Lloyd Doggett

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.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the lead story in today's Wall Street Journal really tells it all: ``Seeing Red: As Budget Deficits Loom, Many Promises, Programs Could Suffer. Social Security Is Vulnerable as Huge 10-year Surplus Contracts by $4 Trillion.'' Yes, an unprecedented 70 percent of the estimated surplus has evaporated in less than a year. It is true that the two Republican budget offices, one here in the House and one at the White House, cannot agree on exactly how deep a hole Republicans have dug. But I can tell you, even using Arthur Andersen accounting, this hole is a whopper. Our Republican colleagues have ``stimulated'' little more than red ink with their huge tax breaks designed for certain priviledged corporations and the wealthy few. What a difference those huge tax breaks have made. They have not stimulated anything except red ink. Now when they have dug such a deep budgetary hole, it is time to stop digging, instead of offering more and more corporate tax breaks, as our Republican friends persist in doing this year. Let us at least stop that digging downward, embrace some fiscal restraint and begin climbing out of this budgetary hole before Social Security is wrecked and we reach the point of economic ``no return''.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). I appreciate the leadership he has shown on this and in our committee. Let me take this opportunity to discus the link between the two subjects that the gentleman has been discussing: the mess we have with growing amounts of red ink in the budget and the mess we have with special interest money here in Washington. Today is truly historic. During my entire career in Congress no one has succeeded in securing the signature of 218 members on a petition to discharge a bill for the House to act on. Since 1993, it has just not happened, and rarely has it happened in the entire history of this Congress. Today, this historic step is taken; and it is closely related to what we have been talking about this last hour, because the reason we confront much of this mess is a direct result of special favors purchased by special interest lobbyists who come up here to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and ask to be treated in a different way than all the rest of us. We saw one after another approved last year, one after another being considered this year, cloaked under the term ``economic stimulus.'' Enron, for example, paid no taxes and gave more in ``soft money,'' banned by our reform bill, than all of its contributions to House and Senate candidates combined. We can do something about the entire agenda of this Congress by approving this campaign finance bill. I want at this time to call under the discharge petition and applicable House rules for a full and fair debate of campaign finance on February 11, the second Monday of the month. I call on the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert); the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey); and the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), even though they are 100 percent against campaign finance reform, to immediately schedule the House in session on the second Monday in February. The House has spoken: ``Delay no more.'' I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our new whip, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). She is doing a wonderful job; and while many people deserve some credit, certainly the decision of these fine individuals who have come forward and signed, I believe it would not have happened without the leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). She is reinvigorating our caucus. It is appropriate that we see the first indication of her new leadership in the fact that we have joined together and are ready to cooperate with our Republican colleagues to make genuine reform a reality. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his leadership and Ms. Pelosi for her crucial leadership because now that the House has forced the Republican leadership to schedule debate, as set forth in the discharge petition, it is essential that we work together to prevent those who have obstructed campaign finance reform for so long from further delays. Those responsible for delay are so wedded to the same special interests that are creating the budget mess that we have. We must work together to ensure that this reform is enacted immediately because genuine campaign finance reform is connected to every other issue--Social Security, cleaning up the Enron mess, creating a fair tax system, and setting the Pentagon's budget-- the Congress will consider this year.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can begin this session of Congress in a spirit of cooperation by tackling some of the very serious domestic problems that face our country. I believe that we can learn from the repeated failures of last year when this Congress was unable to resolve with so many important issues, and from the several unproductive congressional sessions over the last several years. We can also learn from a rare and significant bipartisan success, namely was the completion of action on the new education law, just before the holidays, where members of both parties working together, developed a bill that offers great promise for improving the quality of American public education. One of the issues which we should devote our energies now, and we should work together to resolve, are those concerns, such as the use of tax shelters, brought to greater public attention through the Enron/ Andersen scandal. Certainly, we should be concerned when we look at the Enron/Andersen scandal with the lawless conduct that allegedly occurred, and there are prosecutors exploring that as I speak. But we here in the Congress need to be equally concerned about conduct by Andersen, Enron, and others that may be lawful but is simply awful in its impact on America. The Enron/Andersen scandal certainly demonstrates the error of many who have spoken in this House and who have insisted that a tax cut deregulation elixir is the cure for every ill afflicting America. Certainly