[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.

                          ____________________