Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Amnesia. Amnesia, Mr. Chair, once again pervades this Republican Conference. Where were these great deficit hawks 2 months ago when they had an opportunity to vote on increasing the national debt? They were there raising their hand ``aye'' in favor of hiking the national debt. Today, they come forward with the audacity to say let's solve the runaway national debt problem; we want another government report to do it. Yes, at Christmastime, these deficit hawks went on a spending spree right here in this House. Not a spending spree to provide more educational opportunity for our children, not a spending spree to provide more medical research dollars for our scientists and physicians, not a spending spree to do something about our crumbling roads or to build a competitive infrastructure, but a spending spree with tax expenditures from the Tax Code to stuff every silk stocking they could find. Anyone who had a powerful lobby, they were here to get an expanded or extended tax cut. Here is what was said 2 months ago, and I quote: ``Budgeting in this country has pretty much become a joke. Members of Congress give heartfelt speeches''--the same kind we are hearing today--``about being responsible. . . . And then time and time again, they cast votes that add billions and even trillions of dollars to the debt. The rampant hypocrisy is quite galling.'' ``How can lawmakers claim that their budget will achieve balance when they just passed a deficit-financed tax deal that blows a big hole in the budget?'' Those weren't the words of a Democrat. Those weren't the words of a progressive institution. They were the words of Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan organization. On their board is Mitch Daniels, Alan Simpson, and a host of Republicans. That final bill that they voted for 2 months ago added $830 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years, as they borrowed money from abroad to give it to Wall Street and other special interests. It will cost us about $2 trillion over the next two decades. One of the biggest items in that budget was a giveaway to Wall Street banks, the same Wall Street banks that helped bring this country to its knees in the economic crisis. Yet they came in and they got a tax break in order to encourage shipping more jobs overseas, which is what that particular tax break does. They come back to us today, having added to the debt so much. Never seeing a tax break for a special interest that they didn't like--to borrow from Will Rogers--they come to us today and say give us a report, give us another speech. When we had the Treasury Secretary in front of our committee all morning, our Republican chairman was candid. He was cordial, but he was candid in saying that everything that the Treasury Secretary was offering was dead on arrival, would never see the light of day. This is a wasted endeavor that ought to be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, across the world, this is a special time of the year, and we have our traditions here in Washington. One of them is underway at this moment in the House. It is called the ceremony of the stuffing of the silk stockings. We do it each year, and we do it generously. This bill is even referred to as a ``Christmas tree bill'' because special interests get special presents, ``ornaments'' on this tree. Much of the focus this year has been the fact that the direct spending bill and the tax spending bill are considered under this same rule. The press has focused most of its attention on the direct spending bill, the Omnibus. While there has been some debate over some of the policy provisions, it has really been the sideshow here. What has driven the length of debate on this are Republicans--and some Democrats who have enabled them, unfortunately--determined to get as many permanent tax breaks as possible for those who have been waiting for this Christmas tree. They have added hundreds of billions of dollars of permanent tax breaks onto this bill. I must say, like many shoppers out there, they have put it all on the credit card. It is just that it is your credit card. We are borrowing from the Chinese, from the Saudis, around the world, in order to pay for tax breaks for which not a penny has been paid. That is total fiscal irresponsibility. To cover this wrong of borrowing and adding more and more to our national debt, they have reached out to put in a few good provisions. I happen to be the author of the Refundability for the Higher Education Tax Credit. I am delighted to see it extended permanently, but it does not even expire this year, as is true of some of the other tax breaks that are boasted about this morning. The real threat from adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt has been clearly identified by my colleague from Oklahoma candidly, and that is that Social Security and Medicare are the next things up for consideration on the chopping block.

Mr. DOGGETT. If you add this much debt unpaid for in a fiscally irresponsible way, you begin to jeopardize retirement security, Medicare, and Social Security because those so-called entitlements are next up on the chopping block. Reject this giveaway.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has said that, over two decades, this very bill will add over $2 trillion to the national debt. For anyone who hides behind poor kids to justify that $2 trillion in debt, understand that there is no poor child in America who will get a dime out of this bill next year. Their tax credits do not expire now. We have more than another year to resolve that matter. No, this isn't about poor children. It is about big gifts. Indeed, in the holiday spirit, the biggest bow of all has been put on a special gift for Wall Street. The world's largest financial institutions, you know, the ones that brought America to its economic knees with the debacle over finances and then came forward and got a majority of this Congress--not me--to vote for a taxpayer bailout, well, they are back here again, and they are getting a reward. They are getting a tax subsidy that is made permanent. It just happens to be a tax subsidy that was removed from our Tax Code originally in a bill that Ronald Reagan signed into law. When it got put back in on a temporary basis, Bill Clinton sought to veto the provision because it was so unjustified. Christmas, of course, is not cheap. This bill, this gift to Wall Street, costs $78 billion--not paid for--borrowed from the Saudis and from the Chinese to give Wall Street $78 billion, with a ``B.'' How much money is that? Well, about the same amount is included in the bill this will be a part of. It funds all the medical research at the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, all of Head Start across the country, and all of the education for the disabled and disadvantaged that is provided by the Federal Government. All of that combined is $78 billion. But you can be sure that Wall Street is never disabled or disadvantaged in the Capitol.

