Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, only one percent of all the estates in this country are assessed any estate tax. I have already voted to repeal the tax for most of those who are subject to it, and to do so immediately, not seven or ten years from now. But this vote today is a vote that is only the latest variation of the one-note symphony that is the Republican call for more and more tax breaks, each and every week, for the economic elite. This bill is a key part of a $4 trillion package of tax breaks for the privileged few that they would saddle the rest of this country with paying for. This vote is more than a decision about the legacy of the heirs of Steve Forbes, Ken Lay and Ross Perot; it is a vote on the legacy for the future of America. Today we are concerned with the Republican leaderships decision to, once again, never find a tax break for the wealthy that it does not like. They will indeed leave a lasting legacy. Yes, the heirs of Steve Forbes will get a windfall, but all the other children of America, they will get something also, a growing mountain of public debt, an undermined Social Security system, and a bleaker economic future. Our children will inherit a shrinking pool of Federal funds to meet the expanding security needs our Nation now faces; and our children will be forced to pay higher taxes tomorrow because some were unwilling to pay their fair share today. While the Republican leadership is so greatly concerned about the legacy of the top one percent, I ask, what about the other 99 percent of America's children? What about their future and the fate of our country? It was a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, in 1906 who was among the first proponents of the tax that they propose to repeal today. He feared the power of an economic aristocracy that we see dominating America today. He feared ``inherited economic power'' and said that it was as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation in America as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government. That concern is still true today. Would that we only had on this floor joining us one Teddy Roosevelt Republican who would stand up, in a bipartisan way, and express that concern about the future of American democracy and the future of our ability to meet our needs. I will have to give them credit for one thing, that they call this the ``death tax,'' because if they are successful today, and if they are successful in implementing this entire $4 trillion tax package for the privileged elite of this country, it will be the death of Social Security and Medicare as we have known them for decades and upon which so many Americans vitally depend, because there is absolutely no way that we can fulfill our obligations under Social Security and Medicare and give the privileged elite of America a $4 trillion tax break.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the only emergency addressed by this rule is the one created when they were caught in a sleight-of-hand to greatly accelerate the national debt. Having been caught, our Republican friends have put a new twist on an old maxim: if you cannot say anything good, just do not say anything. Their twist is, they do not have anything to say good in their defense for jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare, so they do not want anyone else to say anything, either. They have used a harsh rule. They have used a rule and a tactic that is truly worthy of the parliament in some backwater dictatorship. This is really just the latest of outrages in this House, many of them that are best considered here late at night, best considered under the cover of darkness when the Republican leadership has something in which to hide its shame. Their scheming is so very bad tonight they do not even know what day it is. Indeed, I can tell the Members one thing: for Democrats in this House, it is a new day. We have had enough shenanigans. We have had enough gimmicks. We have had enough antics here in this House, and we are going to be back. We are going to be back throughout this session again and again. We are going to be working together. We are going to stand up and speak out forcefully for America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. And should we not be permitted to offer the amendment and the point of order be sustained, Mr. Chairman, that would deny any opportunity under the rule for us to consider this critical issue of whether we want to raise the limit on the debt and invade Social Security. The only alternative at that point would be for us to raise this issue by continuing to speak around the clock to defend Social Security and by appealing the ruling of the Chair who I believe has done a very fine job today, but that would be the only way if the point of order were sustained to get this critical issue of whether we want to raise the limit on the Social Security credit card, as it is being treated, my colleagues' Social Security card being treated as a credit card for expenditures on other issues. We can avoid that problem. We can conclude our business, be home to honor those on Memorial Day who have served our country so well, by simply agreeing by unanimous consent to let this critical matter come up, do it now, do it on a bipartisan basis, cooperatively join to deal with this problem, get us a budget, preserve Social Security and do so in a collegial and appropriate way. Or alternatively we can challenge the ruling of the Chair, and we can stay here for a very long time. Because it is clear that not just one or two people but all of us are committed to doing what is necessary to preserve Social Security for this unfair rate that is being proposed today.