Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. That stigma of a bad credit rating has stayed with their family and prevented them from borrowing, when they had necessities that they needed for their family, for years. Does the gentlewoman have any idea of how long, if the Gingrich leadership forces a default for the first time in 220 years, how long it will affect the Nation to have its credit rating suddenly go below junk bonds and how much that will cost taxpayers for generations to come?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, last evening we had another reminder that democracy is alive and well in this great country. Yes, on national television Speaker Gingrich conceded that his effort to dismantle Medicare this year, in his words, let it wither on the vine, has failed. That failure results directly from the voice of the American people, those who spoke out, those who wrote, those who demanded that their elected Members in Congress be accountable for protecting one of the most effective programs in American history, Medicare, which assures the security for health care of millions of older Americans and people with disabilities. I commend the Speaker. Even though he pledged to try again to dismantle Medicare next year, he has finally yielded to the voice of the American people. But I disagree with him on this. Mr. Speaker, we cannot walk away from our commitment to a balanced budget. We do not need a minimal down payment on the deficit. We need to bring the deficit down just as the last speaker said. And we can do that without bringing Medicare down with it. That is what the American people want. Protect Medicare, assure a balanced budget. We can deliver on that.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT. I would ask the gentlewoman, is the thrust of this rule to give even more power to a Speaker who already has extraordinary power?

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman would yield further, this rule is for a bill that we do not have.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do. I think there are only one or two other speakers that would ask to be heard on this.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this motion raises most directly a question of privileges of the House. True, the particulars of this motion concern the credit worthiness of the United States, something in which every American has a stake, particularly those with a variable mortgage, a car loan, a credit card balance, or whoever want to take out alone. But, Mr. Speaker, what could more directly jeopardize the integrity of our proceedings here in the House of Representatives than misconduct, than tampering with the fiscal integrity of the United States? Those who say we can live with financial anarchy would imperil both the dignity of this House and the hopes of millions of Americans for economic dignity. Indicative of this threat to the integrity of the House is the warning against a politically motivated default by six former Treasury secretaries, both Republicans and Democrats, who have expressed in their words their profound concern about the threat of default. The very idea that Uncle Sam would tell anyone who holds a Treasury bill or a Treasury bond, sorry, we do not want to pay, is not revolutionary, it is simply lunacy. The full faith and credit of the United States is not anything to be trifled with. If there are Members of this body who are willing to mess up the credit rating of the United States, let them mess up their own credit rating, not that of the American people who they are sworn to serve. When the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. Rubin, assures us that default is upon us, when he is compelled to undertake extraordinary measures to defer temporarily that default and only faces in return the threat of impeachment in this House, the dignity of this House is jeopardized. When we hear a declaration that ``I do not care if we have no executive offices and no bonds for 60 days, not this time,'' the financial integrity of our country and the integrity and esteem with which the public holds this House is severely jeopardized. I refer, of course, to the words of the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. This motion and an ability to take up a clean resolution to adjust the debt limit before we run into financial ruin later this month would do something to undo the damage that has already occurred.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer a resolution which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] and I noticed pursuant to rule IX yesterday.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, neither political party has a monopoly on truth. We need to work together, as President Clinton urged last night, to find some common ground about the problems that this Nation faces. There is not any good reason why we cannot put the fanaticism of this Gingrich-led Congress behind us. Enough of the temper tantrums; enough of the Government shutdowns that waste taxpayer money; enough of the threats to reject the full faith and credit of the United States of America. The time to start anew is today, working together, to address this question of the adjustment of the debt limit. We cannot afford to have the first default in the next month in the history of this Nation. Six former Treasury Secretaries, Republicans and Democrats alike, have come together to urge us to address this debt limit issue. We ought to do it today. It is the same kind of bipartisan support we need from our House colleagues to address this very serious matter. Every single American who has got a credit card loan balance, who has a variable mortgage, who might ever want to take out a loan, had a stake in