[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H947-H953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECT THE NATION'S CREDITWORTHINESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May
12, 1995, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] is recognized for 60
minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we now approach a time within only a very
few weeks when for the first time in over two centuries of this
country, the full faith and credit of the United States of America is
being placed in dire risk. The creditworthiness of this country, to an
extent the creditworthiness of all of us as American citizens, is being
put on the line.
Is this for some lofty purpose or for some deep political principle?
No, not at all. Only to gain some momentary advantage are our
Republican colleagues willing to push this Nation right to the brink of
financial disaster by trying to use the adjustment of the limits of
this country's creditworthiness, that everyone agrees is essential,
that Republican colleagues have already voted to extend in another
format in a previous occasion, in fact more than one previous occasion.
But now that it is time to adjust the limit and protect the
creditworthiness of every American citizen acting through their
Government, they want to use that device as leverage to put into effect
some of the provisions that they cannot pass and enact in this Congress
through ordinary democratic means to get adjustment and get a little
leverage and use a crowbar to adjust and get the political ends that
they think are necessary, rather than to let the democratic process
work and rather than protect the creditworthiness and full faith and
credit of this country.
I read with some alarm in the news of this afternoon that only this
morning at a forum the respected Chair of the House Committee on Ways
and Means, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] says we need something
to get our House Republican Members to vote for the debt ceiling that
they would not otherwise vote for.
I assume from those remarks that just merely protecting the full
faith and credit of the United States is not sufficient reason. The
mere prospect of this country defaulting on its obligations,
obligations that all of us as American citizens have undertaken, that
is not enough to get them to vote to extend and adjust this ceiling.
Mr. Speaker, he added that there would be no debt ceiling bill that
will not have some additional matters attached to it.
He indicated in the same speech that it was his objective to place in
that debt ceiling bill the revisions in the capital gains tax that have
been referred to along with other provisions in the contract on America
as the crown jewel of the contract. That is basically the program in
which our Republican colleagues begin a transfer of wealth in the
country by reducing the taxes on those at the top of the economic
ladder and by increasing the taxes on those at the bottom of the
economic ladder, a strange approach but one surely designed to widen
the gap that already exists between rich and poor in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is about those colleagues. I have
nothing against people down at the country club enjoying their tax
breaks, but I hate to see them lonely down there. I hate to see many
Americans only have a chance to get to the country club if they are
there to sweep the floor or mow the lawn.
Why not assure every citizen an opportunity to share in the American
economic dream instead of providing all of the tax benefits to those at
the top and raising taxes on those at the bottom? But that is the logic
of the Republican contract on America, a contract provision that they
cannot get approved through ordinary democratic means. So apparently
they are willing to risk a default on the obligations of the United
States of America for the first time in its history just in order to
force this adjustment in the tax rate and accomplish the crown jewel,
as they refer to it, in the contract on America.
I think that would be a very serious mistake, to get right up to the
brink of disaster without adjusting the obligations to protect our
creditworthiness.
The other aspect of this work is what we see here this afternoon, and
that is a House working not on full throttle but barely turning on the
ignition. This is a House that in recent months, every time it has
approached a crisis, whether a manufactured crisis by the Speaker such
as the ``Cry Baby'' shutdown or the Christmas Eve shutdown that we had
of Government.
Mr. Speaker, every time they approach the crisis in America, the
solution is to treat work in this Congress as if it were not only a
four-letter word but a dirty four-letter word. Instead, the word that
has become honored in this Congress is another four letter word, the
word ``quit.'' Every time we approach a crisis, whether it is a
shutdown or now the possibility of governmental default on our
obligations, the solution is to condemn work. The idea that we would
stay here like Americans are working across this country today and
really work and labor to solve the problems that we face in a
bipartisan basis, rather, the approach is to quit.
So the approach this week is to work just a little bit and then quit
on Thursday afternoon, deferring apparently until February 26, just up
and quit during that time and wait until approximately 5 or 6 days
before we enter complete default so that they can at the last minute,
in true brinkmanship fashion come forward with a debt limit bill that
contains things like the capital gains tax cut for those at the top of
the economic ladder, perhaps whatever other approach might be necessary
in order to bring together not this House, but just the Republican
Members of this House to support an adjustment they have already voted
for that is essential to protecting the economic security of this
country.
[[Page H948]]
That kind of brinksmanship, rather than bipartisanship, is what has
brought this House to the state that it is in today and produced the
risks that this Nation faces of fiscal disaster.
What does the possibility of a default really mean to ordinary
American citizens? Why, they are talking about it on Wall Street. The
political commentators discuss it. But what does it really mean to the
ordinary American family that is just out there trying to hear a little
through all the static that they hear about what is going on in
Washington about who is ahead of whom and who is doing what to whom and
who is complaining about this, what does it mean?