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we now approach Memorial Day, a time to memorialize and honor those who have defended our country. It is appropriate that we also honor those who defend our country today at home and abroad by providing them with the resources they need to get the job done. But as important as our military strength is, the strength of America also is found in its economic vitality. I fail to see how that economic vitality will be advanced by piling almost $1 trillion of additional debt on top of the trillions of dollars in national debt, that we already have and doing so with no real budget plan in place. Indeed, the only budget plan being contemplated is one that expects one deficit after another deficit after another deficit, piling up more and more national debt and threatening the vitality of our country and the future of our Social Security and Medicare system. Guns and caviar: It sounds like a rock band, or a promotion for the National Rifle Association. But I maintain that ``guns and caviar'' is really an accurate description of the approach the administration and its House Republican allies are promoting this year. The guns are significantly higher military expenditures; and caviar, well, they have one tax break after another. They cannot find enough tax breaks for those at the top of the economic ladder. The Republicans offer the elite and the multinational corporations in this country an unequivocal message: You can have all the security you want at home or abroad, anywhere around this globe, and for you, it will not cost much of anything extra. It is free because they promote one tax break after another. We have, with each passing day, one corporation after another renouncing its American citizenship and moving its mail box to Bermuda or somewhere else to avoid paying for any of these additional expenditures. Republicans talk about containing federal spending, but they are proposing with this budget the largest increase over a 4-year period we have had since the 1960s. Yet to those at the top of the economic ladder, the Republicans turn a blind eye when they move offshore to avoid paying any of the cost of this, when they use the various tax dodges and tax breaks that have been created and proposed, and that they want even more of the same so that the elite tax dodgers can avoid paying their fair share. So those at the top and the multinational corporations will not pay their fair share of a ``guns-and-caviar'' budget, how will it be paid? Well, this very bill is the purported Republican solution to that problem that they are offering. That solution is to take our Social Security cards, the ones we all carry in our pockets, the ones Americans have relied on for over 60 years, and make it their Republican national credit card, to use the future of Social Security as their way of paying for today's spending. They are, through this bill, doing what some families sometimes find they have to do when they are overcome with debt: They are asking to raise the limit on the national credit card. In this case, it is our Social Security card and all the money being paid in by us and our employers for Social Security and Medicare. They want to raise the credit card or debt limit, but they do not have the courage to come out here and face the American people and do it in an honest and direct way. So they have, through combined procedure and recent rulings, we limited our right to even have a vote on their decision to take our Social Security card and use it as their credit card to pay for things they tell these multinational corporations they can dodge, avoid, and evade. But we are going to have to pay for today's spending right out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We have heard through the years 1 Republican leader after another tell us that they are really not too excited about Social Security. What better way to undermine our ability to provide Social Security and Medicare in coming decades than to incur mountains of national debt, as is proposed in a very secretive way by this piece of legislation. Indeed, if we increase, the debt limit, by almost $1 trillion, as is proposed, right out of Social Security and Medicare funds, that means more interest, more debt, and less ability to meet our Social Security and Medicare obligations. It is wrong and it ought to be rejected today.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to follow such a moving appeal that demonstrates the importance and the urgency of permitting this amendment, but I think it is appropriate to reflect on the parliamentary situation in which we find ourselves at present. A very odd and strange rule has been imposed on the House.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of September 11 really brought out the best of the American spirit, with so many people across this country asking, ``What can I do to help my country? What can I do to help my neighbors?'' But unfortunately that spirit did not extend to some of the larger multinationals in this country. Recognizing that there would be additional costs for national security, for homeland security, their first concern seems to have been, ``What can I do to dodge my fair share of the cost of additional security, which, as a multinational operating around the globe, I particularly need? So we have seen a series of companies decide that their sacrifice for America would be buying a mailbox in Bermuda or some other country and would shift the responsibility of paying for our enhanced national security needs on to ordinary taxpaying families. Stanley Tool Company, which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) have taken the lead in focusing attention on the problem and demanding action now. Our Republican colleagues prefer studying the problem until so many corporations have departed. Stanley Tool Company has hammered the American taxpayer. Who do you think is going to pick up the cost of this additional national security? It will not be Stanley Tool. They renounced their American citizenship like these other companies and decided they would go abroad, or at least send their mailbox abroad. For our Republican colleagues, who never seem to have met an abusive tax shelter that they did not like, this is only one of many types of corporate tax shelters that are abusive and they have avoided taking any action on, but instead tell us that what we need is a study. Well, I have here the study that the Treasury Department just completed on