[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1182-H1185]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--KEEPING THE HOUSE IN SESSION TO CONSIDER BILL
REGARDING DEBT CEILING TO AVOID DEFAULT OF FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE
UNITED STATES
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged
resolution (H. Res. 354) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 354
Whereas the inability of the House to pass a bill to raise
the public debt limit will cause the Federal Government to
default on its obligations and affect the dignity and
integrity of House proceedings; and
Whereas the inability of the House to pass a bill to raise
the public debt limit will cause severe hardship on Federal
employees, Federal contractors, and the American people and
cause millions of American citizens to hold the House in
disrepute: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution, the
Speaker of the House shall take such action to keep the House
in session until the House considers a clean bill regarding
the debt ceiling to avoid default of the full faith and
credit of the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). This question is
similar to questions previously raised, and, as indicated on page 321
of the manual, debate on questions of order is for the information of
the Chair, and is thus within his discretion.
{time} 1715
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on
the privileged resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Chair will
hear from the gentlewoman from Texas, and one other Member who would
care to speak on the matter, and from two Members from the other side,
if that should be the case, or whether the resolution constitutes a
question of privilege.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would ask your indulgence.
This question is a weighty question. Several Members have asked
permission to speak on the privileged resolution because it is quite
distinct from the previous one in that it asks that we not recess in
order to work on this matter. I would ask the Speaker's indulgence on
adding at least another Member to speak on each side. I would
[[Page H1183]]
appreciate the Speaker's indulgence on that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Inasmuch as a line has been pretty well
determined because of the prior resolution, and the similarity of this
resolution, it would be the hope of the Chair that he could limit
discussion on the procedural question to the two Members per side.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, who made that determination that the
debate on this privileged resolution would be limited?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the Chair's discretion as indicated on
page 321 of the manual.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, although appreciating the
ruling, I disagree and believe that this is, in fact, singular and
distinct.
Mr. Speaker, rule IX, section 1 in particular, speaks to questions of
privilege affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety,
dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.
But second, Mr. Speaker, it talks about affecting the rights,
reputation and conduct of Members individually. And, therefore, we can
see in that rule that there may be actions taken collectively by this
body that would put this House in ill repute in the eyes of its
constituents, in the eyes of other Members, and in the eyes
collectively, of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I would affirm that recessing this House in light of the
failure of the leader's privileged resolution to pass a clean debt
ceiling will befall upon this House in the eyes of the American people
a reputation that we would not be proud of. The House of
Representatives will be held in disrepute by world leaders,
international financial institutions, and most importantly the citizens
of this country, if it does not pass a bill relating to the debt
ceiling.
Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that this is a grave matter, and in
many ways affects the dignity and integrity of these House proceedings.
The Secretary of the Treasury has stated that the Federal Government
will be in default of its financial obligations if the debt ceiling
limit is not raised and a $5.8 billion interest payment made very soon.
In accordance with the responsibilities of his office, Secretary
Rubin has already sent a letter on January 22, 1996, to the
congressional leadership stating under the current conditions the U.S.
Treasury will no longer be able to fulfill all of its financial
obligations.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we have been on notice and we are on notice
that actions by this body would put it in disrepute and have it viewed
as not performing its responsibilities.
As we are aware, Mr. Speaker, the financial reputation of an
organization is based solely upon the financial history it has
established. Mr. Speaker, it has been an undeniable fact that this
House was given 38 days of notice of the impending financial dilemma.
If this body fails to pass a bill, which we have already done so by
rejecting the leader's privileged resolution, then we would not be in
good standing.
May I remind the Speaker that rule IX of the House states questions
of privilege go to the dignity and reputation of this House.
Mr. Speaker, might I also say that, if on February 26, when we have
the obligation of sending out to millions of Americans Social Security
checks, I can tell my colleagues that if those checks go out with no
clean debt ceiling, they will bounce. If that is not a blight on the
integrity of this House, then I do not know what is.
Mr. Speaker, if I may personally say, having had the privilege of
going to Bosnia, visiting with the people of those nations, Bosnia, the
former Yugoslavia and Croatia, when making a very weighty decision by
this body as to whether we would go in as peacekeeping troops in this
effort, I had the privilege of talking to the men and women who are now
serving in Bosnia. The only thing they asked of us is: Will the
American people be with us?