Mr. Speaker, it has far-reaching implications for every American
citizen who has a variable rate mortgage; for every American who has a
balance on their credit card; for every American citizen who has a car
loan or the possibility of a car loan in the future. They have a stake
in what is happening here in Washington. Indeed any American citizen
who ever plans to borrow money in the future has a stake in what is
happening, because the effect of the United States defaulting on
interest rates in this country could be very significant indeed.
What about those who are in such good shape that they are going to
benefit from these tax breaks that are being proposed and are not
borrowing money? Well, yes, they, to the extent they pay any taxes,
have a stake in this whole issue of governmental default. If this
occurs, it will be no different than the neighbor or the relative that
each of us knows who abused their credit rating; who ran up big bills
on their charge cards and did not pay them, who perhaps did not pay
them because they lost a job or they went through domestic problems,
and they did not get those bills paid. Now there is a big black mark in
someone's computer against that individual.
Well, the same thing can and has happened to nations in this world.
Ours has never been one of them. We have stood by our obligations in
the past 220-plus years that this Nation has existed. But once we
permit a default to occur and have that on our Nation's credit rating,
every single one of us who pays taxes in this country will be paying
more taxes to cover the higher borrowing costs that this Nation will
incur if we end up with a governmental default.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have very high stakes indeed. Yet, instead of
dealing with this question of default, Members of this House plan to
head back home and leave the matters to work out however they might.
They plan to wait until just a very few days in the last week of
February before default will actually occur to do anything about it and
hope that perhaps in the dead of night they can force over on to the
President's desk some bill with a Christmas tree of goodies for special
interests and those at the top of the economic ladder and force him to
sign that bill. A sorry state of affairs, indeed.
{time} 1545
We also face, along with this question of default, the question of
how the Government will handle its business with reference to the
continuation of governmental operations. We have already had two
governmental shutdowns, cost the American taxpayer a billion and a half
dollars, a billion and a half dollars added to the national deficit,
unless they plan to raise taxes or do something else to cover the cost
of this waste, a billion and a half dollars that should never have been
incurred. And now we have a continuation of the operations of the
Government not through the rest of this fiscal year but only until
March 15.
Who knows that is to occur on March 15? Indeed, that ``who knows what
is to occur'' is really what the problem is, because it is impossible
for many agencies to plan out and operate their functions of Government
and deliver the services that all of us depend on in varying degree, if
they cannot plan for more than a month or 6 weeks at a time.
We have had a kind of hurry-up-and-stop Government since early last
fall, where the personnel at these Federal agencies, the directors at
these agencies do not know whether they are going to be on the job from
1 week or 1 month to the next.
Under the decision of this House last week, that is exactly what we
have now. Let me just give you one example of why that makes a
significant difference to ordinary American working families who are
out there trying to make ends meet and provide enough encouragement to
a child in their family to get them through school, to get them through
high school and get that diploma and have an opportunity to go on for
some type of advanced degree, perhaps go to college, perhaps get a good
technical degree, whatever the choice might be, hopefully to get them
all of the education that they need and can use. What impact does this
hurry-up-and-stop type of Government have on our educational system?
Well, of course, we are dealing with an educational system that is
already facing severe cuts under this Republican budget, a budget made
necessary and cuts in education made necessary because of the desire of
the Republican leadership here in the House, the Speaker, to provide
tax breaks to those at the top of the economic ladder and to give to
the Defense Department not just what it asked for but $7 billion more
than it asked for this year.
With that kind of approach, education already has obstacles, already
has cuts, but what it has now is not the pursuit of knowledge for
American families and American young people but a lack of that
knowledge, the lack of knowledge as to what will happen after March 15,
what will happen for the rest of this year.
We are at that point in the college year, I remember how it affected
my family, when my daughters were looking for those college notices
that are coming out or being issued by colleges and universities around
the country at this time of the year. They sit there and they wait,
after they have spent all the effort, they have sent in the application
fees. They have filled out the applications. They have gotten the
reference letters from teachers and from individuals for whom they have
worked or that have knowledge of their abilities. And they are waiting,
hoping that that envelope will come and will say that they have been
accepted to the college or the university of their choice. But now the
question is not simply did I get in but will I be able to afford to go,
because the effect of the hurry-up-and-stop Newt Gingrich approach to
our Government this year is that the Department of Education is unable
to fulfill its responsibilities to outline what kind of Federal
financial assistance is going to be available for students.
Many financial assistance officers at colleges and universities
across this country, I have talked, for example, with the officer at
the University of Texas in my home town of Austin, with Austin
Community College, which has many students that rely on Federal
financial assistance. They cannot get the information they need to do
their job to provide the student and the student's family the
information they need to know whether that educational assistance is
going to be available. Some students may well have to decide to not go
on and get the education they need because they do not think the
financial assistance will be there.