our protecting the credit of this country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause (2)(a)(1) of rule XI, I give notice of my intention to offer a resolution on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Houston, TX [Mr. Bentsen], who is at the mike and who joins me today. Mr. Speaker, this would be a resolution that raises a question of the privileges of the House and the form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, the inability of the House to pass an adjustment in the public debt limit unburdened by the unrelated political agenda of either party, an adjustment to maintain the creditworthiness of the United States and to avoid disruption of interest rates and the financial markets, brings dsicredit upon the House; Whereas, the inability of the House to pass a clean resolution to continue normal governmental operations so as to end the abuse of American citizens and their hard-earned dollars, Federal employees, private businesses who perform work for the Federal government, and those who rely upon Federal services as a bargaining tactic to gain political advantage in the budget negotiations, brings discredit upon the House; Whereas, previous inaction of the House has already cost the American taxpayer about $1.5 billion in wasteful governmental shutdown costs, reduced the productivity and responsiveness of federal agencies and caused untold human suffering; Whereas, the failure of the House of Representatives to adjust the federal debt limit and keep the nation from default or to act on legislation to avert another government shutdown impairs the dignity of the House, the integrity of its proceedings and the esteem the public holds for the House; Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the enrolling clerk of the House of Representatives shall prepare an engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2862, and the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 157. The vote by which this resolution is adopted by the House shall be deemed to have been a vote in favor of such bill and a vote in favor of such joint resolution upon final passage in the House of Representatives. Upon engrossment of the bill and the joint resolution, each shall be deemed to have passed the House of Representatives and been duly certified and examined; the engrossed copies shall be signed by the Clerk and transmitted to the Senate for further legislative action; and (upon final passage by both Houses) the bill and the joint resolution shall be signed by the presiding officers of both Houses and presented to the President for his signature (and otherwise treated for all purposes) in the manner provided for bills and joint resolution generally.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we thank you and we stand ready to proceed upon proper notice.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if word were out this afternoon that a governmental official had wasted $150,000 of taxpayer money to further a political agenda, someone would surely be here denouncing it, and if the figure were instead $1.5 million, I am sure the line of speakers would be rather long. Were it $150 million of wasted taxpayer money, there would be bills and resolutions filed and other extraordinary action. But what we are dealing with this afternoon is not $150,000 or $150 million, but $1.5 billion of the greatest waste of taxpayer money in the history of these United States. That is the cost of the two Gingrich government shutdowns, $1.5 billion totally wasted, frivolously, to further a political agenda, and, in the word of the sponsor of this action, to pressure another political official into doing what they want; $1.5 billion. In all these budget negotiations, I have never seen a line item that should be there; $1.5 billion Gingrich government wasteful spending for shutting down the Government. Are they going to take that out of Medicare or just add it to the Government deficit?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in defense of the freshmen House Republicans. They have been unfairly maligned. Blaming them for this Government shutdown is like blaming the followers of the Pied Piper for being mesmerized by him. They voted with Speaker Gingrich 92.3 percent of the time in 1995. Marching in lockstep with him is the only step that they know. No, we should give credit where credit is due. Speaker Gingrich is individually as responsible for this shutdown as he was for the cry-baby shutdown in November. He could end personally this shutdown in 15 minutes this morning if he would simply put Republican Bob Dole's resolution here for a vote. Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be bipartisan support for it from almost every member of the Democratic caucus and some of the Republicans, but instead of letting people of moderation, of good will, work together to end this shutdown and the $40 million a day that it costs the American taxpayer, they are asking that the Speaker be given extraordinary power to recess this body until January 23. That is simply fanaticism run amok in this body.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if this afternoon our Republican colleagues were to pile up next to the Capitol dome 1 billion $1 bills and set them afire, they would have accomplished the same thing they have with two stunts closing down the Government: The ``cry baby'' stunt that closed it down in November and now another one that costs us $40 million of taxpayer money a day for absolutely nothing, nothing more than burning those 1 billion $1 bills. But if you came to Washington hoping to see our national cemetery, hoping as a group from the Lockerbie victims yesterday to lay some flowers in Arlington Cemetery next to the victims, you would find it slammed shut, exactly like our veterans are going to find their checks slammed shut and not present when January comes around, like millions of children across this country will not find the money there to buy the food they need, because of the irresponsible act of shutting this Government down and making the taxpayers pay for this foolishness. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous for these people to sneak away this afternoon instead of standing here and doing their job for the American people.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The supporters of this measure refer to it as standby authority. That is the whole problem. They have been standing by while we have a governmental crisis here that affects all of America. It should be better termed a take- our-marbles-and-go-home approach, because rather than staying here and doing the job, they propose to go home and, as the sponsor said, interact with their constituents. Well, perhaps there needs to be a little more interaction right here on the floor of Congress rather than attempting to confuse an adjournment and a recess. This is an attempt to do the very same thing that our Republican colleagues did back in November when we as Democrats stayed here and worked and saved the people of America money by being here, ready to work, when something was finally resolved. If there has been any recess here, it is a recess from reality, because surely, anyone who looks at what is happening every day in America has got to feel that something has occurred here that is a recess from reality. Mr. Speaker, $40 million a day. That is what our Republican colleagues are paying Federal workers not to work. Anyone who needs a passport cannot get it. Anyone who wants to close an FHA loan cannot do it. Anyone in the State of Texas or anywhere else in this country come January 1 that gets foster care, that relies on child support enforcement, that relies on emergency family assistance, that needs child care because they have gotten off welfare and they are back into workfare, they are not going to have it as a result of this. All of this as a result of pursuing your approach or no approach. I read in this morning's paper the self-described description of the Republican freshman class as the purest, most worthy in my lifetime. I thought they were talking about ivory soap. But no, indeed they describe themselves as being so pure and so much better than everyone else in America that they have to have it their way or no way. I think that the American people are calling on us to come together and solve this problem rather than simply to have Republican excellence in the pursuit of error.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Leader is obviously here, as are many Democrats, ready to work this afternoon. I am advised that unless this Congress, which went into a kind of recess at 2 o'clock eastern time today, unless by 8 o'clock in the morning it has approved a continuing resolution, thousands of veterans in Austin, TX, and I believe you said 3.3 million across the country, people that have served our country, who have put their lives on the line, many of them disabled veterans, will not get their checks on time if that resolution is not passed within just a matter of hours. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] know of any reason why those veterans should be asked to sacrifice and should be caught in the middle of all the crisis that is going on here in Washington?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, could it be too much Christmas eggnog? Surely there must be some explanation as to why our Republican colleagues continue to insist on a balanced budget that has no balance for ordinary American families. For the privileged, of course, this budget is what one might call the eat-dessert-first approach. They propose to provide tax breaks to the privileged in our society and to give a lot of them out next year on election eve. They will actually, under the budget they insist the President should capitulate to, they will actually solve the budget deficit by increasing the budget next year, not decreasing it. And what happens later on, after 2002? Well, within 10 years, this budget deficit will explode because of their tax breaks for the privileged, costing a total of $416 billion. That is no way to balance the budget. Indeed, it is the same way they are handling this government shutdown. Waste a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to pay Federal employees not to work because they do not like the Government. Some logic, some approach to a budget that is not balanced for ordinary Americans.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the concern in many parts of Texas about this bill is that after it passes, it will not just be poor old Rudolf whose nose is all aglow. There are many Texans who are not eager to have our State change its name from the Lone Star State to the Lone Dump State. It has become very apparent in the course of the debate thus far that that is exactly what is going to happen, because the sponsors of this measure are unwilling to limit it to the three States of Texas, Vermont and Maine. They envision a vehicle here where an unelected commission will be able to expand this compact to include an unlimited number of States. Mr. Speaker, I think that there is some question as to why we are here today debating this rule in the first place. It has only been about 3 months since this House overwhelmingly rejected this compact and all the problems that it poses. The only thing that has changed between the time that this House rejected this compact and now is that we have had more lobbyists swarming around this Capitol than we will