Friday, and if you look in the fine print of that study, you will find one very significant conclusion. The conclusion of the Treasury Department is that we ought to keep multinational corporations from having to send their mailbox abroad by awarding further corporate tax breaks. Treasury's answer is, cut Stanley Tool Company's taxes here so they do not have to pay for a mailbox abroad. That is not sharing the sacrifice. ``Study'' has been an excuse for inaction, and the call for study this morning invites more inaction. If we keep studying, as they recommend, the only appropriate legislation for this Congress to enact would call to erect a big sign that says: ``Let the last multinational flip off the lights in America.'' I would say that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is absolutely right about saying that today this debate is about the marriage penalty. It is about the marriage penalty that all of America suffers when the House Republican leadership and this Administration are married to special interests, even to the extent that they let them totally dodge their tax responsibility and instead turn to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds to pick up the tab. That is wrong. That is the kind of a marriage penalty we need to be addressing today by adopting the Neal-Maloney legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, parents at every economic level sometimes must balance the demands of being a good parent with being a good employee. This is especially challenging when it is a minimum-wage job with no health insurance and a single parent. This partisan bill focuses solely on the work aspect, forgetting the value of parenting, not only for our children, who lose irreplaceable opportunities, but for communities, who suffer and bear the burden of neglected children having children of their own and committing adult crimes. When asked how much of an investment in our children is required to satisfy the new requirements of this new law, the Bush administration responds basically, ``don't know and don't care.'' But the Republican Congressional Budget Office was forced to estimate this cost of meeting our children's child care needs. It says, at a minimum, $8 billion is required, while the House Republican leadership provides only $1 billion. Additionally, this bill provides nothing, zero, zip--to meet rising child care costs, to transform the frequently poor quality of child care from what is too often unskilled, minimum wage workers baby- sitting our children into what should be early educational opportunities so that the children can hope for a better future than that of their parents. With 40,000 Texas children already waiting for child care assistance, and so many of our neighbors confronting a true child care crisis in our State, the members of the Human Services Committee of the Texas House of Representatives, chaired by Representative Elliott Naishtat, have rejected the unreasonable provisions of this bill. Our excellent Texas Center for Public Policy Priorities has explained the extensive harm that this bill will wreak. This legislation claims to honor fatherhood, motherhood and matrimony, but actually it threatens our neighborhoods by failing to give the state the means to provide the support that families need to feed, to clothe, and to raise our next generation of Americans. We cannot afford the true cost of neglecting these children. This bill may be good electioneering but it does too little for our country's future. Unless we reject this grossly deficient approach, we will reap tomorrow the bitter harvest that the bill's deliberate neglect of these needy children sows today.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, space-based missile defense is the true faith-based initiative because it takes a mighty big leap of faith to believe we can master the technology, distinguish the decoys and achieve perfection. Of course, in the real world this spacey shield idea has been rather hit or miss, mostly miss, since you need perfect weather and a honing beacon on the incoming missile for it to work. But the experience never seems to faze those who have seen so many Star Wars sequels that they abide by the questionable principle, ``build it and it will work.'' I prefer the wisdom of Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist at the University of Texas, who says this system will ``worsen our security'', and that of former Defense Secretary William Perry, who warned that ``a relatively small deployment of defensive systems could have the effect of triggering a considerable nuclear arms race.'' If terrorism is now our greatest threat, if we have learned anything from September 11, we know an ICBM is not the most likely way to wreak devastation and that putting so many more taxpayers' dollars in this one NMD basket makes so little security sense. We can spend billions trying to build a shield to blunt every sword or we can invest our resources and diplomacy more wisely to keep the sword, or missile from ever being drawn.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, the first time I heard about the concept of placing this waste at Yucca Mountain a few years ago, I thought it was a very good idea. I thought so for one reason: Nevada is not Texas. I think that is the main reason why so many people approve of the Yucca Mountain site today, because Nevada is not South Carolina, it is not Maine, and it is not California. But as one of my neighbors, Molly Ivins, pointed out recently in a column, ``putting the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain is Nevada's problem. Getting it there is ours.'' These transportation routes will affect not just Nevada, but families in most every State in the country. Indeed, one of the routes the Energy Department had on its list until recently, consistent with some of the comments that we do not need to worry about transportation, was within sight of the United States Capitol. They were proposing to run this nuclear waste through Washington. To the gentleman who came and said that we have never had a problem hauling nuclear