Those who talk about our future, who talk about relieving debt from
our children in the future, as well we should do, ought to be worried
about the kind of future we will have in America, if we have a future
in which we deny our young people the opportunity to get the education
that they want and can absorb, if they place one obstacle after another
in front of young people in this country. What kind of future is this
country going to have, if we do not have the educated work force to be
able to compete with our economic competitors across the country and
how fulfilling a life will many of these young people have, if they do
not have the opportunity to get the education that they want and
deserve simply because of some kind of political brinkmanship in this
House and in this Congress that believes in hurry-up-and-stop
Government, that refuses to provide the support for education that we
need, the same kind of brinkmanship that risks default in our
obligations come the end of February because someone wants to hijack
and crowbar the President and load on things like the crown jewel of
the contract, rather than tend to business, rather than work and
address the affairs of this country?
[[Page H949]]
Mr. Speaker, I see the gentlewoman from Connecticut has arrived, who
has been such a leader in the effort both for support of education and
to prevent our Nation from having the first default in its history.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.
DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to my colleague,
the gentleman from Texas, for taking this time and for the opportunity
to talk about a rather extraordinary time, I think, in our Nation's
history.
First of all, I do not know that we have seen anything like what has
occurred either in the shutdown of the Federal Government twice in a
row and now trying to, if you will, have Government by increments here
in 2- or 3-month periods at a time, which is incredible in terms of how
anyone can really do business in that kind of way. I have often heard
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we ought to run
this institution like a business. Well, any business that would stop,
start, stop, start is not going to see either their goal or the mission
of that business carried out or not see, quite frankly, their bottom
line grow and increase and provide any kind of profit for that
business.
So I do not know what the purpose, except to try to hold the
President hostage, that all of this activity has and actually, in fact,
the long and the short, you can hold the President hostage, you can
hold the Congress hostage, the long and short of it is the President is
here, the Members of this House and the Senate are here basically to do
public service for the people of this country. It really ties up and
holds up the business that we are about, and that is to provide
services, whether that is education, and clearly education is the key
and the critical opportunity for Americans. It always has been and it
continues to be the way in which this country grows and prospers and
remains competitive. Like my colleague from Texas, I am sure our own
experiences as well as the experiences we want to provide for our own
children, I could not have gone to school without student loans. Anyone
who will try to curtail that opportunity for either a Pell grant or a
student loan or a direct lending program to make it as easy as possible
for working middle-class families today to get their children to school
really does not understand what this country is all about and is out of
touch with the people who have sent them here.
That is what is on the mind of the American public today, an
opportunity to be able to see their young, their children compete for
the future. It only reinforces what people are thinking about today,
and that is that Government is getting in the way of opportunity
instead of trying to foster it.
The commentary that I want to try to make here today is something
that I find to be almost incredible, beyond politics, beyond anything.
I think one of my colleagues last week said that, and I will quote what
this is first and then talk about it, ``abdication of leadership.''
Anyone, anyone on any side of any aisle, Republican, Democrat,
independent, et cetera, who would like to see the U.S. Government
default in paying its bills and jeopardizing the credit rating of the
United States clearly does not belong in a position of any kind of
power. They ought to pack their bags and go home. To take the credit
rating of the United States, after a proud 220-year history of paying
its debts, and to turn around and say that we ought to play chicken
with the country's credit rating, again, does not belong in this body
as far as I am concerned.
Last month we had House Republicans shut down the Government, again,
trying to blackmail the President into signing an extreme agenda. Now
they truly are at it again. The crowd that did bring you the shutdown
is the same crowd that wants to destroy this Nation's credit rating.
Everyone in this country understands credit rating. They know that if
you do not pay your bills, somewhere, somehow there is a mark by your
name. And the next time you go out to purchase, the next time you go
out to try to get a loan if you want to buy a car, if you want to buy
an appliance, whatever you want to buy, if you need to get a loan to
send your kids to school, when that comes up on the computer and it has
that mark, they know that you are a bad credit risk.
What we are doing here is saying, let us turn the United States into
a bad credit risk.
Let me say that 220 years is a long time and much has changed. Quite
honestly, at one time we had an America that was led by Madison and
Jefferson, who got to be known as our Founding Fathers of this great
democracy. Quite honestly, today what we are left with are Gingrich and
Dole, who seem intent on becoming the deadbeat dads of democracy.
What was important in this issue on the credit rating is how the
effect of this credit rating and defaulting on that credit rating has
to do with working middle-class families in this country. I think it is
important to note and for people to know that if we default on paying
our bills, what the effect of that is to working families.
Raising mortgage rates for home owners, that is what it is about,
denying tax refunds to hard-working Americans. We had one of our
colleagues who said that the Republicans are so committed to their
blackmail strategy that they would be willing to allow the Government
to default, even if it means that they will have to delay income tax
refunds next year.
Now, my gosh, that is the kind of thing that people wait for every
single year. It is important for working families to understand that
those interest rates, which will go up, will cause an increase in that
adjustable rate mortgage. It will cause an increase in their loans that
they have taken out, if it is on their cars, if it is on student loans,
if it has to do with any of their credit cards. That is what will
happen. Their interests rates will go sky high.