Enron got plenty of that elixir. In recent years, they did not bother paying any income taxes whatsoever to support our great country. Rather in reviewing the conduct of Enron and Andersen, we learn much that appears to have been lawful but was awful in its impact on our country. This scandal is about more than dealing with a lack of oversight, it turns on the deliberate decisions of some policymakers in Washington to overlook loopholes, shortcuts, back doors, exemptions and exceptions that riddle our laws, providing special protection and special opportunities to special interests that lobby here in Washington--to the detriment of blameless employees at Enron, Andersen and other companies, of retirees, of investors, and of those many taxpayers, who work hard to contribute their fair share to our country. The Enron/Andersen scandal makes the case for long overdue reforms in many areas. One of those is the Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown Act, which I have been urging Congress over three years to adopt. Too often major corporations use gimmicks similar to these offshore subsidiaries that Enron created as a scheme to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This tax shelter legislation, which we voted on here on the House floor, suffered the consistent objection of companies like Andersen, who peddle their tax shelters to more than just Enron. There are plenty of other companies engaged in the same general type of abusive tax shelters that aided Enron. Second, the debate demonstrates the need to reform our campaign finance laws. There is so much focus in the press on what people are doing with their campaign checks from Enron. The attention ought to be on whether anything meaningful will be done to reform the campaign finance system for all contributions. We are now two or three signatures away from a discharge petition forcing the Speaker to bring this issue to the floor for full and fair debate. We ought not to have to force him, this ought to be the first item up for consideration next week in this House. A third area where prompt reform is definitely required is with reference to retirement security. These blameless folks who lost their retirement savings in their 401(k) plan as a result of being locked in to relying on company stock by Enron management presents a problem that working together we can act on now before others suffer the same fate. I hope that the leadership of this House and the Administration, both of whom have blocked reforms on campaign finance and abusive tax shelters, that they have learned from this outrageous, still unfolding scandal with Enron and with Andersen. If we approach these problems together learning from the mistakes of some, we can produce good legislation, do it, quickly but carefully, and thereby ensuring that no more similar scandals afflict American families.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I think some of our colleagues at this special time of the year need to get a smile on their face and feel a little better about things. And, really, we need to give credit where credit is due. The House Republican leadership here got in the Christmas spirit ahead of a lot of other folks. Indeed, almost from the moment that they were sworn in last January. There are some Christmas sales underway, some pre- Christmas clearances underway by some stores I see here in town, but our Republican colleagues here in the House got into the business of giveaways long before any of these stores: giving away public lands to be mined on for practically nothing; rolling back health and safety rules; and tax breaks, lots of tax breaks, one after another for every special interest that lined up with a limousine at the Capitol. It is the season of red and green. Well, red ink has been in favor here in the House all year long. This surplus is being used up by Republican borrowing to finance more corporate tax breaks. And green, well, that is the long green of special interest campaign contributions. And we have seen a lot of that this year too. Even the Wall Street Journal this week labeled what is going on tonight as ``a feeding frenzy among corporate tax lobbyists.'' Not to worry, though. They say there is enough for everyone. Well, not quite. Yes, Virginia, there may be a Santa Claus, but this year we are having a Republican Christmas. That is where Santa just stuffs the silk stockings. And for the working families of this country, they have a hole in their sock. They have heard of the story of Scrooge and of the Grinch, and their relief is slipping out the bottom of the stocking. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned us that ``it is far more important to be right than to be quick.'' Well, this bill manages to fail both. It prefers to be wrong and to be late, very late into the evening. Who would want to do this in the light of day? The stimulus stalled because the Republicans insisted on putting billions of dollars into tax breaks to set up various Christmas trees, as we call them around here, loaded with favors for special interest well-heeled lobbyists. Enron, for example, from my State of Texas, which has had its problems of late, under the original Republican bill would get $254 million, getting its taxes rebated to 1986. But only a lump of coal is left for working families who are out there wondering this Christmas do we buy presents for the kids or will we have enough to pay our health insurance premium next month. Who is going to pay the mortgage or pay the rent when the unemployment runs out? I think it is time to dump the corporate lobbyists from Santa's knee and make room for those folks who have been working hard to build this great country and are now facing the problems created by this economic downturn. Our Republican colleagues can wrap up this package tonight, they can slap a bow on it, they can call it a stimulus. But a pretty box that for most Americans is empty is not any present at all. This stimulus package, I believe, is a hollow Republican plan. That is why it is being rushed through under this martial law provision. There is only one gift that our Republican colleagues are equal opportunity on, and they are going to spread that around to every citizen in this country, whatever their rank, philosophy, or party, and that is more debt. And we are going to get a heck of a lot of additional debt. We have got the Bush administration planning to come in here in a few weeks and ask us to raise the public debt ceiling because of schemes and shenanigans just like those going on tonight. So I wish them well for the Christmas spirit. I know they have lots of it. But it would be nice if everybody in America could share a little more than packages wrapped up that only mean more public debt for them, their children, and their grandchildren.