waste, I submit that his statement is about as persuasive as someone who stood on this floor last year and said an airplane has never been used as a bomb. Things are different after September 11, and are we increasing the risk to the American people, increasing the exposure, by having these ``mobile Chernobyls'' crossing the country back and forth, affecting millions and millions of United States citizens. Or would we be better off looking for alternatives to nuclear power and looking for long-term alternatives to Yucca Mountain? The truth of the matter is that if we really recognize how long this waste is going to be dangerous, the NIMBY approach, not in my backyard, one needs to recognize that Nevada is in the backyard of everyone in this country. It cannot be isolated from everyone else. The other big issue is not just the length of the time, the question is whether we want to have an incentive for more and more of this waste to be generated. They say, ``If you build it they will come.'' But this isn't a ``Field of Dreams,'' it is a ``mountain of nightmares.'' If this facility is established, there will be more and more nuclear waste generated. Finally, I have to say that I particularly want to applaud the leadership of the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). She has been unceasing in bringing to our attention all of the implications of this very serious mistake that has been proposed. I know there is some bipartisan support for it, but it is troubling that a Republican President and a House Republican leadership would so aggressively promote this unfortunate resolution, and that we would be told by Republican leaders during debate that this is ``Nevada's legacy.'' It is a legacy we will all be stuck with if this measure is approved.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my vote in solidarity with the State of Israel should not be read as a vote in solidarity with policies of Ariel Sharon that I view as misguided and counterproductive. My support for Israel is longstanding, but Ariel Sharon is not ``Israel.'' He was wrong in rejecting the successful peace process in Osla, in rejecting President Clinton's efforts at Camp David in 2000, in rejecting the talks between Israelis and Palestinians at Taba, Egypt in January 2001, and he was wrong in Sabra and Shatila. Without approving in any way actions of some of his adversaries or condoning their violence, he is wrong in continuing to reject measured answers to the Middle East crisis. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, hardly a Palestinian advocate, recently wrote: ``Many Israelis feel Mr. Sharon is so paralyzed by his obsession with eliminating Mr. Arafat, by his commitment to colonial settlements and by his fear that any Israeli concession now would be interpreted as victory for the other side that he can't produce what most Israelis want: a practical, non-ideological solution.'' A ``non-ideological solution'' is what this land--so small in size, and so great in meaning--requires. It is the spirit embodied both in the courageous efforts of Secretary of State Colin Power and in our country's United Nations vote for Security Council Resolution 1397 ``affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side-by-side within secure and recognized borders.'' This is not the resolution that I would have drafted, but no amendments were permitted to it. This resolution fails to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to live in peace and security or to acknowledge that innocent Palestinians also lost lives and homes. As Secretary Powell has indicated, this particular resolution ``would be very unhelpful.'' It does not advance security for families threatened by violence, it may only lessen our ability to serve as an honest broker to secure a more lasting peace for all who suffer. The Administration's months of inattention, indecision, and unwillingness to engage in the Middle East made a bad situation worse. Mr. President, heed Secretary Powell and General Zinni's counsel. Lead our foreign policy yourself--do not cede this critical mission to Ariel Sharon and Tom DeLay.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, a few months ago, one really could not turn on the television at night or open a newspaper without hearing about the plight of those who suffered in the Enron-Andersen debacle-- people whose tomorrow was stolen, many of them innocent, hard-working employees for the very companies that were engaged in these questionable deals. Even expert investors, including those at a public state retirement system in Austin, Texas, lost millions of dollars in Enron investments. Many people who were working to prepare their own tax returns saw that Enron was not paying much in the way of taxes; in fact, it apparently was not paying any taxes at all. There were two reactions to this debacle. There were some people, like the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) who said, how can we prevent something like this from happening again? What can we do? What is the best way? Certainly, it is challenging and complex, but what is the best way to be sure that more people do not suffer like this in the future? And then there was a second response, the response we normally hear in Washington from those special interest lobbyists: how can we keep the loopholes, the back doors, the exceptions, the special preferences and exemptions that we worked so diligently over the years to be sure that Congress gave us, how can we be sure we keep them in the future? In the face of this Enron-Andersen fiasco, those lobbyists, that second group, could not come with a straight face and say, ``do nothing.'' So their best avenue to thwart any meaningful reform was to say, ``do next to nothing,'' and we will call it ``something''; and that is precisely where we are today. The bill before us is ``next to nothing'' and it is being called ``something'' to blunt attempts to exact more far-reaching reform. As if that were not bad enough, there are some lobbyists who saw this Andersen-Enron crisis as an opportunity, an opportunity to get a little more. And so