yet, they've only sent the President 3 of the 13 required appropriations bills. So let us be clear now who is responsible for delay. When all is said and done, the debt ceiling will be increased. We shouldn't hold the economy or average American families hostage to a partisan debate on a balanced budget. We should enact a clean extension in the debt ceiling immediately. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]. Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2586 as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. This bill provides important protections for active and retired Federal workers. It protects the integrity of the civil service retirement and disability fund and the government securities investment fund. Under this bill, the administration will not be able to raid these funds in order to pretend that our national debt does not exceed the debt limit. The civil service retirement and disability fund provides authority to fund annuities paid under the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. It is a tempting target for the administration to raid, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it contains about 374 billion dollars' worth of special nonmarketable government securities that are subject to the debt limit. Many current Federal employees invest their money in the government securities investment fund. This is one of the three funds in which employees can invest under the thrift savings plan. Their money is also invested in special nonmarketable government securities subject to the debt limit. In the past, Mr. Speaker, administrations have raided the civil service retirement and disability fund in order to stay under the debt limit. They have refused to invest the dollars coming into the fund. The administration could even just tear up existing nonmarketable securities in the fund. It has been done before. It is also clear, Mr. Speaker, that the administration intends to raid the civil service retirement and disability fund. I have here a set of administration talking points that make that clear. Mr. Speaker, the civil service retirement disability fund is already woefully underfunded to the tune of $540 billion. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is already an unfunded liability of half a trillion dollars. Our learned colleagues on the other side of the aisle screamed and hollered when the private employers asked to be able to withdraw their excess contributions from their employee retirement funds that were more than 125 percent funded. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they did not even want private employers to reach into expensively funded plans. These same people now have the gall to give the administration a free reign to raid the retirement fund that is so woefully underfunded. Mr. Speaker, we need to manage our public debt and to work hard to reduce it, but allowing the administration to dip into these funds would just be a gimmick. It is a charade. It is time to inject some fiscal responsibility in managing the Government accounts. I support H.R. 2586, Mr. Speaker, because it prevents the administration from raiding the funds behind our employee retirement systems and behind their backs, and it makes sure their annuities are paid. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following information in support of my statement. Excerpt from Department of Treasury Talking Points, Nov. 7, 1995 Finally, by repealing the debt management features of the law relating to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the bill would increase the risk of default by severely limiting the ability of the Secretary of the Treasury to assure that crucial government payments--including benefit payments such as Social Security, as well as payments on the public debt--could be made in a time of debt limit crisis. These provisions were enacted in a Republican Administration and reflect the widely held view that the Secretary should have options to relieve pressure and avert default. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, before this debate gets too rough, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] who knows something about the subject that was just discussed. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have my money in that very retirement fund. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it must be said that this legislation plays politics with people's lives. It is deliberately designed to force a default of Federal debt obligations, and specifically ties the President's hands from being able to avert a debt ceiling crisis under the excuse that this is supposed to save Civil Service retirees. That provision was put in during the Reagan administration precisely to protect the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund. That is why it was put there. Now it is being repealed. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, dated today. This is a nonpartisan board designed to oversee the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. This letter says that this provision, if this bill is passed, will cost Federal retirees' $3.5 million per day, an amount that once lost, will never be recaptured. Do not do this to Federal retirees, do not do it to Social Security retirees. I urge defeat of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to follows: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, November 9, 1995. Hon. James P. Moran, Jr., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Moran: I have reviewed H.R. 2586 which provides for a temporary extension of the Federal debt limit. The proposed legislation provides for the repeal, inter alia, of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8438(g), which was enacted on May 22, 1987, to prevent harming Federal employees with investments in the Thrift Savings Plan's G Fund. It was foreseen at that time that, during periods of constraint on the issuance of Treasury securities brought about by the debt limit, the moneys of Federal employees in the G Fund would irretrievably lose interest (since they could not be invested) but for this carefully drafted, bipartisan ``make-whole'' provision. (The enclosed letter from former Executive Director Francis Cavanaugh forwarded the proposed legislation (not included) to Congress in April 1987, and it was quickly enacted.) A repeal of this provision at this time would cost Federal employees invested in the G Fund more than $3.5 million per day of debt limit constraint, an amount that, once lost, will never be recaptured. That Federal employees' retirement funds might be thus diminished is a matter of great concern to [[Page H 12010]] me and my fellow fiduciaries, as I am sure it is to you. All of the provisions of the proposed legislation can be enacted without harm to Federal employee' retirement funds except for the repeal of Sec. 8438(g) (and its administrative concomitant, Sec. 8438(h). That is, the purpose of the proposed draft legislation can be fully met, as set forth in its accompanying two-page explanation, with the deletion of the words ``, and subsections (g) and (h) of section 8438 of such title'' on page 6, lines 7 and 8. (The other provisions to be repealed pertain to the Civil Service Trust fund; because that fund is not owned by employees directly, their ultimate benefit levels as derived therefrom are unaffected.) If the bill were passed in its present form, the fiduciaries of the Thrift Savings Plan would be obligated to point out the needless and costly removal by Congress of a protection for Federal employees intended to prevent debt limit politics from impairing the integrity of their retirement funds. (The ``make-whole'' provision of Sec. 8438(g) has been employed on four separate occasions in the past to restore interest otherwise lost to Federal employees from debt limit hiatuses.) I have sent a similar letter to Congressman John Mica. I am asking your and his cooperation in preventing any repeal of Sec. 8438(g) in order to safeguard Federal employees' retirement moneys and ensure their confidence in the G Fund, which, at $21.5 billion currently, comprises approximately \2/3\ of total Thrift Savings Plan investments. Sincerely, Roger W. Mehle, Executive Director. Enclosure. ____ Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, April 30, 1987. Hon. Jim Wright, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board respectfully submits the enclosed draft bill to prevent the loss of interest earnings to federal employees in the Thrift Savings Plan (Plan) which would otherwise result from a temporary suspension of the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue public debt obligations to the Plan. The Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (5 U.S.C. 8401-8479) established a tax-deferred Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. Effective April 1, 1987, all government and employee contributions to the Plan must be invested in Treasury securities issued to the Government Securities Investment Fund (GSIF) of the Plan. Since such securities, like other Treasury debt issues, are subject to the statutory limit on the amount of public debt outstanding, the Secretary will be unable to issue such securities to the GSIF after May 15 unless Congress acts on debt limit legislation by that date. The present temporary public debt limit of $2.3 trillion is due to expire on May 15, 1987, on which date the debt limit will revert to the permanent statutory ceiling of $2.1 trillion. We understand that the Treasury Department advised Congress today, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee that the Department expects to have sufficient cash on May 15 so that an increase in the debt ceiling would not be necessary until May 28. Nevertheless, beginning May 16 the Treasury will be unable to issue any securities subject to the debt limit, including securities issued to the GSIF. Thus, if Congress does not act on debt limit legislation prior to May 16, the GSIF will lose interest; there is no authority for the Treasury to pay such interest at a later date to make up for such losses. The proposed legislation would provide the same treatment to the Thrift Savings Plan as is now provided by law (P.L. 99-509) to the Civil Service Retirement Fund. This treatment requires the Treasury to make up any loss of earnings to the Fund created by a suspension of Treasury borrowing authority. Although the bill seeks parity of treatment with the Civil Service Retirement Fund, it is important to note that the Thrift Savings Plan is different from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) in that the Thrift Savings Plan is a wholly voluntary, defined contribution plan; whereas CSRS is a mandatory, defined benefit plan. CSRS plan benefits do not depend directly on the amount of the Fund's interest earnings. The employer-employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan, although held in the custody of the Treasury Department, actually belong to the individual employees. Accordingly, Congress intended that the Thrift Investment Board be a financially independent agency and exempted the Board from the appropriations process, the budget, and the controls of the Executive Office of the President which apply to other federal agencies. Yet, perhaps inadvertently, Congress did not insulate the Board