[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.

                          ____________________