when we took up the pension bill a couple of weeks ago, the first response in this House to Enron, instead of doing something to help the employees, a little more discrimination was approved in favor of the executives at the top. Today, in this bill, instead of making it more difficult for corporate wrongdoers to assume a position of responsibility at another corporation, this bill makes it easier. When it comes to tax problems, the same accountants that are causing many of these problems, as Forbes magazine said a couple of years ago, they are the ``tax shelter hustlers,'' ``respectable accountants'' who are out peddling dicey corporate tax loopholes. And when today ends, they will still be able to do it. The analysts will still be able to think one thing and say another to those they advise to purchase stock. The accountants will still be held to a level of responsibility under this law that is less than even the modest changes President Bush proposed and less than what even the accountants agreed to do voluntarily. Many people in this country, many Americans, are absolutely amazed that Enron could have fallen apart last year like it did. This year, they will be similarly amazed that Congress did next to nothing about it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, Many people have said that 9/11 changed everything for this country. It certainly did for President Bush and his budget. He is now urging this Congress to increase the size of Federal spending by 22 percent for this coming year, over what it was in 1999. This is the largest increase in Federal spending over that period of time than any comparable time since another Texan named Lyndon Johnson was President. Somehow 9/11 has changed nothing in what is always the predominant theme of the House Republican leadership and their agenda: convincing voters that they can have something for nothing. They are out to convince folks that every year they can pay less and less. Even if we have new, essential security requirements and other government needs, they will just continue to ``borrow and spend''--their traditional policy. The Republicans that were once known as the ``party of fiscal responsibility'' are now known as the ``party of shifting responsibility'', letting tomorrow's children pay for today's needs. It was not long ago that the Republicans were bringing the debt clock out here to the House floor to show us the impact of the national debt. It kept going up. It reminded me of that old ad about a watch: ``It takes a licking and it keeps on ticking.'' Well, it is ticking now as a result of the licking that it is taking with this economy and with the increased spending being proposed. If there was a problem with the ``guns-and-butter'' budget of the sixties, imagine the extent of the problem we are going to have with what is essentially a ``guns-and-caviar'' approach: unlimited defense spending and tax cuts for the caviar set. At the very time this takes effect, many Americans who are baby boomers are going to be retiring. They will need their Social Security. They will need their Medicare. They will have other needs of an aging population even as we have fewer workers to finance those needs. Yet, they propose more debt instead of more responsibility. Reject the fiscal folly: reject this ``gimmick for the gullible.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. In the aftermath of the Enron-Andersen fiasco, certainly we should be concerned about activity that was lawless. But I believe we here in Congress need to be equally concerned about activity that was lawful, but simply awful, in its impact on American families. This is a scandal involving the deliberate decisions of policymakers in this House of Representatives to allow and overlook loopholes, shortcuts, back doors, exemptions, and exceptions that riddle our laws, that provide special protection and special opportunities to special interests that devote such energy to lobbying us here in Washington. It works to the detriment of blameless employees at Andersen and Enron and at companies across this country, the blameless participation of retirees and investors and of taxpayers who work hard to contribute to make this the great country that it is. And for those Enron employees who lost all their life savings, for those taxpayers that are out there completing their tax return and wondering why it was that Enron did not pay a dime in taxes, for all those people across America who are saying ``there ought to be a law to do something about this, those folks do not need to look any further than the House Committee on Ways and Means that has responsibility for people paying their taxes and for protecting pensions, to ask why did they not do something about it. Why do they continue to enable and facilitate and encourage companies like Enron to not pay a dime on their taxes, while Americans are working hard to pay for the costs of the security of this country? Why have they been so indifferent to ordinary workers that are concerned about their pension security? This bill is not about the protection of pensions for hard-working employees; it is about political cover for Members of Congress who have not done very much about these kinds of problems in the past. It is based on the premise of how very little can this Congress do and still go out with a straight face and say they have done something about this problem. Let me tell you, if your family's future is dependent upon an employee pension plan, and you are asking what is this Congress doing to protect me, to protect my family, what is this Congress doing to prevent another Enron-type debacle from destroying our retirement security, the answer is practically nothing. That is not just my assessment, that was the assessment of the American Association of Retired Persons when this bill came out of committee, and I am proud to have voted against it. That was also the assessment of the New York Times on the front page yesterday--serious concerns that have not been answered by supporters of this bill. In fact, a former Treasury official said the bill opens the door to