or the Plan from the constraints of the public debt limit. The Board believes that obligations issued to the GSIF should clearly be exempt from the public debt limit constraints. Yet, in view of the urgent need for timely legislative action before May 15, we are requesting only that the Plan be accorded the same treatment as the Civil Service Retirement Fund. Federal employees have been urged to deposit their funds in the Thrift Savings Plan upon the representation that such funds will be safely invested in government securities with a guaranteed rate of return based on a prescribed statutory interest rate formula. The Board has an obligation to federal employees to make every effort to see that this commitment is honored. Now, at the very beginning of the Plan, it is especially important that there be no question as to the integrity of the government's representation as to such investments. In order to prevent unnecessary fear and confusion on this point, we urge Congress to act on the enclosed bill as soon as possible and before any suspension of Treasury borrowing authority occurs. We are sending a similar letter to the President of the Senate. Copies have been sent to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sincerely, Francis X. Cavanaugh, Executive Director. Enclosure. ____ Summary of the Bill The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan (Plan) does not suffer a loss of earnings in its Government Securities Investment Fund in the event of a temporary suspension of borrowing authority of the United States Treasury Department, due to the statutory public debt limit. The bill provides that, in the event the Secretary of the Treasury suspends additional issuance of Treasury securities to the Government Securities Investment Fund because such issuance would exceed the debt limit, immediately upon lifting of the borrowing suspension, the Secretary of the Treasury shall issue securities to the Plan at interest rates and maturities which will replicate the obligations that would have been held by the Plan if the suspension had not occurred. This ``make-whole'' relief will include the payment of any interest the Plan loses as a result of the suspension. Both the obligations and the interest will be determined in accordance with the daily investment decisions made by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board during the suspension period which would have been effective were it not for the suspension. The treatment accorded to the Plan by the bill is similar to that accorded to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in Section 6002 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, except that the bill recognizes the statutory responsibility of the Executive Director (5 U.S.C. 8438(f)(2)(A)), rather than the Secretary of the Treasury, to determine the amounts and maturities of the investments in the Government Securities Investment Fund. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, but obviously, like many, I do so with some reluctance. While I have often opposed raising the debt ceiling, because of our efforts this bill includes a pledge to achieve a CBO-scored balanced budget in 7 years. I call attention to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this pledge is in the rule committing the President and Congress to enact in the year 1995, the calendar year, legislation for a balanced budget by the year 2002. It affirms the intent of Congress and the President to do so, and it is in black and white, and it is part of this package that we are voting on. This, my friends, is the crux of our Contract With America. This is why we have the responsibility today to be responsible. Do I like raising the debt? Obviously I do not. But, for this reason, and for this language, I intend to vote for this raising of the debt to ultimately balance the budget. However, Mr. Speaker, what is also a concern of mine is that without certain provisions in this bill, that Chairman Archer made sure were in this bill, the Clinton administration could dip into supposedly safe trust funds such as the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, and the Federal retiree trust fund. {time} 1430 I find this totally unacceptable and, frankly, so do the American taxpayers. Yet the President is threatening to veto this bill because we refuse to let the administration raid the Social Security, Medicare, and Federal retiree trust funds. That is what the people on the other side are saying. These trust funds should not see their assets reduced even temporarily. It sets a bad precedent of encouraging the Treasury Department to raid these funds. Without this amendment in the bill, the money paid into these funds would be diverted to pay for other services. Mr. Speaker, this is not the American way, and this should not be done. The American people have placed their trust in us to manage their funds, to protect their investments. We cannot let them down. I urge my colleagues, it is time to be responsible to pass this bill and to pass [[Page H 12011]] a balanced budget amendment that will eliminate the need after almost 40 years of Democrat control for such legislation in the future. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we should vote this bill down. We should be passing a clean continuing resolution or a clean debt limit extension for a reasonable time. Why are we here today? We are here because this is the most mismanaged legislative session I have seen in 35 years serving in legislative office. It is November 9. The fiscal year began October 1. I fully expected we would need a continuing resolution because the majority would have passed appropriation bills, they would have been vetoed in some cases, and the Congress and administration would be negotiating. Instead, 9 of 13 bills have not passed the Congress. So we need a continuing resolution. Why do we need this bill on the debt ceiling? Because it is now November. The Congress is doing what it should have been doing in July, should have been passing its budget bill, sending it to the President, probably vetoed, then serious negotiations occurring. Instead, we have drifted along all session doing what was not crucial; and here, a month and a half into the fiscal year, the House and Senate is still dealing with the conference report. Shame on us. If we had done our work, this bill would have been on the President's desk before the August recess as it was 2 years ago, negotiations could have occurred in September, maybe into mid-October, and had a solution. Instead, total mismanagement. Mid-November, no budget bill, most of the appropriation bills still hung up in the Congress. Instead, we find ourselves with a debt ceiling extension, with habeas corpus and Commerce and I do not know what all else is in here. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this bill. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that we started this Congress with the Contract With America. There were 10 items essentially. Two out of the first three talked about responsibility. The first item talked about responsibility. The third item talked about personal responsibility. I tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that this bill is neither fiscally responsible nor it is personally responsible; and, yes, we ought to be ashamed of playing with the credit of the United States of America as we are doing. This is not a serious attempt at responsible Government. It contains extraneous matters unrelated to the critical issue of making sure America pays it bills. Every American thinks its Government ought to do that. But that's not what we're doing today. This bill is loaded down with unrelated provisions that have nothing to do with the problem before us and will cause the President to veto this legislation. Just like yesterday's continuing resolution, which the President has also indicated he will veto, this is not a serious attempt at responsible Government. I am afraid that the message to Federal employees is: Don't consider this a holiday weekend because you may not have a job next week. The Republican leadership seems determined to close down Government operations. They are taking the CR and the debt limit extension down the path to the same fate as many of the appropriations bills--stuck in the mud of political partisanship. This Government is not put at risk by this irresponsibility with which we are confronted today. They want to up Social Security and Medicare payments by $151 per recipient in this bill. That ought to be debated fully. Habeas corpus, that may be a good bill, but it is not subject to having an impact on the debt of the United States. Eliminate the Commerce Department, a 200-page bill that the President disagrees with. You put at risk the credit of the United States. This debt limit extension measure also limits the Secretary of the Treasury's ability to manage Federal employee investments in the thrift savings plan as well as their retirement fund. These provisions have nothing to do with allowing the Treasury Department to continue to borrow money. Auctions have already been canceled because of the Republican leadership's failure to act. I am gravely concerned about the impact of not passing a CR and debt limit extension on Federal employees. They have been attacked again and again in this Congress and now the leadership is threatening to send them home on furlough. Those in the Congress who claim to be Federal employee advocates and then vote for these extreme measures are, in my opinion, undermining the security of those Federal employees whom they claim to represent. This is not a rhetorical issue. This is real fear for civil servants who have families to feed and mortgages to pay. The lives of Federal employees are once again being thrown into chaos as the Republicans pursue their extreme agenda. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, ladies and gentlemen of America, this bill is a patently petty political terrorist tactic. That is what it is. An attempt to force the President of the United States to adopt things that you cannot get through your own Senate, not just the Congress. This bill adopts tactics that put America as a hostage to an extremist agenda. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The Clerk will report the words. {time} 1445 Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to repeat them if you would like just so they are clear on the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman shall refrain from speaking. The Clerk will report the words. The Clerk read as follows: Ladies and gentlemen of this House, ladies and gentlemen of America, this bill is a patently petty political terrorist tactic, that is what it is, an attempt to force the President of the United States to adopt things that you cannot get through your own Senate, not just the Congress. This bill adopts tactics that put America as a hostage to an extremist agenda. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules that since this is not a reference to an individual Member, that the remarks are in order. However, the Chair would observe that there is a civility within the House in addressing bills and Members that should be observed, and it would be hoped that in the future that would be observed by all Members. Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for his ruling. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has expired. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a legitimate concern about the use of trust funds that has been mentioned earlier, and that the reason why some who are coming to the floor are suggesting that they want to give the administration total latitude on these issues is because, I think, they are probably aware that the administration intends to use the civil service retirement trust funds, the Government securities investment fund, other cash, and perhaps even the Social Security trust fund as the way of financing our debt into the future. Now, we have heard discussion on the floor about the fact that we do not want to default for the first time in history. The fact is we have never used the Social Security trust fund for anything other than Social Security payments at any time in history, either, and yet what we are being told by this administration and by those defending the administration on the floor, they are prepared, in pursuit of their political agenda, to allow the Social Security trust fund to at some point in the future be invaded for the purposes of paying the bills. Now, our direction has been to try to balance the budget. We realize that that takes a lot of hard work. We realize it has been an uphill fight, with those who are opposed to that agenda fighting us every step of the way to see [[Page H 12012]] to it these bills do not get passed. We realize there has been a concerted effort to try to stop bills in other places in the Capitol Building so that, in fact, the work cannot get completed, and now we come down to the point where there is no longer an ability to pay the debts that have been incurred over the last several years. Now we are being told that the Social Security trust fund should be put in jeopardy in the future. I would suggest that we ought to pass the bill that is before us. Yes, it does contain a number of items in it that we think are good for the country, such as regulatory reform, we hope, after that amendment is adopted, habeas corpus reform, and a number of other things. Fundamentally, what it does is allow the President to borrow temporarily, and does so in a way that assures protection of the trust funds. Why do I say that we believe all this is happening? We have heard it directly from the Department of the Treasury. I have before me materials that indicate that the Department of the Treasury is prepared in fact to begin using the civil service retirement and disability fund. At a press briefing yesterday, they outlined about $28 billion of money they are going to use, first out of the Government securities investment fund, then out of civil service retirement, then out of other petty cash amounts, and the next step down the line, my friends, is the Social Security trust fund. That is, I think, a very grave danger for us all. the way that you can prevent that kind of problem from occurring is to vote for the bill brought to you by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], assure that we do protect the Social Security trust fund now and into the future, assure we do have the ability to raise the debt limit enough to pay our bills and, oh, by the way, get a couple of things done good for America, such as eliminating a Cabinet department and giving this Nation regulatory reform. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am placing in the Record at this point a statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject matter under debate. The referenced material is as follows: Statement of Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Social Security Commissioner Shirley S. Chater As Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds we want to assure the American people that the resources of the Funds are preserved and protected for the benefit of every American who is now, or will in the future become, entitled to receive Social Security benefits. Questions have arisen recently whether, because of the failure by Congress to increase the national debt limit, the resources of the Funds might be used to provide funds for governmental purposes unrelated to the payment of Social Security benefits. This is our reply: The Social Security Trust Funds will not be used for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. We will continue to protect Social Security. Furthermore, Congress should increase the statutory debt limit in a manner so all of the government's obligations will be paid on time. The Ways and Means Committee's bill, however, leaves Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, veterans and military personnel, and obligations such as the principal and interest on the public debt all at risk. This is simply not acceptable. In sum: this Administration will not use Social Security Trust Funds for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and in particular the provision involving death row appeals. Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this bill are different from the provisions in the House-passed bill, and these provisions have been sprung on us in the last 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this will do nothing to reduce crime. Death row inmates are not the ones out there robbing, raping and murdering in the streets. There is not even anecdotal evidence these inmates are the cause of crime in our community. Mr. Speaker, we have not addressed the problem of innocent people being put to death. It was reported in the New York Times this Sunday that a man who had been on death row for 11 years in Illinois was released after being acquitted when a subsequent trial disclosed that a police officer had lied in the first trial. What have we done about the police officer lying? Yesterday we had a hearing on a bill that would limit the civil liability of the police officer who lied, and today we consider legislation that will put the defendant to death quicker so it will be less likely we ever could have found out the truth. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do something about crime, we need to do something different than what we have done so far this year, such as cut funding for attorneys and death row appeals, which will create more complications and more appeals. We have cut funding for crime prevention and cops on the beat; cut funding for summer jobs, putting more youth out on the streets; cut funding for college scholarships and Head Start. All of that will increase crime. If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would increase the money for Head Start, summer jobs, college scholarships, crime prevention and cops on the beat, and not insert these useless sound bites in essential legislation. Mr. Speaker, we should focus on the financial crisis before us and not sneak provisions such as this through a debt ceiling resolution. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution by the chairman to increase the debt limit, but I do so with some reluctance. I hate to see us increase the debt that the taxpayers of this country owe and that I know that our children will someday have to pay. But I also know that if we are going to reach a balanced budget over the 7 years, as we have planned and as we have passed in both bodies, that we will have to extend that debt limit. I understand that there is a lot of confusion and controversy about how we are going to do that, and it will take a couple, 2, 3 more weeks to really rectify those differences. So, therefore, we must increase the funding and the borrowing power of our Government. The thing that I like about this bill or this proposal is it will restrict the use of trust funds. But, Mr. Speaker, you have heard the old saying, ``A day late and a dollar short.'' Well, sir, I think we are years late and several billon dollars short, because out of the $4.9 trillion that we currently owe as the debt, the debt that is owed by the taxpayers that has been created by the Congress, $1.25 trillion of it is actually owed to trust funds, trust funds that people have contributed to that they expect someday to receive in return. Let me give you some of those amounts, Mr. Speaker. The Federal employee's trust fund, some $375 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; the Medicare part A trust fund, $130 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; VA retirement, over $112 billion owed to that trust fund by the Treasury; and Social Security, Mr. Speaker, some $483 billion of old age pension, part of my old age pension, owed to the trust fund by the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record a table concerning the trust fund impact on budget results and investment holdings as of September 30, 1995: [[Page H 12013]] TABLE 8.--TRUST FUND IMPACT ON BUDGET RESULTS AND INVESTMENT HOLDINGS AS OF SEPT. 30, 1995 [In millions of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This month Fiscal year to date Securities held as investments, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ current fiscal year -------------------------------------- Classification Beginning of Receipts Outlays Excess Receipts Outlays Excess -------------------------- Close of This year This month this month -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust receipts, outlays, and investments held: Airport........................ 333 777 -445 6,125 7,242 -1,117 12,206 11,547 11,145 Black lung disability.......... 416 426 -46 987 987 (**) (*) (*) (*) Federal disability insurance... 4,749 3,606 1,143 70,215 41,380 28,835 6,100 34,146 35,225 Federal employees life and health........................ (*) -145 145 (*) -1,240 1,240 22,503 23,601 23,729 Federal employees retirement... 24,375 3,268 21,108 66,821 38,899 27,923 346,317 353,081 374,219 Federal hospital insurance..... 9,150 10,271 -1,121 114,847 114,883 -36 128,716 180,931 129,864 Federal old-age and survivors insurance..................... 26,560 24,569 1,991 326,084 294,474 31,611 403,425 445,944 147,947 Federal supplementary medical insurance..................... 1,746 5,903 -4,157 58,169 65,213 -7,044 21,489 17,675 13,513 Highways....................... 2,115 2,340 -226 23,613 22,688 925 17,694 8,846 8,531 Military advances.............. 967 1,314 -347 12,469 13,417 -948 (*) (*) (*) Railroad retirement............ 451 675 -224 9,093 7,924 1,169 12,203 14,063 14,440 Military retirement............ 918 2,386 -1,468 34,624 27,797 6,827 105,367 114,320 112,963 Unemployment................... 336 1,801 -1,465 32,820 25,282 7,539 39,788 48,660 47,141 Veterans life insurance........ 23 110 -86 1,356 1,231 126 13,477 13,690 13,606 All other trust................ 525 555 -30 6,056 4,346 1,710 12,317 14,180 14,060 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total trust fund receipts and outlays and investments held from Table 6-D................. 72,665 57,893 14,772 763,281 664,521 98,760 1,151,601 1,240,682 1,256,385 Less Interfund transactions.... 27,150 27,150 ........... 212,849 212,849 (*) ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust fund receipts and outlays on the basis of Tables 4 and 5............ 45,515 30,742 14,772 550,432 451,671 98,760 ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Total Federal fund receipts and outlays............... 100,994 108,480 -7,486 835,221 1,097,794 262,573 ........... ........... ........... Less Interfund transactions.... 