Mr. DOGGETT. This $78 billion tax subsidy is called the ``active financing exception.'' My, my, these bankers have been active here. They may have been very naughty to the American people. They may have been very naughty to the American economy. But they have been, oh, so nice to some Members of Congress. Republicans and some Democratic enablers are helping keep a provision in here that will only lead to shipping jobs overseas. They are borrowing from overseas to put this burden on the American people. This is the kind of provision that causes Americans to be so concerned about their government and a feeling that it has run away from them because these kinds of provisions are running away our debt and denying the support for Make It In America that we need. Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of this package that will do so much harm to our country. General Leave

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this Customs bill fails totally to address a custom that is the custom of the USTR: saying one thing and doing another. Were it possible to legislate trust, to legislate candor, to legislate fidelity to public duty, I would be the most enthusiastic supporter this bill could have. Unfortunately, this proposal represents only a very thin, see-through window dressing for a runaway bureaucracy that is pursuing its own multinational corporate agenda and ignoring the public interest. The USTR, in its history, has never successfully challenged an environmental abuse. Though the USTR has been charged since February 2009 with preventing trade in illegal logging and in the destruction of Peruvian rain forests, the Environmental Investigation Agency recently reported: ``Illegal logging in Peru and the associated trade remains a serious and unabated problem.'' There has been a ``complete failure to enforce these obligations . . .'' One such obligation is a very simple audit to demonstrate whether logs are being harvested legally or illegally. I have specifically asked the USTR repeatedly to just produce the audit so we can see, and they have refused to provide that documentation or to admit that their enforcement has totally failed to do that simple matter. Meanwhile, coffins with the names of brave Peruvian inspectors are being dragged through the streets. The USTR trumpets its environmental successes; yet the Peruvian Government is being rewarded for going backward, not forward, on the environment. USTR has never successfully challenged worker abuses. Almost 8 years after the Administration received a complaint about serious abuses in Guatemala, such as the right to work and join with other workers without being murdered, USTR has not remedied the complaint. In Honduras, USTR announced with great fanfare just by coincidence yesterday that, after 3 long years of delay on child labor and other abuses, it had a new plan. Well, it is the same type of plan that failed in Guatemala. We don't need new public relation plans. We need to enforce the law effectively. What reason is there conceivably to believe that Vietnam, a country with one union that is only a branch of the Communist Party, will somehow fulfill its trade obligations under the Trans-Pacific Partnership for a complete overhaul of its system when it takes the Administration almost 8 years to address Guatemala labor concerns? More likely, we will simply be joining another race to the bottom with a 60- cent-per-hour Vietnamese wage. Just as it lacked the will to enforce environmental and working conditions, USTR prioritized trade even when that meant excusing modern-day slave trade in corrupt Malaysia. The bureaucratic manipulation and indifference to human trafficking in Asia is disgraceful. The only thing that is transparent about USTR is the ease of seeing through its propaganda. Certainly, I am very concerned about climate change, but the real climate that needs changing when it comes to our trade policy is the climate of indifference and secrecy at USTR. I ask that you vote against this bill in order to develop a true pro- trade, 21st-century American policy that reflects our basic American values and protects our jobs.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Given all the injustices promoted by this conference report, I am strongly opposed to it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is this motion, which makes changes in the fast-track procedures that the House voted on earlier in the year, debatable?

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, wasn't it about 30 minutes ago?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DOGGETT. Under the new, open, inclusive policies that Speaker Ryan has announced, when was notice of this conference report coming up for a vote tonight first provided to all the Members of the House?

Mr. DOGGETT. So it can be debated without yielding any time to those of us who are opposed to this motion under the rules of the House?