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way and the wrong time to consider this bill. Voted out of committee on Halloween, this is your typical Ways and Means trick-or-treat bill; a ``trick'' for hard- working employees, whose pay would be lowered, as originally proposed in a provision abandoned only last night, a ``treat'' for those who refuse to be held accountable. If this measure is so absolutely vital in the war on terrorism, why has the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Republican leadership sat on it for 36 days, for 5 weeks, doing nothing about this piece of legislation? No opportunity was offered to either the Ways and Means Committee or the Committee on the Judiciary, to consider the civil liberties questions associated with this measure. This bill is part of a larger, very troubling trend in our country today. In defending our country from terrorists, it is critically important that we not erode the very values and principles for which this country stands--that we not destroy our democratic system in a misguided attempt to save it. What separates us from our enemies is our respect for the rule of law, and as we seek to protect our freedom, we must not adopt measures that undermine our democracy. Each passing day, particularly from the mouth of Attorney General John Ashcroft, seems to bring new dangers to our system of liberty: Eavesdropping on conversations between attorneys and their clients; secret military tribunals that deny the choice of legal counsel, deny trial by jury, deny any appeal through the judicial process, and deny other due process guarantees. They are the very type of fundamental procedural rights that those of us in the Human Rights Caucus have criticized when employed in countries around the world. Despite objections from the FBI, now the Justice Department is considering spying on domestic religious organizations. And now this measure today that would make it almost impossible for one to challenge an unconstitutional search and would allow the surreptitious opening of some of our mail. This bill ought not to be considered in this way at this time. Because this bill fails to maintain the appropriate balance between our security and our rights. We need a no vote.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, here we have the ``fast'' Fast Track being rammed through Congress, with all amendments and alternatives blocked and 1 hour for 435 Members to debate this bill. When the House Republican leadership acts in such a high-handed manner before the bill is even passed it can hardly be expected to cooperate and collaborate after Fast-Track authority is granted. As a strong advocate for more international commerce, I have supported trade agreements with China, the Caribbean Basin, Africa, Jordan and most recently, the Andean region. The real issue today is not whether to expand trade, but how. In the Ways and Means Committee I sought unsuccessfully to obtain one simple guarantee: that foreign investors would not be given more rights than American citizens. Foreign investors should not be granted the right to eviscerate our environmental, health, safety and consumer laws, in secret investor tribunals beyond the review of the press, public, and watchdog groups. I cannot support unlimited authority to negotiate international agreement impacting the environment for an Administration whose environmental record has ranged from indifference to outright hostility. That is why the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation voters and every major environmental group in this country is opposing this legislation. It relegates the role of Congress to little more than preparing a Christmas wish list, hoping that an Executive Santa Claus will deliver. I am not against taking a fast track to more trade; I am against any proposal that does not give the Congress a steering wheel and a brake when the administration takes the wrong track for the environment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in addition to attempting to assure safeguards for the taxpayer, who has to foot the bill, one of my principal concerns in questioning the airline bailout was the need to at the same time address the security of passengers on our airlines. But even I could not imagine that we would still be here 7 weeks after the disaster of September 11 without this House doing anything to address airline security. The other body acted with unanimity and in a bipartisan way and approved an approach to address and secure our airlines so that the people who are out there checking our baggage are not people who are paid less than the people that clean the bathroom at the airport or who bus the tables at the airport, as occurs right now. The people will be Federal law enforcement officers. That is the kind of person we rely on to screen the baggage that comes into this building and into our own office buildings. We should demand no less for the American traveling public. It is time to move forward on airline security.