[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H801-H803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--PROTECTING CREDITWORTHINESS OF UNITED STATES,
AVOIDING DEFAULT, AND AVERTING ANOTHER GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of
the House and offer a resolution which the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Bentsen] and I noticed pursuant to rule IX yesterday.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Whereas the inability of the House to pass an adjustment in
the public debt limit unburdened by the unrelated political
agenda of either party, an adjustment to maintain the
creditworthiness of the United States and to avoid disruption
of interest rates and the financial markets, brings discredit
upon the House;
Whereas the inability of the House to pass a clean
resolution to continue normal governmental operations so as
to end the abuse of American citizens and their hard-earned
dollars, Federal employees, private businesses who perform
work for the Federal government, and those who rely upon
Federal services as a bargaining tactic to gain political
advantage in the budget negotiations, brings discredit upon
the House;
Whereas previous inaction of the House has already cost the
American taxpayer about $1.5 billion in wasteful government
shutdown costs, reduced the productivity and responsiveness
of Federal agencies and caused untold human suffering;
Whereas the failure of the House of Representatives to
adjust the Federal debt limit and keep the Nation from
default or to act on legislation to avert another Government
shutdown impairs the dignity of the House, the integrity of
its proceedings and the esteem the public holds for the
House: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the
enrolling clerk of the House of Representatives shall prepare
an engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2862, and the joint
resolution, H.J. Res. 157. The vote by which this resolution
is adopted by the House shall be deemed to have been a vote
in favor of such bill and a vote in favor of such joint
resolution upon final passage in the House of
Representatives. Upon engrossment of the bill and the joint
resolution, each shall be deemed to have passed the House of
Representatives and been duly certified and examined; the
engrossed copies shall be signed by the Clerk and transmitted
to the Senate for further legislative action; and (upon final
passage by both Houses) the bill and the joint resolution
shall be signed by the presiding officers of both Houses and
presented to the President for his signature (and otherwise
treated for all purposes) in the manner provided for bills
and joint resolutions generally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]
wish to be heard on whether the resolution presents a question of
privilege under rule IX?
Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do. I think there are
only one or two other speakers that would ask to be heard on this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this motion raises most directly a question
of privileges of the House. True, the particulars of this motion
concern the credit worthiness of the United States, something in which
every American has a stake, particularly those with a variable
mortgage, a car loan, a credit card balance, or whoever want to take
out alone.
But, Mr. Speaker, what could more directly jeopardize the integrity
of our proceedings here in the House of Representatives than
misconduct, than tampering with the fiscal integrity of the United
States?
Those who say we can live with financial anarchy would imperil both
the dignity of this House and the hopes of millions of Americans for
economic dignity. Indicative of this threat to the integrity of the
House is the warning against a politically motivated default by six
former Treasury secretaries, both Republicans and Democrats, who have
expressed in their words their profound concern about the threat of
default.
The very idea that Uncle Sam would tell anyone who holds a Treasury
bill or a Treasury bond, sorry, we do not want to pay, is not
revolutionary, it is simply lunacy. The full faith and credit of the
United States is not anything to be trifled with. If there are Members
of this body who are willing to mess up the credit rating of the United
States, let them mess up their own credit rating, not that of the
American people who they are sworn to serve.
When the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Rubin, assures us that default is
upon us, when he is compelled to undertake extraordinary measures to
defer temporarily that default and only faces in return the threat of
impeachment in this House, the dignity of this House is jeopardized.
When we hear a declaration that ``I do not care if we have no executive
offices and no bonds for 60 days, not this time,'' the financial
integrity of our country and the integrity and esteem with which the
public holds this House is severely jeopardized. I refer, of course, to
the words of the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
This motion and an ability to take up a clean resolution to adjust
the debt limit before we run into financial ruin later this month would
do something to undo the damage that has already occurred.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members who wish to be heard
on the question of whether the resolution presents a question of
privilege?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is attempting to ascertain whether
or not the motion is privileged.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will withhold my motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is hearing discussion on that at
this time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my motion temporarily.
[[Page H802]]
Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members who wish to be heard
on whether the resolution presents a question of privilege?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from New York
withdrawing his motion.
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Texas, Mr. Doggett, in
introducing this privileged resolution and in urging its approval so
that the U.S. Government can keep paying its bills and not default for
the first time in its history.
Rule IX of the rules of the House, which governs questions of
privilege, states:
Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the
rules of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the
integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting the
rights, reputation, and conduct of members, individually, in
their representative capacity only.
We offer this privileged resolution because we can think of no issue
that reflects more on the dignity and integrity of this House and on
the reputation of every single Member than the creditworthiness of the
United States.
There is no question in my mind that the dignity and the integrity of
this House and the reputation of every one of us would be irreparably
harmed if we allowed our Government to default. And it would be
especially irresponsible for this House to recess and leave town with
this threat of default hanging over our Government.
The creditworthiness of the United States should not be a pawn in a
political game or a point of leverage to force huge cuts in Medicare,
Medicaid, and education to pay for a tax cut we can't afford. We must
pass a clean bill to increase the debt ceiling and allow the United
States to honor its obligations, and we can do that by voting for this
resolution today.
Only the Congress can lift the debt limit and avoid default, and a
failure to act in a timely manner does threaten the integrity of this
body and the reputation of every one of us. If anyone doubts that,
simply consider the consequences of default.