Mr. DOGGETT. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is that time divided equally, as is normally done on proposals under our rules?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. He told me in the course of that hearing that he would oppose truly conforming the House bill with the Senate bill because ``it would make it more difficult to negotiate TPP,'' this Asian trade agreement. So we put the desire for trade over our principles. I think it is possible to have more trade and support a 21st century trade policy without sacrificing our values as Americans. What has happened in the meantime is a reclassification of Malaysia, all designed to get the trade there without getting Malaysia to do what it should about human trafficking, which I think is really tragic. Then there is the third issue addressed in this customs bill, and that is the question of enforcement. Of course, when it comes to protection of the environment, when it comes to standards so that we are not in a race to the bottom with our American workers versus foreign workers, say in Vietnam working for 60 cents an hour, this United States Trade Representative's office has been asleep at the wheel. That is the name of a great Texas swing band, but it is not a very good policy when it comes to enforcing the law. Unfortunately, these enforcement provisions which are part of this customs bill leave it to USTR to proceed as it has in the past. I think, instead of going to conference, what we should be doing is going back to the drawing board in the committee, looking at the enforcement provisions, and asking why it is that, though it has had responsibility to enforce environmental and labor guarantees, it has not brought successful actions to accomplish either. And specifically with regard to the environment, in addition to the climate change provisions, one of the most troubling developments as far as both climate and the environment is the question of logging in the Amazon region and other sensitive areas. USTR was charged with seeking audits of that logging and seeing that we acted under agreements that were approved during the Bush administration. It has failed to do so. So, for one reason after another, going to conference is a mistake. I applaud the motion. I hope it is adopted, but it is tragic that we are moving in this direction.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this motion is the next step in fast-track consideration of Asian trade agreements and perhaps other trade agreements. The fast-trackers know that the only way they can sell this agreement to the American people is to rely on stealth as much as possible to hide the agreement, as they have, for as long as possible; and then, even at the present time, not to give full information about all aspects of this agreement, such as the alleged $18,000 tax cuts being provided foreigners, without indicating what tax cuts are available for Americans or what the effect of these tax cuts might be. And now, today, under this new, more inclusive House that we have heard so much about with the new Speaker, we are provided less than an hour's notice for the fast-trackers to strike again. In moving to go to conference on a bill to attempt to fix a defective fast-track proposal, they have done so under a procedure that cut off all debate. We were not permitted to say a word about the customs bill as a whole, and the only way that we are able to comment about what is happening here at all is thanks to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire who has offered a nonbinding motion about one of the many questionable provisions in this customs bill. It is a very important provision concerning currency manipulation that allows some foreign trading partners to use their currencies and adjust them to get what they cannot do through normal trade procedures and greatly disadvantage American manufacturers and hurt American jobs. I applaud the gentlewoman's consideration and offering of that amendment. Even though it will not bind the conference committee, it is a way for the House to speak out about that issue. But this is not the only flaw that exists in the customs bill. Indeed, the first provision included in this customs bill as passed by the House--ironically, brought up today, as countries with good will are struggling with the issue of how we address climate change in Paris--instructs that no trade agreements can obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change. So the bill that is being sent to conference, as approved in the House, is designed to prevent our acting concerning climate change, which is the great threat--perhaps one of the major national security threats, and certainly the greatest environmental threat of our time. We can see the effects all around us when we are not surrounded by climate change deniers, of which there are many in this House who refuse to accept science and prefer mythology and ideology to science. Hence, this provision in a bill in a trade negotiation that began considering ways to address climate change now has a prohibition against doing it. A second problem--I am all for trade. I voted for trade or supported trade with most of the countries that are in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. One of those countries, however, believes in turning a blind eye to trading women, trading children, trading indentured workers, and that country is Malaysia. Until the last couple of months, Malaysia was in a category with North Korea and a handful of other countries as a country that was doing the least and had the worst record when it comes to human trafficking. So the United States Senate approved a provision to address that concern with Malaysia. And when that provision was in the Ways and Means Committee in markup, I specifically asked then-Chairman Ryan to ensure that we had any human trafficking amendment language from the Senate committee in this customs bill or in his TPP bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just add, Nick, that I know you have spent some 25 years here on the Hill, 17 with our committee. Though I benefited from your good counsel before becoming the ranking Democrat on the Human Resources Subcommittee, I particularly appreciated your good counsel during the last 3 years, whether it was working on child abuse and our successful work with former Chair Dave Camp and getting a national commission or dealing with problems of the