Mr. Speaker, here we stand on the House floor about to recess and go
home and jeopardize the opportunity and the responsibility to pay those
military personnel by March 1. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have come
to a point legitimately under rule IX that we must stand up because we
provide a harm to the American people. That harm is the inability to
pay Social Security; the inability to pay veterans' benefits; the
inability to pay our military personnel; and, yes, the disrepute that
will fall upon this House and this Nation when it is not able to pay
its responsibilities and uphold the full faith and credit of this
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we not recess and we stand with the
American people. Do not bring a lack of dignity on this House on the
American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the question of privilege?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the question of
privilege.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The folks who brought two Government
shutdowns are now threatening to bring our Nation to the brink of
default one more time. They are doing this in one more attempt to force
their extreme agenda on the American people.
That is right, once again the Gingrich Republicans have the Nation
teetering on the edge of crisis, and instead of working to avoid
disaster, the Speaker and his gang want to leave town this weekend.
My colleagues heard me. They want to leave the Nation's full faith
and credit, as well as the fate of millions of Social Security and
veterans' beneficiaries, hanging by a thread until Congress reconvenes
3 weeks from now.
Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the gentlewoman to
confine her remarks to the question of privilege.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, that is right. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask why the motion to adjourn is a privilege and the resolution to
prevent adjournment is not a privilege. I would suggest that we be able
to speak on either side of adjourning or not adjourning, equally. And I
would hope that I could then have another Member of our caucus speak to
this same issue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Has the gentlewoman completed her statement?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why, if the motion to
adjourn is a privilege, that the motion not to adjourn is not the same
privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Are there other Members who wish to speak to
the matter?
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for me to refer to
the next bill on Social Security that will come up, but I will advise
my colleagues to look at it after we finish.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to argue briefly that the resolution does not
constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
As recently as 4:50 p.m. today, a few minutes ago, the Chair rules
against a resolution purporting to raise a question of privilege, on
the grounds that it effected a change in House rules by providing for
passage of a specified bill.
The resolution before us is only a slight modification of the
previous resolution, by requiring the Speaker to take action to keep
the House in session until the House considers certain legislation. As
such, the resolution attempts to change House rules by altering the
duties of the Speaker as specified in House rule number I.
Presumably, the Speaker would even be required to not recognize
anyone who offered a constitutionally privileged motion to adjourn.
This is not only changing House rules, but it actually violates the
Constitution of the United States. I would, therefore, urge the Chair
to rule against the resolution in conformity with the Chair's previous
rulings and House precedents, and I would urge the Speaker to rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, the resolution is obviously a resolution of
the same nature as those that have been ruled on previously by Speakers
extending back for several decades.
The cause being brought by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] is under rule IX. This is obviously
[[Page H1184]]
not a question of privilege under the provisions of rule IX, and so,
therefore, I request that the Chair rule against this matter as a
question of privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that there is probably a
rule in the rule book for anything trying to obstruct what we are
trying to do over here?
Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order. That is ridiculous.
Ms. McKINNEY. Is that not true, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
The Chair is prepared to rule on this matter. The resolution offered
by the gentlewoman from Texas alleges that the failure of the House to
take a specified legislative action impairs its dignity and the
integrity of its proceeding and lowers it in public esteem. On that
premise, it resolves that the Speaker keep the House in session until
it considers a pertinent legislative measure.
The resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, like those
offered on February 7, and December 22, 1995, and on January 3 and
January 24, 1996, and earlier today, attempts to advance a legislative
proposition as a question of the privileges of the House.
For the reasons just stated by the Chair when ruling that the
resolution offered by the gentleman from Missouri did not constitute a
question of privileges of the House, the Chair holds that the
resolution offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] does
not affect the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity,
or the integrity of its proceedings within the meaning of clause 1 of
rule IX. Rather, it proposes to impose a particular legislative
schedule on the House, precluding an adjournment of the House until a
specified legislative measure is considered, as an antidote for the
alleged disrepute of previous inaction.
Therefore, the resolution does not constitute a question of privilege
under rule IX.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, because I believe that we
should not recess but should work, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling of
the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to lay on the table the appeal of
the ruling of the Chair.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 181, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 27]
YEAS--229
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--181
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--23
Baker (LA)
Becerra
Bryant (TX)
Callahan
Chapman
Condit
Filner
Green
Hobson
Johnson (SD)
Kasich
Kleczka
Kolbe
Lewis (CA)
Manton
Meyers
Packard
Radanovich
Rose
Sanders
Seastrand
Spence
Stockman
{time} 1746
So the motion to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the
Chair was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter that
involves a question of privileges of the House. Mr. Speaker, I affirm
that the U.S. House of Representatives will be held in disrepute by
world leaders, international financial institutions, and most
importantly, the citizens of this country, if it does not pass a bill
relating to the debt ceiling. It is my contention that this is a grave
matter that in many ways affects the dignity and integrity of the House
proceedings and I am more than able to prove this point unequivocably.