find gnats on the banks of the Colorado River on a June morning. They have been working overtime to set up a compact that can be expanded to make Texas the Lone Dump State. There have also been developments since that time in our neighboring partner with reference to environmental issues throughout the Southwest, and that is the country of Mexico. It was earlier in 1995 that the Governor of the neighboring State of where this site will be located wrote to the Governor of the State of Texas to express his great concern over the news that there would be the construction of what the Governor quite properly referred to as a nuclear cemetery in Sierra Blanca, TX. Mr. Speaker, he went on to say the confinement of radioactive material in that place endangers the health of the population due to the possible emissions of radioactivity into the air, soil, and water. Of course, that letter was sent a couple of earthquakes ago with reference to this site. Just within the past few days, the Commission on Ecology and Environment of the Mexican House of Delegates has also expressed its concern saying, and I quote, that this low level waste contains dangerous concentrations of radioactivity that are contaminated with plutonium, a material that has a radioactive life of 240,000 years. The latent danger for our population is represented by the fact that the land indicated by the State of Texas for the project is over a geological fault known as the Apache Fault, the largest one in the State of Texas. There have been movements there that have registered an intensity of 5.3 on the Richter scale which, if they occur again, cause fissures in the storage sites and consequently contaminate the underground deposits of water that feed the sister cities of El Paso and Juarez. This is not a matter for short-term decision. It will affect generations and generations to come.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I supported the rejection of this whole measure by the House last time, and I guess we will have another opportunity to do the same thing. I think the open rule is a good one, if we are going to consider this, but it should not be here at all.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the last speaker that where some of those people from the State Department are is that they are at home or maybe they are out doing their Christmas shopping because under the orders of Speaker Newt Gingrich we are paying our Federal employees not to work again this week, just as we paid them not to work in November. You see, this is part of an extremist approach to Government that, if you hate Government so much, as some of these Republicans do, the way to demonstrate how much you dislike the Government is to pay the Government workers not to do any work, and so some, I think it is 9,000 members of the State Department, are not at work today, even though I am confident that the vast majority of them would like to be at work doing their job for America, dealing on issues with Cuba and dealing with issues even closer to home. But our Republican colleagues have decided to shut down the Government and to pay our Federal worker not to work. I guess perhaps all of this is designed to focus national attention on the whole concept of a Republican Christmas. You know, the Republican Christmas, it is probably just like the Christmas that you celebrate in your hometown. The only difference is that the only stockings that Santa stuffs are the silk stockings, and that is the way that the Republican Christmas proposed in this Republican budget would be presented to the American people were it not for the steadfast position that President Clinton and others of us within the Democratic Party have taken with regard to its misplaced priorities. You see, it is my position that our Republican colleagues have, to this day, not ever come forward with a budget that is truly balanced. Yes; they do know how to crunch the numbers and calculate it all out so that that part will become even, and that is an important part of having a balanced budget. But balancing the budget is being concerned with more than just crunching the numbers. It is also as a set of national priorities, a matter of considering how much you crunch the people. And when it comes to crunching the people, this Republican balanced budget is way out of balance because it crunches a good many middle-class families in this country. It crunches many seniors in this country because its objective is to stuff those silk stockings with one tax advantage after another. Indeed, even that very gross tax loophole that we attempted to close earlier this year that lets those people who have prospered the most from America, who have made literally billions of dollars and who can celebrate this Christmas in Belize or in the Bahamas or somewhere in the Caribbean, having renounced their American citizenship and burned their citizenship card, torn it up, at the same time having burned the American Treasury and the American taxpayer, renouncing their citizenship to avoid paying their taxes, that loophole is still largely present under this Republican budget. Of course, on the eve of the elections next year, our Republican colleagues propose with their eat-dessert-first budget to provide the checks to people on the eve of the election, not unlike some old ward heeler passing out hams just prior to the election time, to try to sell the idea that the only way to get the deficit down is to make it go up next year, which is the approach that is taken in this Republican budget. But the vast majority of the tax breaks, though there is an occasional sweetener, is designed to go to those at the top of the economic ladder, who have benefited from America. We have heard that we have had