443 443 (*) 975 975 (*) ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal fund receipts and outlays on the basis of Tables 4 and 5............ 100,551 108,037 -7,486 834,245 1,096,819 -262,573 ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Less: Offsetting proprietary receipts...................... 2,846 2,846 (*) 34,101 34,101 (*) ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Net budget receipts and outlays................... 143,219 135,933 7,286 1,350,576 1,514,389 -163,813 ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *No transactions. Note: Interfund receipts and outlays are transactions between Federal funds and trust funds such as Federal payments and contributions, and interest and profits on investments in Federal securities. They have no net effect on overall budget receipts and outlays since the receipts side of such transactions is offset against budget outlays. In this table, Interfund receipts are shown as an adjustment to arrive at total receipts and outlays of trust funds respectively. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: U.S. Treasury, final monthly Treasury statement of receipts and outlays, September 1995. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first, my thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for his courtesies and tenacity in this debate. Members of the committee, it is pathetic that in a several hundred page bill that was delivered to the Democrats on the Judiciary at 10:45 a.m. this morning, 27 pages of habeas corpus reform of the Senate's that we have never seen, never read, never discussed, never debated, never. Why? This is the short-term debt ceiling limitation bill. What in God's name is habeas corpus doing in this provision? You can pass it, Republicans, anyway separately, I guess. You have been rolling all the votes here for 10 months. But why stick it in overnight? Is there some logic that this could be happening here in the most democratic forum, the most democratic, fairest parliamentary system that we have in the Federal Government? But worse than that, this provision limits review in other habeas cases. And my colleagues who have been so concerned about civil rights violations by Federal law enforcement, read Ruby Ridge and Waco, that now they want to leave Federal law enforcement and judges with no way to protect against overzealous Federal law officers who may not have acted lawfully. It is pathetic that habeas reform has been tucked away in the debt ceiling package. Habeas reform has absolutely nothing to do with short- term debt and I cannot help but wonder why the Republicans, who control both Houses of Congress need to attempt to pass habeas reform in this underhanded manner. My colleagues should make no mistake, this so-called habeas reform bill does not reform habeas corpus law, it all but eliminates Federal appeals in death penalty cases. This bill will also limit review in other habeas cases. My colleagues on the right who have been so concerned about civil rights violations by Federal law enforcement officers may find that they are left with no remedy when a lower court judge finds that those overzealous Federal officers acted lawfully.

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT
(House of Representatives - November 09, 1995)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H12007-H12064] TEMPORARY INCREASE IN THE STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the bill (H.R. 2586) to provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 258, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery]. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the subject of this bill, of course, is a short-term extension of the Nation's debt limit. This short-term extension is intended to provide an orderly process, with sufficient time for the Congress and the President to consider the balanced budget bill that will shortly be sent to the President. It is now clear that some type of pressure must be applied to bring the differing views together and to resolve this problem. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2586 would temporarily increase the statutory limit on the public debt to $4.967 trillion. It would do so until December 12, 1995. Under the bill, the limit would then revert to $4.8 trillion. H.R. 2586 also ensures the financial integrity of Government trust funds invested in Government debt obligations subject to the debt limit. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is necessary because the Congress, the legislative branch, under our Constitution, is responsible for authorizing any debt to be incurred by the U.S. Government. That is an obligation which we must take very seriously, and consider very carefully. Some in this Chamber are reluctant to increase the Nation's debt limit at all. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. However, we all recognize that this Government has made commitments and entered into obligations that must eventually be paid, so in an effort to accommodate those obligations and in an effort to accommodate this body and the executive branch with time to deliberate matters of great importance to the country, including balancing this Nation's budget in 7 years, this bill comes to us today. We believe this bill is not only necessary, but entirely appropriate, and we will get into more of the details as the debate continues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my fine and much-admired friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, has stated some of this bill, but perhaps he knows more about it than I do. He says that it is just a temporary legislation. The first page or so is temporary, but the other 400-and-some pages in this bill, and the pages that will perhaps be adopted here by additional amendments, are not temporary legislation. They are very permanent legislation. They do drastic things to this U.S. Government. They do it without debate, without consideration, or anything else. The only reason we are here at this late hour and under this kind of confusing circumstances is because the Republicans have not been able to get their act together, to get their majority control together, and to do the things that should have been done. We are here on November 9 to do the work that should have been done in July of this same year. The Republicans keep howling and screaming that the President will not bargain with them, but how, Mr. Speaker, can the President bargain with them? They have no budget bill. They have not even had a meeting on their budget bill in 2 weeks. I know. I am a conferee. I have not even gotten a notice, or, as one Member said, a postcard about a meeting of the conferees to iron out the differences in the budget resolution. We are about 4 months behind on the budget, the Congress is, because the Republicans cannot muster a majority on their side to get anything done. We are here at this late hour attempting to blackmail the President into signing something that he will never sign. The President is not subject to blackmail. He has enough sense not to give in to that kind of treatment. He is not going to sign this ridiculous trash here, most of which is only put together, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, temporarily, so they can get enough votes together to get this thing through the House. They are going to drop all these amendments. Their Members ought to understand that. None of this is ever going to become law. It is only here so that the Republicans can be coerced or bribed or twisted their arms or whatever you want to call it to vote for this thing. It is not going to happen. It is a terrible way to run the Government. It is a terrible reflection upon the Republican Party that they cannot do a simple thing, which is strike out one figure in a piece of legislation and add another figure. That is all that is here. We have done it hundreds of times in the years that I have been here without all of this rankle, all of this other garbage that has been added to it. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very poor and disastrous way to run the Government. It is a terrible reflection upon the Republican Party. We Democrats do not have control of this body. We do not set the agenda. We do not have the ability to produce a majority vote. It is all within their power. It is all within their ability. It is all within their responsibility. They cannot get up here and pretend that it is anybody's responsibility except theirs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], one of the most distinguished Members of the Chamber, and chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding time to me. I guess we will have to put the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] as undecided on this matter. Mr. Speaker, this bill is more, really, much more than an increase in the debt limit. It is really a down payment on the promise that we have made to make government smaller and more responsive to the American people. It is crucial that we refocus government on those essential functions that it must perform, and reconsider whether government should be involved in any activity which it cannot do well. We presently are involved in a great many activities, Mr. Speaker, that we do not do well. The reason we have to [[Page H 12008]] raise the debt ceiling again is that the bureaucracy in Washington has grown unchecked for far too long. Endlessly we have added, bloated, and enlarged the Federal Government, so today we are going to continue to reverse that trend by voting for a second time, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate the Department of Commerce. This has been debated, has been considered before with this body, and we have decided in our wisdom to eliminate the Department of Commerce as part of the reconciliation discussions. In my view, the Department of Commerce is one bureaucracy that, frankly, is not necessary. Functions of the Department overlap with 71 independent agencies of the Government. True, there are, indeed, vital functions performed by Commerce involving trade, weather services, statistical information, and essential components will be retained in a more appropriate home. Other functions will be privatized, sent to the States and localities, or terminated. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that we are doing this just to put a scalp on our belt. That is absolutely not true. We have really taken a very close look at how this Department can be dismantled, how the functions of that Department can be consolidated and made to work much more efficiently, much more productively than they have in the past. Specifically, the commerce title in the debt ceiling bill highlights the importance of a strong trade policy, consolidates the various activities that are now spread all over the Federal Government dealing with trade, presents a cohesive approach to trade promotion. We consolidate the Department of Scientific and Environmental Functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we privatize or eliminate 40 agencies and programs, and we establish a citizens commission on 21st century government to evaluate the entire Federal Government, and determine how we can make this government, yes, smaller, more productive, more efficient, and more responsive to the American people. Let me be clear, however, that we are not cutting just for the sake of saving dollars. If that was the only objective, I do not think it would be worth doing. In fact, we will be saving a great deal of dollars as a result of this exercise. The CBO has recently revised their estimate. We are going to save $6 billion by the elimination or the dismantlement of the Department of Commerce. The other side suggests we are just bloating up other parts of the government. That could not possibly be the case if we are going to save $6 billion. Clearly we are reducing, not enlarging the government. {time} 1415 So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge support for this debt limit extension, and for the elimination of the Department of Commerce. It is long overdue. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue here today is not a balanced budget and it is not a short-term extension to achieve it. Democrats favor an extension to help achieve a balanced budget. Most of us are willing to vote for a clean, short-term extension. Now, why are the Republicans not proposing it? Why is this layered with all of these additional proposals? There are two reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all, leverage on the President. Now, look, I am in favor of pressure. But this goes beyond pressure to try to create a pistol, and I suggest it will not work, it will backfire. The second reason there is not a clean extension is to satisfy some internal pressures within the Republican House Caucus. So they have added a provision on the Department of Commerce and one on regulatory language, a huge bill that few, if any, have read. Why are they doing this? The Senate Republican leadership has made clear that they will not buy the Commerce Department provision, so you are doing this to have some satisfaction internally within the Republican House Caucus. The Senate is working on regulatory reform. So what the Republicans are really doing here today is to play games, but going beyond it and playing with fire. What they are going to do through this, if it were ever to succeed, is to limit the management ability of the President to manage, to manage this situation, to manage this debt. Secretary Rubin has said very clearly, this legislation severely limits options the Secretary has under current law to relieve pressure and to avert default. Let us stop playing with fire with the debt. It would increase the interest rates. It would increase the interest rates for people with variable mortgages, with credit card debt. Look, what you are doing through this kind of proposal is linking chaos in this House with crassness. It will not work. What you should be doing here today is joining on a bipartisan basis to pass a short-term extension of the debt period. That is going to happen sooner or later; let us do it now. I urge defeat of this. Let us get to our senses and work on a bipartisan basis. Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman's comments, it might be good to know that the day after the Committee on Ways and Means took the action to bring this bill to the floor, the stock market went up some 55 points and interest rates went down. So I think the fact that we have established a drop-dead date for negotiations to take place between the executive and legislative branches has, in fact, had a salutary effect on the markets and we hope to continue this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of those extra things that are on this bill, that really is not controversial in the broad sense, because it has passed the House a number of times, including this Congress, by overwhelming margins. It is something that really should be enacted into law, and we have an opportunity on this debt ceiling bill to get it down to the President in a timely fashion, which we have not had before, and that is the reform of what is known as habeas corpus laws to try to end the seemingly endless appeals that death row inmates have. Mr. Speaker, I can assure anybody who has paid attention to the death row situation, where people have committed heinous crimes and have been convicted and sentenced to death, that that is an abomination that people can carry out the sentence for as much as 15 or 20 years by procedural gimmicks. What happens, of course, is that they get convicted, they go through a State court appeal posture after they get sentenced to death, they go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and a court says, the conviction is fine, the sentence is fine. They come back and they have an opportunity to go into Federal district court and file what is known as a habeas corpus petition and seek to get out on a procedural matter; for example, they did not have a lawyer who represented them properly at trial. They then take that appeal and go all the way back to the Supreme Court, which takes a considerable amount of time, and after the Supreme Court denies that appeal, they can go back into Federal district court again on some other procedural ground and appeal that, and it could go on and on and on. What we do in this and what the House did earlier this year, and what is part of this bill, if we pass it today and send it to the President and maybe get it enacted into law, we say that after your finish your Federal appeal you can go into Federal court only one time. You have to put all of your apples in that basket, all of your procedural complaints and issues, and let it be decided and get on with the carrying out of the sentence if you do not have any grounds for those. Obviously, anybody who can provide that they are really innocent of the crime, they are not going to have the death penalty carried out. We have been waiting for a long, long time, years battling over this issue. This is a perfect bill, one the President [[Page H 12009]] really has to face and sign, a short-term debt extension, to finally get it enacted into law, the reform of habeas corpus, to end this process of staying and keeping staying, again and again and again, the death penalties in the State courts of this Nation. It is time to act now, and I urge the adoption of this bill. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was give permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2586. As a Member who has consistently been responsible and voted to increase the debt ceiling, it saddens me to stand here in opposition. We have heard all sorts of obfuscation from the majority. But let there be no mistake, raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with the current level of government spending, and everything to do with financing our prior obligations--living up to our commitments. There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will be raised in the long run. What we should be doing here today is passing a clean temporary debt ceiling as an interim measure to prevent default while a balanced budget agreement can be hammered out. The bill before us today purports to protect trust funds but it has the practical effect of ensuring that Medicare claims won't be paid, tax refund checks can't be cashed and our Armed Forces won't be paid. It also strips the Secretary of the Treasury of all cash management tools--tools that were provided Republican Secretaries of the Treasury by Democratic Congresses. It is nothing more than an attempt to blackmail the President and to ultimately push us closer to default. It is irresponsible and unacceptable. We stand here today and listen to the majority try to blame the President for delay. But, let's look at the facts. It is November 9th, 5 weeks after the start of the fiscal year and congressional Republicans have yet to even send their plan to the President. In 1993, the Clinton budget plan was enacted by August. The majority talks about getting their budget done on time, yet, they've only sent the President 3 of the 13 required appropriations bills. So let us be clear now who is responsible for delay. When all is said and done, the debt ceiling will be increased. We shouldn't hold the economy or average American families hostage to a partisan debate on a balanced budget. We should enact a clean extension in the debt ceiling immediately. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]. Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2586 as chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. This bill provides important protections for active and retired Federal workers. It protects the integrity of the civil service retirement and disability fund and the government securities investment fund. Under this bill, the administration will not be able to raid these funds in order to pretend that our national debt does not exceed the debt limit. The civil service retirement and disability fund provides authority to fund annuities paid under the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System. It is a tempting target for the administration to raid, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it contains about 374 billion dollars' worth of special nonmarketable government securities that are subject to the debt limit. Many current Federal employees invest their money in the government securities investment fund. This is one of the three funds in which employees can invest under the thrift savings plan. Their money is also invested in special nonmarketable government securities subject to the debt limit. In the past, Mr. Speaker, administrations have raided the civil service retirement and disability fund in order to stay under the debt limit. They have refused to invest the dollars coming into the fund. The administration could even just tear up existing nonmarketable securities in the fund. It has been done before. It is also clear, Mr. Speaker, that the administration intends to raid the civil service retirement and disability fund. I have here a set of administration talking points that make that clear. Mr. Speaker, the civil service retirement disability fund is already woefully underfunded to the tune of $540 billion. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is already an unfunded liability of half a trillion dollars. Our learned colleagues on the other side of the aisle screamed and hollered when the private employers asked to be able to withdraw their excess contributions from their employee retirement funds that were more than 125 percent funded. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they did not even want private employers to reach into expensively funded plans. These same people now have the gall to give the administration a free reign to raid the retirement fund that is so woefully underfunded. Mr. Speaker, we need to manage our public debt and to work hard to reduce it, but allowing the administration to dip into these funds would just be a gimmick. It is a charade. It is time to inject some fiscal responsibility in managing the Government accounts. I support H.R. 2586, Mr. Speaker, because it prevents the administration from raiding the funds behind our employee retirement systems and behind their backs, and it makes sure their annuities are paid. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following information in support of my statement. Excerpt from Department of Treasury Talking Points, Nov. 7, 1995 Finally, by repealing the debt management features of the law relating to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the bill would increase the risk of default by severely limiting the ability of the Secretary of the Treasury to assure that crucial government payments--including benefit payments such as Social Security, as well as payments on the public debt--could be made in a time of debt limit crisis. These provisions were enacted in a Republican Administration and reflect the widely held view that the Secretary should have options to relieve pressure and avert default. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, before this debate gets too rough, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] who knows something about the subject that was just discussed. Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have my money in that very retirement fund. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it must be said that this legislation plays politics with people's lives. It is deliberately designed to force a default of Federal debt obligations, and specifically ties the President's hands from being able to avert a debt ceiling crisis under the excuse that this is supposed to save Civil Service retirees. That provision was put in during the Reagan administration precisely to protect the Civil Service Retirement Trust Fund. That is why it was put there. Now it is being repealed. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, dated today. This is a nonpartisan board designed to oversee the Federal Thrift Savings Plan. This letter says that this provision, if this bill is passed, will cost Federal retirees' $3.5 million per day, an amount that once lost, will never be recaptured. Do not do this to Federal retirees, do not do it to Social Security retirees. I urge defeat of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to follows: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, November 9, 1995. Hon. James P. Moran, Jr., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Moran: I have reviewed H.R. 2586 which provides for a temporary extension of the Federal debt limit. The proposed legislation provides for the repeal, inter alia, of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8438(g), which was enacted on May 22, 1987, to prevent harming Federal employees with investments in the Thrift Savings Plan's G Fund. It was foreseen at that time that, during periods of constraint on the issuance of Treasury securities brought about by the debt limit, the moneys of Federal employees in the G Fund would irretrievably lose interest (since they could not be invested) but for this carefully drafted, bipartisan ``make-whole'' provision. (The enclosed letter from former Executive Director Francis Cavanaugh forwarded the proposed legislation (not included) to Congress in April 1987, and it was quickly enacted.) A repeal of this provision at this time would cost Federal employees invested in the G Fund more than $3.5 million per day of debt limit constraint, an amount that, once lost, will never be recaptured. That Federal employees' retirement funds might be thus diminished is a matter of great concern to [[Page H 12010]] me and my fellow fiduciaries, as I am sure it is to you. All of the provisions of the proposed legislation can be enacted without harm to Federal employee' retirement funds except for the repeal of Sec. 8438(g) (and its administrative concomitant, Sec. 8438(h). That is, the purpose of the proposed draft legislation can be fully met, as set forth in its accompanying two-page explanation, with the deletion of the words ``, and subsections (g) and (h) of section 8438 of such title'' on page 6, lines 7 and 8. (The other provisions to be repealed pertain to the Civil Service Trust fund; because that fund is not owned by employees directly, their ultimate benefit levels as derived therefrom are unaffected.) If the bill were passed in its present form, the fiduciaries of the Thrift Savings Plan would be obligated to point out the needless and costly removal by Congress of a protection for Federal employees intended to prevent debt limit politics from impairing the integrity of their retirement funds. (The ``make-whole'' provision of Sec. 8438(g) has been employed on four separate occasions in the past to restore interest otherwise lost to Federal employees from debt limit hiatuses.) I have sent a similar letter to Congressman John Mica. I am asking your and his cooperation in preventing any repeal of Sec. 8438(g) in order to safeguard Federal employees' retirement moneys and ensure their confidence in the G Fund, which, at $21.5 billion currently, comprises approximately \2/3\ of total Thrift Savings Plan investments. Sincerely, Roger W. Mehle, Executive Director. Enclosure. ____ Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, Washington, DC, April 30, 1987. Hon. Jim Wright, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board respectfully submits the enclosed draft bill to prevent the loss of interest earnings to federal employees in the Thrift Savings Plan (Plan) which would otherwise result from a temporary suspension of the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue public debt obligations to the Plan. The Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (5 U.S.C. 8401-8479) established a tax-deferred Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees. Effective April 1, 1987, all government and employee contributions to the Plan must be invested in Treasury securities issued to the Government Securities Investment Fund (GSIF) of the Plan. Since such securities, like other Treasury debt issues, are subject to the statutory limit on the amount of public debt outstanding, the Secretary will be unable to issue such securities to the GSIF after May 15 unless Congress acts on debt limit legislation by that date. The present temporary public debt limit of $2.3 trillion is due to expire on May 15, 1987, on which date the debt limit will revert to the permanent statutory ceiling of $2.1 trillion. We understand that the Treasury Department advised Congress today, in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee that the Department expects to have sufficient cash on May 15 so that an increase in the debt ceiling would not be necessary until May 28. Nevertheless, beginning May 16 the Treasury will be unable to issue any securities subject to the debt limit, including securities issued to the GSIF. Thus, if Congress does not act on debt limit legislation prior to May 16, the GSIF will lose interest; there is no authority for the Treasury to pay such interest at a later date to make up for such losses. The proposed legislation would provide the same treatment to the Thrift Savings Plan as is now provided by law (P.L. 99-509) to the Civil Service Retirement Fund. This treatment requires the Treasury to make up any loss of earnings to the Fund created by a suspension of Treasury borrowing authority. Although the bill seeks parity of treatment with the Civil Service Retirement Fund, it is important to note that the Thrift Savings Plan is different from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) in that the Thrift Savings Plan is a wholly voluntary, defined contribution plan; whereas CSRS is a mandatory, defined benefit plan. CSRS plan benefits do not depend directly on the amount of the Fund's interest earnings. The employer-employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan, although held in the custody of the Treasury Department, actually belong to the individual employees. Accordingly, Congress intended that the Thrift Investment Board be a financially independent agency and exempted the Board from the appropriations process, the budget, and the controls of the Executive Office of the President which apply to other federal agencies. Yet, perhaps inadvertently, Congress did not insulate the Board or the Plan from the constraints of the public debt limit. The Board believes that obligations issued to the GSIF should clearly be exempt from the public debt limit constraints. Yet, in view of the urgent need for timely legislative action before May 15, we are requesting only that the Plan be accorded the same treatment as the Civil Service Retirement Fund. Federal employees have been urged to deposit their funds in the Thrift Savings Plan upon the representation that such funds will be safely invested in government securities with a guaranteed rate of return based on a prescribed statutory interest rate formula. The Board has an obligation to federal employees to make every effort to see that this commitment is honored. Now, at the very beginning of the Plan, it is especially important that there be no question as to the integrity of the government's representation as to such investments. In order to prevent unnecessary fear and confusion on this point, we urge Congress to act on the enclosed bill as soon as possible and before any suspension of Treasury borrowing authority occurs. We are sending a similar letter to the President of the Senate. Copies have been sent to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sincerely, Francis X. Cavanaugh, Executive Director. Enclosure. ____ Summary of the Bill The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan (Plan) does not suffer a loss of earnings in its Government Securities Investment Fund in the event of a temporary suspension of borrowing authority of the United States Treasury Department, due to the statutory public debt limit. The bill provides that, in the event the Secretary of the Treasury suspends additional issuance of Treasury securities to the Government Securities Investment Fund because such issuance would exceed the debt limit, immediately upon lifting of the borrowing suspension, the Secretary of the Treasury shall issue securities to the Plan at interest rates and maturities which will replicate the obligations that would have been held by the Plan if the suspension had not occurred. This ``make-whole'' relief will include the payment of any interest the Plan loses as a result of the suspension. Both the obligations and the interest will be determined in accordance with the daily investment decisions made by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board during the suspension period which would have been effective were it not for the suspension. The treatment accorded to the Plan by the bill is similar to that accorded to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund in Section 6002 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, except that the bill recognizes the statutory responsibility of the Executive Director (5 U.S.C. 8438(f)(2)(A)), rather than the Secretary of the Treasury, to determine the amounts and maturities of the investments in the Government Securities Investment Fund. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, but obviously, like many, I do so with some reluctance. While I have often opposed raising the debt ceiling, because of our efforts this bill includes a pledge to achieve a CBO-scored balanced budget in 7 years. I call attention to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this pledge is in the rule committing the President and Congress to enact in the year 1995, the calendar year, legislation for a balanced budget by the year 2002. It affirms the intent of Congress and the President to do so, and it is in black and white, and it is part of this package that we are voting on. This, my friends, is the crux of our Contract With America. This is why we have the responsibility today to be responsible. Do I like raising the debt? Obviously I do not. But, for this reason, and for this language, I intend to vote for this raising of the debt to ultimately balance the budget. However, Mr. Speaker, what is also a concern of mine is that without certain provisions in this bill, that Chairman Archer made sure were in this bill, the Clinton administration could dip into supposedly safe trust funds such as the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, and the Federal retiree trust fund. {time} 1430 I find this totally unacceptable and, frankly, so do the American taxpayers. Yet the President is threatening to veto this bill because we refuse to let the administration raid the Social Security, Medicare, and Federal retiree trust funds. That is what the people on the other side are saying. These trust funds should not see their assets reduced even temporarily. It sets a bad precedent of encouraging the Treasury Department to raid these funds. Without this amendment in the bill, the money paid into these funds would be diverted to pay for other services. Mr. Speaker, this is not the American way, and this should not be done. The American people have placed their trust in us to manage their funds, to protect their investments. We cannot let them down. I urge my colleagues, it is time to be responsible to pass this bill and to pass [[Page H 12011]] a balanced budget amendment that will eliminate the need after almost 40 years of Democrat control for such legislation in the future. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we should vote this bill down. We should be passing a clean continuing resolution or a clean debt limit extension for a reasonable time. Why are we here today? We are here because this is the most mismanaged legislative session I have seen in 35 years serving in legislative office. It is November 9. The fiscal year began October 1. I fully expected we would need a continuing resolution because the majority would have passed appropriation bills, they would have been vetoed in some cases, and the Congress and administration would be negotiating. Instead, 9 of 13 bills have not passed the Congress. So we need a continuing resolution. Why do we need this bill on the debt ceiling? Because it is now November. The Congress is doing what it should have been doing in July, should have been passing its budget bill, sending it to the President, probably vetoed, then serious negotiations occurring. Instead, we have drifted along all session doing what was not crucial; and here, a month and a half into the fiscal year, the House and Senate is still dealing with the conference report. Shame on us. If we had done our work, this bill would have been on the President's desk before the August recess as it was 2 years ago, negotiations could have occurred in September, maybe into mid-October, and had a solution. Instead, total mismanagement. Mid-November, no budget bill, most of the appropriation bills still hung up in the Congress. Instead, we find ourselves with a debt ceiling extension, with habeas corpus and Commerce and I do not know what all else is in here. Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this bill. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that we started this Congress with the Contract With America. There were 10 items essentially. Two out of the first three talked about responsibility. The first item talked about responsibility. The third item talked about personal responsibility. I tell my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that this bill is neither fiscally responsible nor it is personally responsible; and, yes, we ought to be ashamed of playing with the credit of the United States of America as we are doing. This is not a serious attempt at responsible Government. It contains extraneous matters unrelated to the critical issue of making sure America pays it bills. Every American thinks its Government ought to do that. But that's not what we're doing today. This bill is loaded down with unrelated provisions that have nothing to do with the problem before us and will cause the President to veto this legislation. Just like yesterday's continuing resolution, which the President has also indicated he will veto, this is not a serious attempt at responsible Government. I am afraid that the message to Federal employees is: Don't consider this a holiday weekend because you may not have a job next week. The Republican leadership seems determined to close down Government operations. They are taking the CR and the debt limit extension down the path to the same fate as many of the appropriations bills--stuck in the mud of political partisanship. This Government is not put at risk by this irresponsibility with which we are confronted today. They want to up Social Security and Medicare payments by $151 per recipient in this bill. That ought to be debated fully. Habeas corpus, that may be a good bill, but it is not subject to having an impact on the debt of the United States. Eliminate the Commerce Department, a 200-page bill that the President disagrees with. You put at risk the credit of the United States. This debt limit extension measure also limits the Secretary of the Treasury's ability to manage Federal employee investments in the thrift savings plan as well as their retirement fund. These provisions have nothing to do with allowing the Treasury Department to continue to borrow money. Auctions have already been canceled because of the Republican leadership's failure to act. I am gravely concerned about the impact of not passing a CR and debt limit extension on Federal employees. They have been attacked again and again in this Congress and now the leadership is threatening to send them home on furlough. Those in the Congress who claim to be Federal employee advocates and then vote for these extreme measures are, in my opinion, undermining the security of those Federal employees whom they claim to represent. This is not a rhetorical issue. This is real fear for civil servants who have families to feed and mortgages to pay. The lives of Federal employees are once again being thrown into chaos as the Republicans pursue their extreme agenda. Ladies and gentlemen of this House, ladies and gentlemen of America, this bill is a patently petty political terrorist tactic. That is what it is. An attempt to force the President of the United States to adopt things that you cannot get through your own Senate, not just the Congress. This bill adopts tactics that put America as a hostage to an extremist agenda. Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The Clerk will report the words. {time} 1445 Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to repeat them if you would like just so they are clear on the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman shall refrain from speaking. The Clerk will report the words. The Clerk read as follows: Ladies and gentlemen of this House, ladies and gentlemen of America, this bill is a patently petty political terrorist tactic, that is what it is, an attempt to force the President of the United States to adopt things that you cannot get through your own Senate, not just the Congress. This bill adopts tactics that put America as a hostage to an extremist agenda. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair rules that since this is not a reference to an individual Member, that the remarks are in order. However, the Chair would observe that there is a civility within the House in addressing bills and Members that should be observed, and it would be hoped that in the future that would be observed by all Members. Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker for his ruling. The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has expired. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a legitimate concern about the use of trust funds that has been mentioned earlier, and that the reason why some who are coming to the floor are suggesting that they want to give the administration total latitude on these issues is because, I think, they are probably aware that the administration intends to use the civil service retirement trust funds, the Government securities investment fund, other cash, and perhaps even the Social Security trust fund as the way of financing our debt into the future. Now, we have heard discussion on the floor about the fact that we do not want to default for the first time in history. The fact is we have never used the Social Security trust fund for anything other than Social Security payments at any time in history, either, and yet what we are being told by this administration and by those defending the administration on the floor, they are prepared, in pursuit of their political agenda, to allow the Social Security trust fund to at some point in the future be invaded for the purposes of paying the bills. Now, our direction has been to try to balance the budget. We realize that that takes a lot of hard work. We realize it has been an uphill fight, with those who are opposed to that agenda fighting us every step of the way to see [[Page H 12012]] to it these bills do not get passed. We realize there has been a concerted effort to try to stop bills in other places in the Capitol Building so that, in fact, the work cannot get completed, and now we come down to the point where there is no longer an ability to pay the debts that have been incurred over the last several years. Now we are being told that the Social Security trust fund should be put in jeopardy in the future. I would suggest that we ought to pass the bill that is before us. Yes, it does contain a number of items in it that we think are good for the country, such as regulatory reform, we hope, after that amendment is adopted, habeas corpus reform, and a number of other things. Fundamentally, what it does is allow the President to borrow temporarily, and does so in a way that assures protection of the trust funds. Why do I say that we believe all this is happening? We have heard it directly from the Department of the Treasury. I have before me materials that indicate that the Department of the Treasury is prepared in fact to begin using the civil service retirement and disability fund. At a press briefing yesterday, they outlined about $28 billion of money they are going to use, first out of the Government securities investment fund, then out of civil service retirement, then out of other petty cash amounts, and the next step down the line, my friends, is the Social Security trust fund. That is, I think, a very grave danger for us all. the way that you can prevent that kind of problem from occurring is to vote for the bill brought to you by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], assure that we do protect the Social Security trust fund now and into the future, assure we do have the ability to raise the debt limit enough to pay our bills and, oh, by the way, get a couple of things done good for America, such as eliminating a Cabinet department and giving this Nation regulatory reform. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am placing in the Record at this point a statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject matter under debate. The referenced material is as follows: Statement of Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Social Security Commissioner Shirley S. Chater As Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds we want to assure the American people that the resources of the Funds are preserved and protected for the benefit of every American who is now, or will in the future become, entitled to receive Social Security benefits. Questions have arisen recently whether, because of the failure by Congress to increase the national debt limit, the resources of the Funds might be used to provide funds for governmental purposes unrelated to the payment of Social Security benefits. This is our reply: The Social Security Trust Funds will not be used for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. We will continue to protect Social Security. Furthermore, Congress should increase the statutory debt limit in a manner so all of the government's obligations will be paid on time. The Ways and Means Committee's bill, however, leaves Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, veterans and military personnel, and obligations such as the principal and interest on the public debt all at risk. This is simply not acceptable. In sum: this Administration will not use Social Security Trust Funds for any purpose other than to assure the payment of benefits to Social Security recipients. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]. Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution, and in particular the provision involving death row appeals. Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this bill are different from the provisions in the House-passed bill, and these provisions have been sprung on us in the last 24 hours. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this will do nothing to reduce crime. Death row inmates are not the ones out there robbing, raping and murdering in the streets. There is not even anecdotal evidence these inmates are the cause of crime in our community. Mr. Speaker, we have not addressed the problem of innocent people being put to death. It was reported in the New York Times this Sunday that a man who had been on death row for 11 years in Illinois was released after being acquitted when a subsequent trial disclosed that a police officer had lied in the first trial. What have we done about the police officer lying? Yesterday we had a hearing on a bill that would limit the civil liability of the police officer who lied, and today we consider legislation that will put the defendant to death quicker so it will be less likely we ever could have found out the truth. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do something about crime, we need to do something different than what we have done so far this year, such as cut funding for attorneys and death row appeals, which will create more complications and more appeals. We have cut funding for crime prevention and cops on the beat; cut funding for summer jobs, putting more youth out on the streets; cut funding for college scholarships and Head Start. All of that will increase crime. If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would increase the money for Head Start, summer jobs, college scholarships, crime prevention and cops on the beat, and not insert these useless sound bites in essential legislation. Mr. Speaker, we should focus on the financial crisis before us and not sneak provisions such as this through a debt ceiling resolution. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution by the chairman to increase the debt limit, but I do so with some reluctance. I hate to see us increase the debt that the taxpayers of this country owe and that I know that our children will someday have to pay. But I also know that if we are going to reach a balanced budget over the 7 years, as we have planned and as we have passed in both bodies, that we will have to extend that debt limit. I understand that there is a lot of confusion and controversy about how we are going to do that, and it will take a couple, 2, 3 more weeks to really rectify those differences. So, therefore, we must increase the funding and the borrowing power of our Government. The thing that I like about this bill or this proposal is it will restrict the use of trust funds. But, Mr. Speaker, you have heard the old saying, ``A day late and a dollar short.'' Well, sir, I think we are years late and several billon dollars short, because out of the $4.9 trillion that we currently owe as the debt, the debt that is owed by the taxpayers that has been created by the Congress, $1.25 trillion of it is actually owed to trust funds, trust funds that people have contributed to that they expect someday to receive in return. Let me give you some of those amounts, Mr. Speaker. The Federal employee's trust fund, some $375 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; the Medicare part A trust fund, $130 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; VA retirement, over $112 billion owed to that trust fund by the Treasury; and Social Security, Mr. Speaker, some $483 billion of old age pension, part of my old age pension, owed to the trust fund by the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record a table concerning the trust fund impact on budget results and investment holdings as of September 30, 1995: [[Page H 12013]] TABLE 8.--TRUST FUND IMPACT ON BUDGET RESULTS AND INVESTMENT HOLDINGS AS OF SEPT. 30, 1995 [In millions of dollars] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This month Fiscal year to date Securities held as investments, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ current fiscal year -------------------------------------- Classification Beginning of Receipts Outlays Excess Receipts Outlays Excess -------------------------- Close of This year This month this month -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust receipts, outlays, and investments held: Airport........................ 333 777 -445 6,125 7,242 -1,117 12,206 11,547 11,145 Black lung disability.......... 416 426 -46 987 987 (**) (*) (*) (*) Federal disability insurance... 4,749 3,606 1,143 70,215 41,380 28,835 6,100 34,146 35,225 Federal employees life and health........................ (*) -145 145 (*) -1,240 1,240 22,503 23,601 23,729 Federal employees retirement... 24,375 3,268 21,108 66,821 38,899 27,923 346,317 353,081 374,219 Federal hospital insurance..... 9,150 10,271 -1,121 114,847 114,883 -36 128,716 180,931 129,864 Federal old-age and survivors insurance..................... 26,560 24,569 1,991 326,084 294,474 31,611 403,425 445,944 147,947 Federal supplementary medical insurance..................... 1,746 5,903 -4,157 58,169 65,213 -7,044 21,489 17,675 13,513 Highways....................... 2,115 2,340 -226 23,613 22,688 925 17,694 8,846 8,531 Military advances.............. 967 1,314 -347 12,469 13,417 -948 (*) (*) (*) Railroad retirement............ 451 675 -224 9,093 7,924 1,169 12,203 14,063 14,440 Military retirement............ 918 2,386 -1,468 34,624 27,797 6,827 105,367 114,320 112,963 Unemployment................... 336 1,801 -1,465 32,820 25,282 7,539 39,788 48,660 47,141 Veterans life insurance........ 23 110 -86 1,356 1,231 126 13,477 13,690 13,606 All other trust................ 525 555 -30 6,056 4,346 1,710 12,317 14,180 14,060 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total trust fund receipts and outlays and investments held from Table 6-D................. 72,665 57,893 14,772 763,281 664,521 98,760 1,151,601 1,240,682 1,256,385 Less Interfund transactions.... 27,150 27,150 ........... 212,849 212,849 (*) ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust fund receipts and outlays on the basis of Tables 4 and 5............ 45,515 30,742 14,772 550,432 451,671 98,760 ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Total Federal fund receipts and outlays............... 100,994 108,480 -7,486 835,221 1,097,794 262,573 ........... ........... ........... Less Interfund transactions.... 443 443 (*) 975 975 (*) ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal fund receipts and outlays on the basis of Tables 4 and 5............ 100,551 108,037 -7,486 834,245 1,096,819 -262,573 ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Less: Offsetting proprietary receipts...................... 2,846 2,846 (*) 34,101 34,101 (*) ........... ........... ........... ==================================================================================================================== Net budget receipts and outlays................... 143,219 135,933 7,286 1,350,576 1,514,389 -163,813 ........... ........... ........... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *No transactions. Note: Interfund receipts and outlays are transactions between Federal funds and trust funds such as Federal payments and contributions, and interest and profits on investments in Federal securities. They have no net effect on overall budget receipts and outlays since the receipts side of such transactions is offset against budget outlays. In this table, Interfund receipts are shown as an adjustment to arrive at total receipts and outlays of trust funds respectively. Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: U.S. Treasury, final monthly Treasury statement of receipts and outlays, September 1995. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first, my thanks to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] for his courtesies and tenacity in this debate. Members of the committee, it is pathetic that in a several hundred page bill that was delivered to the Democrats on the Judiciary at 10:45 a.m. this morning, 27 pages of habeas corpus reform of the Senate's that we have never seen, never read, never discussed, never debated, never. Why? This is the short-term debt ceiling limitation bill. What in God's name is habeas corpus doing in this provision? You can pass it, Republicans, anyway separately, I guess. You have been rolling all the votes here for 10 months. But why stick it in overnight? Is there some logic that this could be happening here in the most democratic forum, the most democratic, fairest parliamentary system that we have in the Federal Government? But worse than that, this provision limits review in other habeas cases. And my colleagues who have been so concerned about civil rights violations by Federal law enforcement, read Ruby Ridge and Waco, that now they want to leave Federal law enforcement and judges with no way to protect against overzealous Federal law officers who may not have acted lawfully. It is pathetic that habeas reform has been tucked away in the debt ceiling package. Habeas reform has absolutely nothing to do with short- term debt and I cannot help but wonder why the Republicans, who control both Houses of Congress need to attempt to pass habeas reform in this underhanded manner. My colleagues should make no mistake, this so-called habeas reform bill does not reform habeas corpus law, it all but eliminates Federal appeals in death penalty cases. This bill will also limit review in other habeas cases. My colleagues on the right who have been so concerned about civil rights violations by Federal law enforcement officers may find that they are left with no remedy when a lower court judge finds that those overzealous Federal officers acted l