Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 76.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this resolution, it is a little flimsy. It is a little short. It is only a sentence long. I do not think it is big enough to cover what is happening with reference to this resolution. I thought it particularly curious to learn in the rather unyielding remarks of my colleagues from Illinois that the majority leader had suggested this resolution to guarantee that once again the Republicans are not going to have their fingers in the social Security system, that the majority leader was the one who inspired House Concurrent Resolution 17. For it was only a few months ago, on an important day in the history of this country, September 27, 1994, when so many of our colleagues were out smiling on the steps of the Capitol with their contract that the majority leader was asked to take the pledge in public not to cut people's Social Security to meet these promises that were made here on the Capitol steps, and his response on public television September 27 was, ``No, I'm not going to make such a promise.'' The Republican Party has had a record of looking at the Social Security system askance and this is simply a way to cover for what is about to happen with the balanced budget amendment. It was particularly unusual that--I think it is particularly curious that a Republican Member, a freshman Member would come forward with a commemorative resolution of this type, because this resolution will have the same effect as some of the other resolutions that Republicans have offered to this body. I refer to National Quilting Day, Travel Agent Appreciation Day. These are commemorative resolutions very much like this document. They have absolutely the same effect. They will not allow for a point of order to stand. They are purely political cover and not real protection for those with Social Security. You can tell how serious our colleagues are on the subject of protecting Social Security because they did not even bother to print it in TV Guide which we have learned to be the source of most of what we know about the future of government in the United States today. There are, of course, different versions of this resolution that may come about. I understand the final copy will be on the finest parchment in the land, will be read, interlined, will be in the archives of the United States. Perhaps a copy will be available to mount on the wall of the gentleman from Illinois to point to with everyone who has a Social Security card in this country, that they will have protection as a result of this resolution, a testament to the skill of his legislative hand. But I would suggest that today in America, there are other people out there working with their hands. Men and women, many of whom have only a Social Security check to look for. And those people and their hands are left out of this resolution.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, like our Republican colleagues as a new Member of this Congress, I came seeking constructive change, and of that change I was most eager to join with our Republican colleagues the concept of opening this House. Yet at this first opportunity for change, this Republican rules package fails. I do not know what they call a rule in California or New York where you get no amendment and no alternative, but in Texas we call that closed government. You propose two completely closed rules, two rules that do not allow one new Member, one old Member, one Republican, one Democrat to offer any amendment to this package. More than that, you have done what is unprecedented perhaps in the history of this country, and that is to provide a closed rule within a bill that is brought up under a closed rule. This is not open government. This is not reform. It is more closed government as usual. This is barring the door, slamming the door shut and actually then barring that door for people to participate in the process of democracy. It was only a few months ago that the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] suggested that when a closed rule is foisted on this House, the Members are denied the opportunity to represent their constituents. That is no less true today. You have said that this is a new chapter in the history of this House, but you have made it an edited, indeed a censored chapter. You have said you have changed the course of business in this House, but I would submit, to use the words of the distinguished gentleman from New York, that it is merely shortchange.