It is interesting to me that it was last week that the Moody's
investor service warned that it was considering lowering the U.S.
credit rating because of this threat. I think everybody in this Nation
knows what junk bonds are, not worth the paper they are written on, and
what has happened in that market over the last several years.
Well, the moving of this credit rating down by Moody's, they did not
say exactly junk bonds but it would just be just slightly above what
junk bond status is. That means for now, and often people do not
understand how long that stays with you. As your own credit rating
stays with you throughout your lifetime, if the United States' credit
rating is lowered and if we default, that will be, for a future we
cannot even imagine in terms of how the rest of the world will regard
the United Stats in terms of paying its bills.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is in this country for
individuals a whole credit counseling profession; that is, a group of
individuals trained in counseling people about their credit needs. But
there is no credit counselor available for a nation as large as the
United States which for the first time in its history, through various
political shenanigans, would default on its obligations.
{time} 1600
I know the gentlewoman referenced the action of Moody's. The reaction
of one banker to Moody's comment that it would be placing this Nation
on a credit watch, potentially, was the whole notion that U.S. bonds
are on some kind of credit watch is wild. This is the kind of thing
that happens to some companies, not to the United States. It is
embarrassing, and it is embarrassing that a few people who call
themselves leaders would countenance jeopardizing the full faith and
credit of the greatest Nation in the world by doing this kind of thing,
is it not?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, folks can say that those of us who are
speaking here, that we are partisan in some way, and that this is not
accurate, but let me just quote from this. This is a November 9, 1983
quote from the then Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker to the
then Treasury Secretary Donald Regan:
The failure of the Congress to act on the debt ceiling
would in either case create great uncertainty and confusion
in banking and money markets that count on timely payment,
and in individual cases could result in hardship. In addition
to the broader implications for confidence in the
government's credit, a failure to increase the debt limit
would not only create havoc in the payment system because of
the necessary delays that I have outlined, but it would also
undermine confidence at home and abroad in the government's
ability to manage its affairs.
[[Page H950]]
A November 11, 1983 letter from the then Attorney General William
French Smith to the then Republican Senate majority leader Howard
Baker:
It is extremely doubtful that any action to stop issuing
checks or determining payment of benefits conferred by law
would, in these circumstances, be effective to ameliorate,
much less solve, the extraordinary crisis that would be
presented should the Congress not raise the debt ceiling. No
responsible government should place itself in a situation in
which it would default on its obligations. I therefore urge
in the strongest possible way that the Congress act to spare
our citizens from the hardship, the flood of litigation, and
the unprecedented constitutional crisis that would be
threatened by the inability of the United States to meet its
financial obligations.
Mr. Speaker, people who do not understand the import of this, I will
repeat, do not belong in a position of responsibility or a position of
power, and certainly not in a position of leading the United States
Congress.
Mr. DOGGETT. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman referred to
partisanship. There is nothing partisan about the fact that six or
seven prior Secretaries of the U.S. Treasury, Republicans and
Democrats, have basically said, ``Don't do this. This is too important
to play political games. Do what is right for the future of this
country,'' a concern that I know is shared by my colleague, the
gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding
on this point, because I think he has been not only eloquent in making
the presentation day after day, not only has taken a leadership
position on the question of the debt, but he has helped to make a point
very clear.
I would like to reiterate it at this juncture by way of asking a
rhetorical question of the gentleman from Texas, precisely because I
think he has made the case on the face of it for not getting into a
situation in which we attach other elements, attach other items to the
debt limit bill.
Would the gentleman agree it is fair to say that he certainly has
tried to make the case that this debt limit resolution should be dealt
with in and of itself as a consequence of the necessity of dealing
forthrightly with our credit standing?
Mr. DOGGETT. Unequivocally, and then let these credit issues, many of
which are important, some on which you and I agree with our Republican
colleagues on and some we disagree on, let us get those disputes
resolved in the appropriate manner, rather than risk the
creditworthiness of every citizen of this country.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman agree, Mr. Speaker, if he would
be kind enough to yield a bit further to me, would he agree that when
there is an attempt to deal with balancing the Federal budget and
attaching that or some element of that process to the debt limit
process, that we are not only confusing the issues, but in fact, we are
retarding the process?
Specifically what I mean here is that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Gingrich] has stated that the capacity to balance the Federal budget
has failed for this year, and therefore, he wants to make what he terms
a downpayment on this balanced budget, utilizing, utilizing the debt
resolution as the vehicle for this.
My contention would be, and I would be interested in the gentleman's
reflection and observation on it, quite the opposite is the case. The
President, and the gentleman and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms.
DeLauro] have been on this floor with me many times in this special
order process, and I think we would agree, and I think the Record would
reflect, that over and over and over again at that podium and at that
podium on the other side of the aisle the mantra was enunciated: ``Give
us a balanced budget as scored by the Congressional Budget Office in 7
years, to be enacted in the year 2002, and that's the end of it for us.
That is all we want the President to do. That's all we want the
Democratic Party to do, give us a balanced budget in 7 years as
certified by the Congressional Budget Office.''