[[Page H1185]]
The Secretary of the Treasury has stated that the Federal Government
will be in default of its financial obligations if the debt ceiling
limit is not raised and a $5.8 billion interest payment made very soon.
In accordance with the responsibilities of his office, Secretary Rubin
sent a letter on January 22, 1996, to the congressional leadership
stating that under the current conditions, the U.S. Treasury will no
longer be able to fulfill all of its financial obligations very soon.
Throughout our country's history, investors have relied upon the
words ``the full faith credit of the United States'' to guarantee the
financial stability of this country. As you are fully aware, the
financial reputation of an organization is based solely upon the
financial history it has established. Mr. Speaker, it is an undeniable
fact that this House was given 38 days notice of the impending
financial dilemma and if this body fails to consider a bill regarding
the debt ceiling and the impending debt payment not made on time, then
the standing of the House will indeed be harmed.
May I remind the Speaker that Rule IX of the House rules states that
questions of privilege are those which affect the rights of the House
collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its
proceedings. As specified in the dictionary, the word dignity relates
to ``The quality or condition of being worthy,'' as well as ``The
respect and honor associated with an important position.''
Hence, this body's decision not to address the debt limit problem
will put into question, in the eyes of our creditors and our
constituents, the reputation and fiscal integrity of this collective
House. As evidence, it was announced last week by Moody's Investors
Service that it is considering lowering the credit rating of the U.S.
Treasury bonds for the first time in history. Under Rule IX of the
House rules, this series of events and their repercussions would
certainly cause our creditors, constituents, and international partners
to hold this House responsible.
In addition to the irreparable damage that will be suffered, by the
House, great harm will be done to millions of innocent American lives,
young and old alike. The U.S. Government must make a $30 million
payment to Social Security or these beneficiaries, dependent upon their
monthly stipend for food, heat, and medicine, will be left without
funds to meet these basic necessities of life. Also, 2.2 million
veterans with service-connected disabilities and 300,000 survivors of
veterans may receive for the first time in history bad checks
effectively written by every Member of the House.
Mr. Speaker, there is significant concern by many economists that our
economy is headed for a recession, and any default caused by our
inaction will certainly drive us to it. The default of this Government
will create uncertainly and anxiety in the financial, business, and
consumer markets; as a result, investments will slow, capitol spending
will wither, and consumer confidence will die. The reactions will only
exacerbate any recession tendencies within the economy, propelling the
United States into an economic dive, no one wishes. Taken together with
the additional effects already mentioned, it is plainly evident that
this crisis affects the very financial underpinning of our country.
The American people will be severely affected by any inability of
this body to bring forth legislation to increase the debt ceiling. I
contend that as a result, they will hold us, collectively and
individually, responsible for their needless suffering and trauma. If
that occurs, the reputation and conduct of each of us, in our
representative capacity, will be called into question. Under rule IX,
this too would be sufficient justification for my privileged
resolution.
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has nearly exhausted all other
measures to avoid a Government default. This resolution must be
considered privileged because the reputation of the House is at stake.
American citizens are tired of the partisan wrangling that has echoed
through these halls. They want the Government to fulfill its
responsibilities and meet its obligations, just as they must. With
complete certainty, the U.S. House of Representatives will be held
responsible and the integrity of everything that we do here will be
questioned for our failure to consider a bill relating to the debt
ceiling.
The House has voted to rise or extend the debt limit 33 times over
the last 15 years to keep intact the good will, dignity and reputation
of the U.S. Government and more specifically, this House; I do not see
why we should now shirk the obligations we accepted upon our oath of
office. We should not recess at this time, when America needs us to
work to avoid a default on our debt.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution
not to adjourn until a debt limit extension has been approved--and yet
I believe the resolution does not go far enough. I regret that we are
even having to consider a debt limit extension--rather than a balanced
budget proposal or, at the very least, the remaining appropriations
bills that should have been approved 4 months ago. I regret that this
Congress plans to adjourn for a 3-week break when we have so much work
left to do.
Mr. Speaker, we should not go home until all the appropriations bills
have been passed and approved by the President. We should not go home
until this Congress produces a balanced budget proposal that can be
supported by both parties and by the President. A majority of Americans
want a balanced budget--a budget that makes the most use of their tax
dollars and a budget that also is kind and fair to our seniors, our
children, and our less fortunate citizens.
Throughout the past year, Congress has had a golden opportunity to
streamline Government, enact some needed reforms, and produce a
balanced budget. But the shifting sands of time and politics have
eroded that opportunity, and we are losing ground fast.
Let us not let another opportunity pass to discharge our
responsibility to our fellow citizens. Let's stay and work until we've
accomplished our Nation's important business.
____________________