Government will come to a halt yet again. Interest rates will rise.
Credit will become more expensive. Our economy could very well slip
into a recession. And our Nation's unmatched reputation in world
financial markets would be tarnished forever.
I hope there is no one in this body who doubts that if we allow these
calamities to happen that the integrity of this body will not be
damaged.
I also hope there is no doubt that the reputation of every one of us
will be harmed as well. Our reputation will be harmed with every single
consumer we represent who has to pay more in higher interest rates for
home loans, car loans, student loans, and credit card purchases. Our
reputation will be harmed with every State and local government
official we represent because they will not be able to obtain financing
for the services they provide. And our reputation will be harmed with
every single taxpayer who will have to pay more for Government
services.
I would submit to the Chair that, under a careful reading of rule IX,
No. 1, ``questions of privilege,'' this resolution is a question of
privilege because it addresses a serious matter affecting the dignity
and integrity of this House and the reputation of every Member. In
addition, I would argue that the Chair should favorably review this
question of privilege because, at this time, there is no other plan for
this House to consider clean debt limit legislation before February 29,
1996, when Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has told Congress that the
Federal Government will go into default. Yet, Congress may recess
without consideration of the vital legislation.
So I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to carefully read section IX of the
House rules. It states clearly that--
Questions of Privilege shall be, first, those affecting the
rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity,
and the integrity of its proceedings, and second, those
affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members.
This resolution seeks to protect the integrity of the House and the
reputation of its Members by preserving the creditworthiness of the
United States. This is the argument that my colleague from Texas and I
are making. This is truly a question of privilege because the
reputation of the House and its dignity would be forever harmed if we
fail to act and to honor our obligations.
{time} 1530
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The Chair is ready to rule,
but would entertain one additional comment relative to whether or not
the resolution presents a question of the privileges of the House.
Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] seek to be recognized for
that purpose?
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recognized to address
the issue of the privileged motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my point. I think this
resolution does deal with the integrity of this House in a very
significant way. Unless I am mistaken, it was not too many years ago
when colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle of this House came
to this floor and argued that we should have privileged resolutions and
measures to consider the so-called House bank scandal, because a number
of House Members had purportedly bounced thousands of dollars of
personal checks.
I would suggest to the Speaker and to our colleagues that if having
Members of this House bounce thousands of dollars in personal checks
goes directly to the integrity of this House, how in the world could we
not conclude that having the U.S. Government for the first time in two
centuries bounce billions of dollars of checks to people to whom we owe
money, and entities all across this world, an action that would
undermine the integrity of our creditworthiness and our reputation as a
nation, how can the personal bounced checks go directly to the
integrity of the House and not have our Nation's bouncing checks go to
the integrity of the House?
I would argue, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution clearly
deals directly with the question of protecting the integrity and the
dignity of this House, and would suggest that to rule otherwise might
be inconsistent with the arguments we heard from our Republican
colleagues just a few years ago.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is ready to rule.
The resolution offered by the gentleman from Texas alleges that the
failure of the House to take specified legislative actions brings it
discredit, impairs its dignity and the integrity of its proceedings,
and lowers it in public esteem. On that premise it resolves that the
House be considered to have passed two legislative measures.
Under rule IX, questions of the privileges of the House are those
``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, its
dignity, [or] the integrity of its proceedings.'' But a question of the
privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change in the
rules of the House or to prescribe a special order of business for the
House. This principle has been upheld on several occasions cited in
section 664 of the ``House Rules and Manual,'' including March 11,
1987; August 3, 1988; and, in particular, June 27, 1974--where a
resolution directing the Committee on Rules to consider reporting a
special order was held not to present a question of privilege.
The resolution offered by the gentleman from Texas--like those
offered on February 7 and December 22, 1995, and on January 3, 1996--is
also aptly addressed by the precedent of May 6, 1921. On that occasion
Speaker Gillett held that a resolution presenting a legislative
proposition as a question of constitutional privilege under the 14th
amendment did not qualify as a question of the privileges of the House.
The Chair will quote briefly from the 1921 ruling:
[W]here the Constitution orders the House to do a thing,
the Constitution still gives the House the right to make its
own rules and do it at such time and in such manner as it may
choose. And it is a strained construction * * * to say that
because the Constitution gives a mandate that a thing shall
be done, it therefore follows that any Member can insist that
it shall be brought up at some particular time and in the
particular way which he chooses. If there is a constitutional
mandate, the House ought by its rules to provide for the
proper enforcement of that, but it is
[[Page H803]]
still a question for the House how and when and under what procedure it
shall be done * * *.
Speaker Gillett's ruling is fully recorded in Cannon's Precedents, at
volume 6, section 48.
Applying the precedent of 1921 and the others just cited, the Chair
holds that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Texas does not
affect ``the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity,
[or] the integrity of its proceedings'' within the meaning of clause 1
of rule IX. Rather, it proposes to effect a special order of business
for the House--deeming it to have passed two legislative measures--as
an antidote for the alleged discredit of previous inaction thereon. The
resolution does not constitute a question of privilege under rule IX.
To rule that a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX
may be raised by allegations of perceived discredit brought upon the
House by legislative action or inaction, would permit any Member to
allege an impact on the dignity of the House based upon virtually any
legislative action or inaction.
____________________