Now, my understanding is, and I think I can read as well as,
certainly, the Speaker of the House can, I think my academic
credentials are in at least as much order as his, the President did
precisely that. He presented a 7-year balanced budget as certified by
the Congressional Budget Office. The problem was the Speaker did not
like the numbers or how it was achieved, so he moved the goalposts.
Mr. DOGGETT. The problem was, as the gentleman will remember, that
more than anything else, he did not like the fact that the President of
the United States absolutely refused to join him in his determination
to let Medicare wither on the vine. And when the President said, ``No,
I do not want Medicare to wither on the vine,'' as the Speaker had
committed, as Senator Dole, who said he was so proud to have voted
against Medicare when it was created in 1965, then they started talking
about entitlements, and what they really meant was they were entitled
to a crown jewel of tax breaks for those at the top of the economic
ladder. They had to savage Medicare in order to do it. And if they
could not get that, they really kind of lost their interest in a
balanced budget.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So they really did not have the balanced budget in
mind as much as they had the destruction of these programs, the
reduction of these programs, at the very least, which is what they had
in mind. They were upset, the Speaker was upset because the President
managed to do as he was asked by the Republican Party and still balance
the budget in 7 years with the Congressional Budget Office
certification, and save, in the process, the programs for environment,
education, Medicare, and Medicaid, that he said would be his bottom
line. He managed to do that.
Now, the fact that the Speaker is upset that the President actually
accommodated him on what was requested, he is attempting to recoup by
attaching his desires not with respect to a balanced budget, but some
new prospect for a balanced budget that remains beyond me in terms of
how he wants to accomplish it, by attaching it to the debt resolution.
Ms. DeLAURO. Let me just go back a step with the gentleman, because
he has made the point very, very well. I think what we have found in
this process with the rhetoric of a balanced budget, that that in fact
was what it was all about. It was not a balanced budget, but as you
have pointed out and our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, has
pointed out, it was the crown jewel. It is the tax break, in addition
to which the President laid down his 7-year balanced budget under the
economic assumptions that the Republicans called for, and he even
included a modest tax break, for working families.
That is not what the issue is, the issue is how you get to the tax
break for the wealthiest Americans, so it is not a balanced budget, it
is that tax break that was at stake, and in order to pay for that tax
break, where do you go? You turn Medicare into a piggybank, you turn
Medicaid into a piggybank, you decimate education, and you look at the
environment.
Now, having moved the goalpost, as you said, what they have tried to
do is politically to come around the corner, because they have now
backed off a 7-year balanced budget CBO scoring, because the President
met that, so they cannot get out of that box now, and what they are
trying desperately to do is to figure out a political way that they can
try to maneuver. They want to talk about now muddying the water on the
credit rating of the United States by putting this half-baked, if you
will, notion and trying to muddy up the debt limit with this, once
again to try to do something piecemeal that makes no sense at all in
the way of holding up either the Government, or holding up the
appropriations process in order to deal with the budget. You do not
have to do that. You can have your differences on the budget and have
Government move forward. Now they truly are, again, playing political
chicken with the credit rating of the United States with this half-
baked idea.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. On that point, will the gentleman yield one last
time to me?
Mr. DOGGETT. Certainly.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I would like to ask him to comment and make such
observations as he will.
Is it not then the case, keeping in mind what the gentlewoman from
Connecticut just outlined, that fundamentally what they are trying to
do with
[[Page H951]]
the debt limit hike here is attach their tax cut for the wealthy and
tax credits with respect to child care, if that is what they have in
mind, which does not address either the short-term or the long-term
needs with respect to child care, and if anything, is just the down
payment on more indebtedness?
So if we are to deal with the debt limit hike in and of itself, that
is one thing, but if we are to deal with these other issues and attach
it to it, is it not the gentleman's position, as it certainly is mine,
that any attempt to attach a phony tax credit bill or some kind of tax
giveaway is inimical to solving the debt limit problem, and in fact,
will work against the best interests of the United States?
Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely. And I appreciate very much the gentleman's
insight on this issue this afternoon. This is not a time that the
American people are demanding more tax breaks and loopholes in our Tax
Code. They are demanding equity. They would like for us to move
forward.
The President of the United States came here to this very body last
week. He was conciliatory. He asked for a bipartisan effort. He
recognized that neither party has a monopoly on wisdom, and asked us to
work together to solve the problems of this country. But the first
thing he indicated was in doing that, let us not have any more of these
silly crybaby shutdowns of the Government. Let us not threaten the full
faith and credit of this country. And the reaction, as the gentleman
from Hawaii has pointed out, of the Speaker of the House is nothing
short of bizarre.
At a time when the President comes and says, ``Let us work
together,'' and everyone smiles and claps and says, ``Yes, let us do
it,'' and the President says ``Yes, I will agree to a 7-year balanced
budget; we will even let your people calculate the numbers, using your
numbers to get the 7 years,'' and as soon as he does that they begin to
back away from the whole notion of a balanced budget and saying, ``We
want not a balanced budget; what we have in mind, instead of bringing
the deficit down, is to have a downpayment.''