unemployed. Just overall, the jurisdiction of our subcommittee is about children, children in need. Whether they are under this SSI program or child abuse or child care, they are children who should be able to rely on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family program for their needs. Nick has been an able advocate for children and someone who did work well, as Chairman Ryan said, with all members of our committee to advance these purposes. We wish him well in his new endeavors, and we thank him for his service. Mr. Speaker, if I might talk just a little bit about the Ensuring Access to Clinical Trials Act, it is about getting new treatments quickly into the lives of patients that are suffering from dread diseases across America, reauthorizing existing law. Senator Ron Wyden led this effort successfully in the Senate with Senator Hatch. And here, my colleagues, Mr. Marino and Mr. Jim McGovern, co-chairs of the Cystic Fibrosis Caucus, joined with me in the introduction of this legislation in the House. The National Organization for Rare Disorders, and over 75 other organizations, has been a strong supporter of this legislation, and I thank them for their work on behalf of the legislation. This bill makes permanent a law that is due to expire that will allow for individuals with certain debilitating conditions to exempt a small amount of their income gained from participating in medical trials from Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, and for Medicaid eligibility determination. This exemption removes an important barrier to participating in clinical trials. If it is allowed to expire, patients contributing to vital research could face the difficult decision of either dropping out of the trials altogether or losing their benefits. If you have ever met with someone with cystic fibrosis or someone in your family has it, you recognize how small the daily challenges that you face are compared to theirs. I think of Nicole Flores in Austin, who has two children battling with rare diseases. She explained that patients shouldn't have to worry about losing assistance when they are just working hard to stay alive. Over the past several months, I have heard from a number of families affected by rare diseases. These are parents who shared with me how far-reaching the modest relief this bill provides can provide for a number of people. One couple recently sent me a picture of their 15-year-old son Mac Rung, who was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at birth. Every morning and every evening, Mac undergoes chest therapy in order to clear his lungs and to avoid serious damage to help him get through the day. He takes medications with every meal to help him absorb his food and gain weight. He is battling a disease that many Americans have never heard of at an age where he shouldn't have to worry about anything other than school. And because this disease is progressive, they are really working against the clock. Because of the approval of two new drugs, they told me that they never have had as much hope for Mac and his future as they do today. And while they are not a family that themselves rely on the bill that we have today before us, as Chairman Ryan indicated, they, and anyone with these rare diseases, stand to benefit if we have widespread participation in clinical trials on the approval of other new promising drugs like the ones that are already helping Mac. Financially penalizing vulnerable people for participating in research does nothing to advance that research. The National Institutes of Health--NIH, as we know it--estimates that 25 million Americans are suffering because of rare disease. I hope now that today, the House will join the Senate in approving the Ensuring Access to Clinical Trials Act and that we continue this important effort to support patients across the country. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Ryan as well as Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Frank Pallone, who marked up this bill, and urge bipartisan approval of it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to honor Mr. Gwyn, and this is a good opportunity for us to do that. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I have supported them at each opportunity, but this is not about sanctions. It is about a last-ditch effort to undermine a diplomatic victory. Those who reject this victory are weak on alternatives. They talk about a ``secret.'' The biggest secret is what they would do other than bomb first and ask questions later. The director of the Mossad, the Israeli CIA, says we are putting in place a verification system, which is second to none and has no precedent. Ultimately, reason will prevail this week in Congress. The President will be sustained, and families here and in Israel will be safer.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as the last speech indicates, it is hardly by chance that the House Republican leadership has scheduled these votes on 9/11--votes on an agreement to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon--ever. The justifiable fear of another terrorist attack and the justifiable outrage about the terrorist attack of 9/11 have been exploited before today. They were exploited to justify the disastrous invasion of Iraq. While few Americans today will recall that, actually, after 9/11 there was some early support in Iran against al Qaeda terrorism, few can forget the oft repeated and rather deceitful warning that promoted the rush to war in Iraq: ``We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.'' Once again, the specter of this mushroom cloud is being raised with those who would interfere with an international, diplomatic success--an agreement that would avoid putting us on another path to war. The same kind of folks who urged us to rush into Baghdad are the same folks who told us back before we even had this agreement that it wouldn't work and that we ought to begin bombing in Tehran and in the surrounding area. They are the same folks who said that it would only take a few days of bombing and it would all be over. It is the same poor logic that took us into a disaster in Iraq, which cost so many families the ultimate sacrifice and the waste of over $1 trillion. This is not a debate about the Twin Towers. It is a debate, though, that would be a twin wrong if we follow the same approach we took the last time. I have supported sanctions against Iran.