discrimination between executive and lower-paid workers. While its proponent did not have time to take care of ordinary folks, they could certainly provide new favors for highly-paid workers. If management tells you to buy more company stock while they are selling theirs, does management have to tell even the pension plan that it made these sales? No, not under this bill. If management continues to stuff your retirement plan with company stock, is that illegal? Not only is it lawful, they give a tax break to the company if they do that. And they tell us a company can give some advice to people: ``We will let Jeff Skilling go out and hire a consultant to advise people to sell their Enron stock.'' If you believe that, I am sure the Brooklyn Bridge is available for you. A company under this bill can continue to encourage employee contributions of company stock and hire an advisor to give advice limited to other investment issues. It is more conflicted interests atop the very kind of conflicted interests we have had in the past. I am so pleased that the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) brought up Marx, because I am a real fan of their movies. I can tell you that what this bill does in the way of pension protection for American families is just about as much as if we turned the job over to Groucho, Harpo and Chico.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the House will vote on a piece of legislation that has been named the Taxpayer Protection Act. It would be more properly described as the ``Loophole Exploitation Act'' because it is designed to undermine the new bipartisan campaign finance law before that law can even take effect. It will encourage the development of a new form of political committee that will not have to disclose its activity at either the Federal or State level. This will be a type of committee for which Federal officials are encouraged to raise funds, and yet no one will know the full extent of such a committee's activities. That is why Public Citizen, Common Cause, and the Campaign for America have said ``there is only one way to oppose the fatally flawed 527 provisions, which open a gaping loophole in our campaign finance disclosure laws, and that is to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3391.'' I hope my colleagues will do that. We must maintain the bipartisan spirit of reform and reject this very unfortunate piece of legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. This has been a truly historic year for reform, for genuine campaign finance reform, for cleaning up our political system. It is so troubling that at the very moment that the bipartisan Shays-Meehan, McCain-Feingold bill was being approved across the Capitol, that here in the House, some of those who have been the most effective in delaying that reform from becoming a reality were working to undermine it before it could even be signed into law with the approval of this legislation. When we banned soft money in that bipartisan reform, we knew that the soft money would be out searching for a new home. What we did not know was that the ``for rent'' sign for that new home would be up before the reform law was even signed into being. It just goes to show that you can dead-bolt the front door, but reform opponents will always be seeking ways to get the money in the back window. The 527 language in this bill does not require that each and every contribution and expenditure be reported anywhere. That is a loophole. The 527 language in this bill terminates all Federal disclosure, even when Federal candidates and officeholders are actively participating in raising funds. That is a loophole. I believe we need bipartisan solutions on this issue, just like every other one that concerns campaign finance. That is why the Senate agreed on a bipartisan answer to the duplicative filing issue, put it in the President's tax bill, and the conference committee, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), removed it last year from that tax bill. That is why the language that I offered as an alternative to deal with duplicative filing in the committee-tracked language that Mr. Lieberman and my Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, proposed. They have now proposed some further improvement on that language, and I plan to introduce the very same language and seek bipartisan support for it here in the House, because some State and local officials do have legitimate concern, and we ought to eliminate duplicative filing, but we ought to do it without creating new gaps in the reform law that was just signed by the President. This morning, at a public citizen press conference that highlighted how really extensive 527s are being used to abuse and funnel millions into campaigns, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Russ Feingold said this proposal will never become law. Let us save them the time, and disapprove it this evening.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. How truly typical it is, sad though it is, that the first piece of legislation dealing with the Enron-Andersen fiasco that our House Republican leadership permits us to discuss here on the floor of the United States Congress is a bill designed to protect the wrongdoer and to place more burdens on the victims. This is exactly the opposite of where our priorities should be; yet that is the approach that is taken with this piece of legislation. It is rather fundamental that a right without a remedy, is rather meaningless. People do not choose to come together in class actions because they like to be in a class with many other people; they come together in class actions because often, that is the only way, given the complexities of our legal system and the tremendous imbalance in power between one individual who has been defrauded and one of the largest corporations in the world, to equalize the power. If they are working together in a class, they may have a chance, difficult as it may be, to equate in our courts of justice their rights against those who have wronged them. All this bill is designed to do is to help those, who