What kind of a downpayment is it that they propose? A key element of
this downpayment is not bringing the budget deficit down, but
increasing it by having an election year, or election eve, actually,
tax break announced. I know that is troubling to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut as well.
Ms. DeLAURO. It is, and I would just say, Mr. Speaker, it is very,
very interesting, that to add this piece to the debt limit, because the
fact of the matter is that if we default on an adjustable rate
mortgage, that could go up around $1,200 to a family. We are talking
about $125, as an election eve tax break for people, and it is mindless
when you think about it in terms of a $1,200 potential increase on your
mortgage payment if this country goes into default. So that it is one
more of a political posturing once again to try to blackmail the
President, to blackmail the Congress.
I concur with my colleague, that the President was here last week and
talked about a spirit of coming together, of looking at ways in which
we could work together on some of these issues for the good of the
country. We have the continual mantra, as our colleague, the gentleman
from Hawaii, said, that says, ``No, we do not want to do that.''
What is also interesting to me is it is a very explicit strategy,
this is not being hidden or covered up, where there are a number of
Members on the other side who are just saying, ``Yes, what we want to
do is to use this as leverage, to use it as blackmail, to use it to get
the President to move.'' To move on what are we talking about now,
because the President in fact laid down a 7-year balanced budget
certified by the Congressional Budget Office. So in fact, the debate
has ended. It is not the numbers. It does come down to what my
colleague was talking about earlier, the values of this Nation, the
priorities; what are the things that we do hold dear, what are the
areas in which we want to build on?
That has to do with a dignified retirement for people who have worked
hard all of their lives, played by the rules, and they are deserving.
They have paid a price. They have paid all these years. What about
education, allowing people to be able to get the skills training they
need to go to college, to get their kids to college, to be able to know
that if they do have to leave a job, they can get the kinds of skill
training that is important for them to succeed to grow the economy; to
make sure that people have wage increases and a raise at the end of
that year.
Those are the issues and the things that people are concerned about.
Government today is turning its back on people and not understanding
that those are the directions that we ought to be going in, and not
playing these silly games that people are trying to play to shut down
the Government, to have the United States default on its credit limit.
{time} 1615
The public is deeply concerned about their future and what it is all
about. Working men and women are frightened to death that they are not
going to be able to give their kids, or the kids are not going to have
the same opportunities that they had. That is what we need to be
talking about today.
Mr. DOGGETT. Surely in a Nation as great as these United States, we
ought to be able to achieve the objectives that the gentlewoman has so
eloquently described to protect the retirement security and the health
care security of those who have served our country and been our strong
citizens and to provide opportunity to our younger citizens so that
they might have an even better tomorrow. That is what is being dashed
in this budget debate in order to give more tax breaks and loopholes to
those at the top of the economic ladder; it is to sacrifice the great
American middle class, and those struggling to get into it, that these
budget priorities are providing.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman referred a few months ago to this whole
question of leadership and the fact that the leaders ought to get out
of the way of, really, the will of this body. I know the gentlewoman is
acquainted with a number of Republican Members of this body who would
like to be responsible. In fact, I think if tomorrow morning, when we
come in here, we had a provision to make the adjustment in the debt
limit in order to assure the full faith and credit of this country, and
we did not have Speaker Gingrich twisting arms and the whip whipping
them over there and threatening not to show up at fundraisers and doing
all of the other silly things that have occurred over the last few
months, there are Republican Members of this body who would join with a
near-unanimous Democratic caucus, and tomorrow morning, we would not
risk the full faith and credit of this country; we would protect it
with a bipartisan vote.
But we cannot seem to get the leaders out of the way. The leaders
continue to block and obstruct and pressure and cajole their caucus to
avoid dealing with this problem until we get right up to the cliff and
are almost ready to be pushed over by this kind of kamikaze mentality,
that we can risk anything in order to accomplish political objectives.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I went over to the veterans hospital in my
community to say thank you to the people who worked there during the
shutdown, at the outset not knowing whether or not they are going to
get paid. A young woman there was very eloquent. She said, this is not
a game.
There are some people and the leadership in this House and some who
are an extreme, self-styled, revolutionary band who view this as a
game. She said, this is not a game. People's lives are at stake.
People's livelihoods are at stake. She said, please carry that message
back. She summed it up.
The public is very aware of what is at stake. It is not a zero-sum
game. If you do not like things, you just do not pick up the ball and
go home. That is not what this is about. That is not what we are sent
here to do.
We have an obligation to lead and to negotiate and to make
compromises sometimes and talk together so you further the agenda of
the American people. I said at the outset, in my view, I think we do
have an abdication of leadership here at the moment. I was reading in
the newspapers over the weekend that I think a number of the Republican
freshmen had a retreat and there were some ideologues who went to
address them and who said to them, do not compromise. Do not back down.