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, times of crisis like this can bring out the best in us. We have witnessed that in the thousands of Americans who have lined up to give blood, in those who have contributed as they toiled in New York and in Washington with their muscles and their sweat, and even our children setting up lemonade stands to do their part in the relief effort. Now Americans will be asked to sacrifice by purchasing war bonds. At the same time that all of us are being asked to sacrifice some and some have already given their all, why is nothing being asked of the largest corporations in the United States. Can this really be the reason why the Congress is convened today at a time we cannot even assure the safety of our own office buildings here in Washington, so that we can meet here and grant another set of corporate tax breaks? Our country cannot afford further diversion from either its Treasury or from our time in dealing with the very real threats that we face today. If we are to assure our country that it is worthy of our children, our first focus our only focus ought to be the security of American families both here and with our armed forces abroad. Why now do we jeopardize our economic security by opening up the public treasury so that our largest corporations can get their fill? Our Social Security trust fund is not a limitless cornucopia. Every dollar that they take away today is a dollar taken away from security, whether it is retirement security or postal security or security provided by those in uniform defending our countries and our borders and overseas. To the clarion call of President John F. Kennedy, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' these special interests have responded, How big is my tax rebate? Because under this bill, they do not just get a tax cut in the future, these Republicans are going to mail them a check for every bit of taxes they paid since 1986. That check is drawn directly on the Social Security trust fund. This outrage arises from the near fanatical faith of our Republican friends on tax cuts as the end all, be all, cure all for every ill that faces the world. Yes, sir, I ask about Osama bin Laden and whether he would get a tax break. Yes, sir, I ask if airline security would provide a tax break because those are the kind of security problems you cannot solve with a tax break. And that is the whole purpose of that inquiry. You cannot block an Osama bin Laden with a tax break. You cannot protect the Pentagon and our shores with a tax break. These are security breaches that ought to be the focus of this Congress today instead of the same tired old worn out agenda they were pursuing on the morning of September 11. It is time to have new thinking to work together to try to solve the real problems that American families face and not to just engage in more loopholes and dodges and economic stimulus cloaked as an excuse for enacting an agenda that is only designed to stimulate the pocketbooks of the biggest campaign contributors to the Congress of the United States.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this legislation, which is a very important part of the answer to the security concerns that millions of Americans have tonight, and for organizing this discussion for us to come together after hours and talk about this problem, because this is really the only forum we have to discuss this matter. I reflect back, as I am sure my colleagues do, on the fact that only today they had a major memorial service at the Pentagon. I am sure there were similar ceremonies up in New York City. Thirty days has gone by. Across America at various times, I am sure, at events in your State, out in Illinois and Ohio, we have taken time from something we might be doing to have a moment of silence because of the tragedy that our country has endured. In this Congress, in this House of Representatives in particular, we have had not just a moment of silence, we have had a month of silence and inaction on the security concerns that are at the heart of this tragedy. We know that somehow, and we do not have all the details yet, that some thugs with box cutters and other kinds of devices got past the minimum wage workers at the airports, at some of these airports being paid less to assure the security of hand baggage and the passengers going through, being paid less to do that job than the people that clean the bathroom at the same airport, that those folks, without the training and without the pay that they need, because they have tremendous turnover in those positions, that we have not dealt with that problem, we have not dealt with the screening of baggage which the gentleman seeks to do, and the Congress, it is not that we have not had enough time, we could be here doing this tonight in regular order. We have taken up everything from the farm bill to a debate about an issue in the District of Columbia that was a family court, to this afternoon having a debate about whether there should be additional millions spent on abstinence. I think we need abstinence from terror. Unless we adopt some of the constructive measures like you have suggested, like some of our other colleagues have advanced and get out here and debate them here on the floor of this House, the people of America are not going to have the confidence, with good reason, they need to have in our air security, in our defenses against bioterrorism, in knowing that a bag is going through and does not have something in it that it should not have that could be an explosive. It is with some irony, I heard our colleague from Illinois a few minutes ago point to the recent alert from the FBI, that we could face another threat within days, that almost at the same time that that report came out I received another report that afternoon here in Washington that our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), one of those who was eager to shovel that taxpayer money out to Continental Airlines almost before they asked for it, within hours of this tragedy, that he says that even if Senator McCain, who called this situation quite properly a farce that the Congress would sit here for 30 days and not act on this, he said that even if Senator McCain and the bipartisan majority over in the United States Senate send over a bill to take action to protect the American people at the airports and ensure that some of those folks that are out there doing these jobs have the training and the pay and the status really as a part of Federal law enforcement at O'Hare, at Dallas-Ft. Worth, in Cleveland and Cincinnati and Columbus and across the country, he says even if they do that, and they have a strong bipartisan majority for it, he is going to stop it here, because they have