committed wrongs to avoid responsibility for their wrongdoing. This bill seeks to ensure that wrongdoers are not held personally accountable for their misconduct, if they just took a little from everybody instead of a great deal from a few. As for the importance of the gentlewoman's amendment in the debate on this particular bill, the only thing that has been faster than those shredding machines shredding up the documents of misconduct at Enron and Andersen, the only thing faster than those shredders is the spin machine running here in Washington today, spinning that this bill to help some avoid responsibility has anything to do with helping American families. Get serious. The judges of the States of the United States, our State court judges, have not asked for this. Our Federal court judges, upon whom the burden will be placed of handling these cases, are already overburdened; they have not asked for it. The National Conference of State Legislatures opposes it. This is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time. It is being done only to protect wrongdoers like Enron and Andersen, and it ought to be rejected. To aid even those who tear up documents and give them additional rights in our courts is particularly outrageous. I commend the gentlewoman for attempting to resolve this problem, and I recommend her amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is really the Republican ``Tale of Two Cities.'' The best of times for some: first-class treatment for the Kenny-boys of the world. And the worst of times for others: third- class treatment for the now unemployed Enron mail room attendant. And it is a ``Tale of Two Cities'' in another way. The year 2001, a historically bad year for Enron in Houston, was a wonderful year for Enron here in Washington on tax policy in this House. Let's review the year: (1) Enron successfully gets favorable treatment in that collection of subsidies and preferences called an ``energy bill.'' (2) Enron successfully supported efforts to block an international crackdown on offshore tax havens. (3) Enron's accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, successfully opposes my bill and all legislation to crack down on abusive corporate tax shelters. And (4) Enron successfully led the coalition that deals with the centerpiece of what we are debating now, the change in the alternative minimum corporate tax. Instead of contributing a dime to the cost of the war on terrorism, Enron wanted $254 million back in a government check. That was the Republican leadership's idea--the idea of Enron's Republican allies regarding the true meaning of sacrifice--they would take while others gave. Indeed, the Secretary of the Treasury told the Ways and Means Committee only last week that he could not find a tax break that Enron asked for last year that the administration did not attempt to give them. If the bill before us today is approved, just like Enron, others of the most profitable, largest corporations in this country, will not contribute a dime to our national security. The Republicans are not just taking the Kenny-boy approach, but they said it was a ``New York'' bill. Well, it is. It is the Leona Helmsley approach--``Taxes are for the little people.'' That is what Republicans have been telling us all last year: ``Taxes are for the little people.'' And so is shared sacrifice. The little people out there in America, the unemployed, the people that work hard to build this country, they can share the sacrifice while the Kenny-boys will take their checks and go their own way. To add insult to injury, they are paying for all their tax breaks by redirecting Social Security payroll taxes to finance more tax breaks for those at the very top so that these rich corporations do not have to share in the cost of our national security. How many times do my colleagues have to pass this bill? Just once. Just once, done fairly, without arrogance, done in a bipartisan way, instead of passing it at three in the morning like last time in December, or squeaking through with arm twisting on a two-vote victory in October.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, last night the Republican leadership here in the House kept us until almost 3:00 in the morning in order to try to kill campaign finance reform, and this morning, a few hours later, they offer us this bill--proof positive of how desperate our Nation is for approval of campaign finance reform. Today, of course, is Valentine's Day, but here in the House almost every day is Valentine's Day for special interest allies of this Republican leadership. They live and die by the motto, ``friends help friends get tax breaks whenever they can.'' Indeed, before the dust had settled over Ground Zero on September 11, within hours, the same folks that are promoting this bill were wrapping their old tax-break rhetoric in red, white and blue and claiming it was necessary in the war on terrorism. Only a few days later they were working to repeal the alternative minimum tax to ensure that the appeal of President Bush for sacrifice in this Nation would be met by our largest corporations being willing to sacrifice by accepting a tax rebate check. Who do my colleagues suppose was leading that effort in the special interests? None other than Enron. Cannot my colleagues imagine that call to Houston, ``Kenny Boy, can you accept a mere $254 million of taxes that Enron paid and could not avoid over the last 14 years as your share of sacrifice?'' Is that enough sacrifice for Enron? And this morning, the same folks that were doing that, after a little public scrutiny of their proposed $254 million gift for Enron, decided they could not repeal it. So they determined instead to repeal all the elements of the same tax, and they are willing to hold the unemployed workers of America, including unemployed workers at Enron, hostage so that Ken Lay, who still has six or seven houses to live in, and his company and other companies can share the sacrifice demanded in these difficult times by paying no taxes at all.