Continue to fight.
[[Page H952]]
No balanced budget, no dealing with the credit rating of the United
States. Hold the President hostage. Keep doing this.
I am hopeful that these folks were not listened to, that we can in
the next several weeks, though we are not going to be in session, which
is unbelievable, that the Republican majority would send Members home
when it is not clear what is going to happen, dealing with the credit
rating of the United States in the short term here.
I was hoping that people would come back with a kind of a zeal and an
effort to try to see if we can continue the dialog and the conversation
and bridge the gap and move forward. I think the gentleman would agree
that that is what we are sent here to try to do.
Mr. DOGGETT. Sometimes you get the impression that it is almost un-
American to work toward common ground, to try to resolve differences,
to have some give and take, to realize that there is no party that has
a monopoly on truth. There are insights we both have to offer, and that
we could work together surely to protect the full faith and credit of
the United States.
Surely, as is the case with your veterans, workers there in
Connecticut, I had the same experience in Austin, TX. Some of our
Veterans' Administration employees were there working without pay;
others, denied the opportunity to work, were actually in the process
back in December of developing a food bank, not for people outside of
the Veterans' Administration, but just so there would be food at
Christmastime and before Christmastime for those who serve the men and
women who risk all in order to protect this country.
The whole notion that we could be here even today debating whether or
not we would risk the full faith and credit of the United States about
whether or not people that serve our veterans, whether it is in
Connecticut or in Texas or anywhere else, might be facing another
situation where they are worried about having a food bank instead of
serving our veterans, would be, you know, it would--it just sounded
like another crackpot idea. But now crackpotism seems to be in up here.
Ms. DeLAURO. It is in vogue up here. It is very simple to take a look
at this debt limit. We need to just say to people that to substitute
credit rating, debt limit, debt ceiling, just put that out of your mind
or understand it as credit rating. All that is being asked for here is,
please, send the President a clean bill with no whistles and bells on
it or anything else, so that we can really stay with the full faith and
credit, maintain that full faith and credit of the United States,
maintain that to the rest of the world, to the bond markets here, to
the citizens, the working, middle-class families every day who do not
want to see their mortgage rates or their car payments or their credit
card bills go up. That is not what they want.
When the public sometimes observes the process here, I know I get and
I am sure the gentleman gets in his district, people say, well, why do
you keep attaching this to a bill or that to a bill? Why can you not
just say or do what you are going to do?
This is exactly what this situation is about. This is to try to turn
this borrowing authority bill into a Christmas tree, to put all kinds
of things on it for whatever political motivations are out there, which
we have talked about. But the argument is simple; I know that the
gentleman shares this sentiment with me.
I really plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and
there are some who are there already, to say, make this a clean piece
of legislation, do not dress it up, dress it down, put all kinds of
things on it that ultimately turn it into something else and put in
jeopardy the credit rating of the United States. It is a very simple
argument, as I think the gentleman would agree. It is an easy one to
understand, I think, by the public, and they are going to understand
it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I think they are. I know that in my hometown of
Austin, TX, the newspaper editorialized just within the last week under
the title, ``House Republicans Get Burned.'' They said,
``Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, like
hardheaded children, had to learn the hard way this week that
there are serious consequences for serious misbehavior. They
have been playing with fire for months now, threatening to
allow the Nation to go into default in order to accomplish
political objections.
This week they danced too close to the flames and got
burned by refusing to compromise with President Clinton on a
temporary extension of the country's debt limit. The House
Republicans placed the Credit of the entire country in
jeopardy.
``It is foolish,'' this newspaper says,
In the extreme, for a small group of representatives with
only a year in office to threaten financial default as a
political strategy. That gambit had ``loser'' written all
over it since last fall, but new Members, so blinded by
narrow ideology, just could not see it.
It seems to me that comment from deep in the heart of Texas is
exactly the kind of viewpoint that you are hearing from your neighbors
up in New England.
Ms. DeLAURO. Just to say, it is Texas, it is Connecticut, this is an
editorial from the Hartford Courant from the end of last week:
There they go again. Congressional leaders have a penchant
for irresponsible comments about the ongoing budget crisis.
Recently House Speaker Newt Gingrich's remarks that there
probably would not be a budget agreement until after the
November election caused the stock market to plunge by almost
100 points.
Now House majority leader Dick Armey is demanding,''
``substantial budget concessions from President Clinton if
the House is to raise the Federal debt ceiling so that the
government can pay its creditors.''
It goes on, for example, the comment here is that
The stakes are high. If the government defaults on some of
its bonds, investors, including both Americans and
foreigners, will demand much higher interest rates to
compensate for increased risk. Such an event could trigger
runaway inflation. All investors' holdings would lost value,
which would mean financial devastation from Wall Street to
Main Street. If you keep it up, Mr. Armey, everyone will get
burned. You are playing with fire.
I mean in Texas, in Connecticut; I have to believe that this kind of
editorial is being written all across this Nation.
