[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.

                          ____________________