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is not really an insult of me or to the House, but to the 11,000 workers added to the rolls every day who are going without unemployment insurance and whose needs are being deliberately neglected by this House, and who will not receive any assistance as a result of the gamesmanship happening here today.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if this important bipartisan Shays-Meehan proposal has any defect, it is that it does too little, not too much, as its detractors have claimed tonight. With the Shays-Meehan proposal, we take a very important step to reform, but it certainly is not the last step that we need to take. Only one-ninth of 1 percent of Americans gave $1,000 to a federal candidate during the last election cycle. The sole purpose of this amendment is to allow that elite group to give even more. If we succeed in banning soft money on the one hand, but we increase the amount of hard money on the other hand, we will have simply taken from one and given to another. We have merely traded Tweedle-Dee for Tweedle-Dum. The purported inequity that this amendment allegedly corrects is that candidates for the Senate can receive $2,000 during a 6 year term. But without this amendment, Members of the House can already receive $1,000 every 2 years or $3,000 during the same 6 year period. There is no inequity to correct. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) has declared that this bill represents ``Armageddon'', the ``life or death'' of the Republican Party and the loss of control of the House. But the strange thing is that last session I heard one Member of the Democratic leadership make essentially the same claim in reverse, that Democrats would be assured defeat by passage of such legislation. Both cannot be right. Indeed, both are wrong. The truth is that a political party that cannot survive without unlimited amounts of unregulated contributions and hate ads does not deserve to govern. A vote for the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill does not test loyalty to a party. It tests loyalty to meaningful democracy. Did my colleagues hear the story about the lobbyist who gave a million dollars to a political party in soft money donations and demanded absolutely nothing in return? Well, neither has anyone else. To avoid government of, by, and for the highest bidder, accept no substitute. There is only one alternative, the Shays-Meehan bipartisan proposal.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution to suspend reality. The only purpose of this resolution is to allow the House to debate a resolution that really does suspend reality. It was just a few short months ago that the same people who are here today urging adoption of this proposal were telling us that we could have it all: We could save Social Security; We could preserve Medicare and extend a prescription drug benefit to seniors; We could balance the budget; We could have more spending; We could pay down the debt. Indeed, we could do all of that with huge tax breaks for the richest people in our society. We could do all of that, they told us; and they even had the audacity to come to the House and say we need more tax breaks because if we do not get them, we will be paying down the debt too far and that might jeopardize the economic future of our country. Well, these same folks today are bringing up what is really a resolution to have a straw man about a tax increase. There is no one on the floor today that has a bill or proposal to raise taxes or even to repeal any of the taxes that were changed last year, many of which were outrageously skewed to those at the top of the economic ladder, rather than reaching those hardworking Americans, who needed tax relief the most. No, what we have is a resolution that is designed to disguise all of the red ink that is in this budget that has been proposed this week and to distract attention from what is really occurring here--a raid on Social Security and Medicare. How does all of this work? Well, in order to finance these tax breaks, our colleagues on the Republican side are not only picking the padlock on the Social Security and Medicare lock box that they voted for five times; rather, within months of having approved this phony lock box, they are throwing the whole box away. They are saying to the people of America that when you work hard and you contribute your wages and you get taxed at work and your employer gets taxed to forward those monies up to Washington to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare, that they are not going to use them for that purpose. They are going to give Social Security and Medicare an IOU, and they will redirect those same dollars and apply them to finance these tax breaks way into the future. It is not just the tax breaks that have already been proposed. Yesterday we have heard Republicans are already seeking about a trillion dollars more to extend these tax breaks and add to them. As if that was not enough damage to the fiscal strength and sanity of this country, the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paul O'Neill, indicated that his ultimate objective which he had shared with the President, and with which the President indicated he was intrigued, is to eliminate all taxation on corporations and businesses in this country. So we will face, one year after another, more reaching into our pockets to take those payroll taxes and use them to advance the Republican Party's agenda. The reality that they want to suspend is that under their proposed budget, they are going to take $1.5 trillion of Social Security payroll taxes and use them elsewhere. They will take $500 billion, in excess of $500 billion of Medicare payroll taxes and use them elsewhere. In addition to all that, they propose piling on almost a trillion dollars of additional tax breaks. That makes no fiscal sense. It means shifting more and more of the responsibility for what we are doing today to our children and our grandchildren, and it also means we will not be able to fulfill our Social Security and Medicare obligations. It means direct benefit cuts as a result of this kind of phony resolution.