I am pleased that the essentials of S. 2176 have been incorporated into the Omnibus Appropriations bill, H.R. 4328. I appreciate the work of my colleagues, Senator Byrd in particular, in seeing that this bill becomes law. Mr. President, I wish to address the changes that have been made to S. 2176 since it was reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The legislative history of the bill is largely described in the Committee report, S. Rep. 105-250. However, this is the opportunity to discuss the subsequent changes made in the bill. The term ``first assistant to the office'' is incorporated into 5 U.S.C. Sec. 3345(a)(1), rather than ``first assistant to the officer.'' This change is made to ``depersonalize'' the first assistant. Questions have arisen concerning who might be the vacant officer's first assistant if the acting officer dies or if the acting officer resigns while a permanent nomination is pending. The term ``first assistant to the officer'' has been part of the Vacancies Act since 1868, however, and the change in wording is not intended to alter case law on the meaning of the term ``first assistant.'' A third category of ``acting officer'' is now permitted apart from first assistants and presidentially designated persons who have already received Senate-confirmation to hold another office.
Mike Thompson: “I am pleased that the essentials of S. 2176 have been incorporated into the Omnibus Appropriations bill, H.R. 4328. I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing changes made to S. 2176 in the context of the Omnibus Appropriations bill.
Share
More from Mike Thompson
There have been many great women and men who served in this Congress, walked these Halls, and cast votes on this floor, but today, we are here to reflect on the life and service of one of those great Members, Bill Pascrell. I had the honor…
In the wake of losing their homes and livelihoods, it is wrong to tax survivors on settlement money that is meant to help them rebuild their lives. Survivors can't afford to wait around for retroactive relief.
Californians are all too familiar with the devastation caused by wildfires. In the wake of losing their homes and livelihoods, it is wrong to tax survivors on settlement money that is meant to help them rebuild their lives.