nothing but horrors in this country for the last six decades, to hear the majority leader speak the other day. Well, some people have done rather well in America during those six decades of evil. They prospered. They have become millionaires and billionaires, and now the Republicans would reward them with huge tax breaks, tax breaks that will drive the deficit up next year, that will cause it to explode in the year 2002, in the last part of this decade, and all of that is going to be paid by the impact that it has on middle-class families. A commentator just earlier this week reported on the impact on middle-class families that suddenly find a parent, a loved one who has to go into a nursing home either because of a disability or because of advanced years, and it is going to be possible under the Republican budget as proposed to require the children to pay for the nursing home expenses which can run up to $30,000, $40,000 a year of the senior, to tap into the assets of those middle-class families at the same time they may be trying to get a young person through school, through college, trying to struggle to make ends meet themselves, but to force them to have to pay those expenses. That is the way people get crunched under this Republican budget. We need a truly balanced budget that is balanced to the people of America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I guess the question I have this morning is when will our Republican friends propose a balanced budget? Yes, that is right, when will they propose a budget that is in true balance? You see, they think that a balanced budget can be balanced using a calculator; that is the only tool that you need to see whether the numbers add up, whether you can add, subtract, divide, and multiply them. But a budget is more than a collection of numbers. It is a statement of a country's priorities, and not everything in that budget can be measured with mathematical accuracy. How do you measure in mathematics what it costs to deny one young child the opportunity to participate in Head Start, to get all the education that he or she needs in order to be a productive member of this society and share in the American dream? How do you measure with a calculator what it means to a family to be ripped asunder when suddenly they have the burden of having to care for a senior who has to be placed in a nursing home, and, under this Republican plan, you reach down and dip into the resources of the middle-class family that is already struggling to make ends meet to pay for that senior who has to be provided nursing home care? How do you measure with mathematical accuracy the burden on the senior who has to choose between health care and being able to eat? Those are the questions that have to be raised when you look at balancing the budget. Yes, it is an important objective to be sure the mathematics balance, but it is critical that any balanced budget have true balance. And that is what this is all about, because our Republican friends think as long as you take from those who are on Medicare and give to those corporations more tax breaks, do not ask the corporations to sacrifice, do not ask the wealthy to sacrifice, just ask the young children, just ask those who want clean air and clean water, just ask our seniors to sacrifice, put all the burden on one side, that is not a balanced budget. I say it is time for our Republican friends to come forward with the first balanced budget, because all the ones they have given us up to now may add up in the numbers, but they do not add up when it comes to the future of America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been through incredible political brinksmanship, Newt Gingrich has managed to shut down our Government, and by Christmas Day cost the American taxpayer a little over a billion dollars with these two shutdowns, paying Federal workers not to work. But now, with this resolution, in addition to brinksmanship, we have gamesmanship. It is as if we are going to consider a make-believe budget that they are presenting and planning to vote against instead of sitting down in good-faith negotiations to try to resolve this problem. It is as if they have been watching too much daytime television. You know, it is like ``Let's Make a Deal.'' ``Mr. And Mrs. America, behind door No. 1, we have got misery. We have got misery for those families who will be called on to pay for a senior who gets left in a nursing home when you raid the family's income. Behind door No. 2, you can choose indifference. Yes, if you are a young person concerned about an education, if you are concerned about clean air or clean water, go with door No. 2. And behind door No. 3, why, we have got tax breaks, yes, tax breaks.'' And so you choose door No. 3, and what do our Republican friends say? Are you a corporation that made a lot of money and did not want to pay any taxes? No? Well, then you are not entitled to go to door No. 3. Are you a family sitting up there at the top of the economic ladder feeling really good and being asked to sacrifice by taking a little more income and a bigger tax break? Well, no. Well, then you are not entitled to go to door No. 3; you can only go to misery or to indifference, which is what this Republican budget is all about. You see, they have failed yet to present a balanced budget, a balanced budget that provides balance to the American people and fairness to the American people.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, under the new gift ban and under the rules on limitation on outside income, is it permissible for me to collect the $1 million I am entitled to by demonstrating that the Republicans are cutting Medicare?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California.