I have been talking to mayors and first selectmen and women in my
community. I am sure the gentleman is doing the same. Towns, cities
issue bonds, school bonds, all kinds of bonds, municipal bonds. They
are worried.
I would just ask the gentleman about his localities, if they are
concerned about this default and what it means in terms of what our
States and cities are going to face with this.
Mr. DOGGETT. Well, certainly they are concerned about the impact, and
particularly as responsible officials, they would be run out of town
with the accountants defaulting on the local obligations of the school
district or the city or the county hospital or the like. The very
notion that just because the U.S. Government is bigger and the egos of
some of the people involved in it are bigger still, that we could
countenance the default on our obligations, it mystifies most of the
people that I visit with.
The Hartford editorial to which you referred seems to me to imply
something else that is very significant, that while we have until
perhaps March 1, the estimated time of actual default, that given all
of the world pressures, the way people in Japan that hold our debt or
in some other part of the world get skittish about a rumor they hear,
we do not know from one day to the next what the consequence of this
political irresponsibility might be, but we do know it is not going to
be good.
Ms. DeLAURO. Just that point again which I made earlier, and I think
my colleague would agree, we have heard over and over and over in this
body that we ought to run the U.S. Government as a business; and that
was an argument for balancing the budget that everybody does this, we
have to do it, we have to put it on a business footing.
How can a business, any business, make good business decisions, one,
as I said, if you are opening and closing or opening some directions or
initiatives in your business over a 6-week period or over an 8-week
period, and then you shut it down. Who has confidence in any business
that does not know what direction it is going to go in, whether or not
it is going to shut down; or the long and the short of it, whether or
not it is every going to pay the financial obligations that it incurs?
What kind of a business is that? You would be out of business in a
second. Nor would you give any credit to that business.
We have small businesses going to get capital every single day. They
try to get loans from banks. Can you imagine? Can you imagine what that
means
[[Page H953]]
if you have a record that shows you stop, you start, you let some
people go home, you do not know where you want to go in the future,
that you not pay your bills?
{time} 1630
My God. The bank will say, ``What kind of a risk is that? We're not
going to deal with this individual.''
Mr. DOGGETT. And how truly ironic that this is happening at a time
when Vice President Gore has done such a wonderful job with the
reinventing Government initiative, when this administration has
actually brought down the size of the Federal work force, when we have
some really creative efforts underway to try to ensure that the
American taxpayer gets a full dollar's worth from Government, that
Government works more efficiently, that we search out those departments
that are not doing their job and change things there. Instead of
working to see that our Government that is essential works better, we
end up with this hurry up and stop kind of government that cannot help
but destroy employee morale, make for greater inefficiency.
I am sure that your office, like mine, is frequently involved with
working with citizens that have a problem on a Social Security check or
a veteran's benefit or a problem with some other Federal agency where
we are trying to assist the citizen in working with their Government,
and it is difficult to get timely responses for citizens from agencies
that are closed one day and starting up the next and not knowing
whether they are going to be there the following month.
Ms. DeLAURO. That is precisely it, because people are almost--I find
this, I know you do--losing confidence in what Government is about.
That is the tragedy of all of this, when you can have a conversation
about a role of Government and what role that it does play, but every
single day that these kinds of things occur here, there is less and
less confidence in what the Government is able to do, and in terms of
trying to assist people to do what they want to do, not to do it for
them. That is not what it is about, but to assist people, whether it
is, as I said, in retirement or education.
One of the other pieces of this, which I do not know if it was
mentioned in this discussion, is that come March 1 there are billions
of dollars in Social Security payments that are supposed to go out,
veterans' benefits, including the payments to our young men and women
who are serving in Bosnia. If the Government defaults, as the current
strategy is, none of those payments will go out.
Mr. DOGGETT. The gentlewoman will remember that in December we got
within hours of a delay or stoppage in benefits for our veterans, and
only because the gentlewoman and others of us took to the floor to
emphasize the disaster that would occur if this shutdown continued were
we able to get legislation enacted within less than a day of the time
that, had it not been enacted, those benefits would not have been there
when the people needed them.
Ms. DeLAURO. I would just like to thank my colleague for taking this
time to have us have a conversation and discussion. I think once again
it comes down to why people do send us here, why they put their faith
and their trust in all of us. They give us a tremendous amount of
responsibility and of power and of leeway to work on their behalf.
I think that it is this kind of abdication of leadership by the
Republican majority in this House and the Gingrich leadership that
makes people feel that why should they bother, why should they
participate in Government, why should they trust a Government that will
be willing to put them in economic difficulty, jeopardize them and
their families. That is not what this is all about. But what the
Gingrich leadership in this House wants to do is precisely that, is to
put the United States in jeopardy as Nation but, more importantly, to
put the people of this country and their families in economic harm.
Mr. DOGGETT. Very well put. I thank the gentlewoman for
participating. Let us address the question of this Nation's
creditworthiness this week and not jeopardize it further.
____________________