some kind of rigid, backward, old thinking before September 11, maybe before the 21st century, that if you add another worker to the Federal workforce, that that is an evil, even if that is a worker that is going to be there to protect your family and your family and mine and ensure that we can feel safe getting on and off a plane and that somebody is not going to be on there with some device that is going to cause another tragedy that has torn asunder thousands of families across this country. So I think that we have our work cut out for us because we have not been given the opportunity to debate my colleague's, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), very appropriate measure, ideas that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and our colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, could offer, could work together in a bipartisan way, trying to cooperate and say what is the most effective way to work with our President and address this issue of security. The baggage screen is important. The people that are out there, that are a part of Federal law enforcement, the cockpit doors, so many other ideas that we may have on not only airline safety but on dealing with the threat of bioterrorism and the other possible challenges we might have. But so long as we have a bunch of ideologues here who are more concerned in presenting some kind of ideological purity than dealing with whether someone's family is going to get home safe next weekend, we are not going to be able to do that. I thank my colleague for his leadership on this.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Washington, because the gentlewoman from Texas has come; but I want to yield back with his words, because so much of what the gentleman just said, and he said it in words that are going to be long remembered in this body, when he posed the question during the airline bailout, ``Why is it that in the Congress the big dogs always eat first?'' That is what has happened here and that is what is about to happen tomorrow. Because there are those, as the gentleman from Ohio just said, who want to exploit this tragedy for their own agendas and they are doing that instead of dealing with important legislation, like the gentleman has advanced tonight, to assure the safety of families across America who do not care whether we have a Republican or Democrat or right or left or upside down kind of solution. They just want to be sure their families are safe, and that is why we are here tonight demanding that this be made the top priority of this House. I think it may come to a point where we have to say, until the House addresses this issue, we are going to see it addresses none other. Because unless we can get the kind of bipartisanship that has been occurring in the Senate and get people to come together to address the security concern, we are going to have to take additional steps to force that action on to the agenda of the House. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. DOGGETT. I serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, and we already have scheduled tomorrow morning bright and early an attempt to do just that. And I think our colleagues are aware that none of those people who suffered the loss of life in New York or out here at the Pentagon were killed because their taxes were too high. Rather, they were killed because one of the reasons was, immediate reason, we did not have the kind of security in our airline industry that we needed to have. Instead of dealing with that airline security, it is amazing but the same old agenda that our Republican colleagues were advancing the morning of September 10, they are back with it again and talking about capital gains cuts. They are talking about cutting the tax for the biggest corporations in the country, cutting the taxes for the most wealthy people in America. That is something we have already done at least once this year, I believe. And instead of dealing with security, they want to talk about those old ideas. It is not going to help us get this job done of assuring the safety of this industry to cut taxes. There may be some legitimate changes in the Tax Code, but we ought to focus on the stimulative effect of raising the wages of the workers that are charged with the responsibility of protecting our lives on these airplanes and getting them the skills that they need to do the job effectively. Putting those machines on the line and hiring the workers that will build the machines to scan the baggage, as the gentleman proposed; doing the other kinds of upgrades on security at our water systems, at our utilities, at our other places that could be endangered by a terrorist attack, those are stimulative effects that will cause people to be hired in good-paying jobs and help our economy move along and, at the same time, will give us the peace of mind that when we get on an airplane or when we get a drink of water, it is going to be safe from terrorists.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, abstinence education. With all due respect to the good intentions of the author of the amendment, as far as this amendment and the priority-setting that produced this amendment on the floor of Congress today, I think the whole matter is a true embarrassment. The Pentagon held a memorial service this morning. It had a memorial service for the men and women that we lost on September 11. Their loved ones were not killed because of inadequate abstinence education; they were killed because of major security breaches in our airports, and it is high time that this Congress do something about it. Across our country, millions of Americans have honored the victims of September 11 with a moment of silence. Well, this House has acted with more than a moment; it has had a month of silence and inaction on the security issue that lies at the heart of this tragedy. We can talk about the pros and cons of abstinence education all night long, and I guess some would like to do that, but when are we going to talk about effective measures to ensure abstinence for terrorism? I think that it is long past time to stop wasting our time talking about safe sex and start talking about safe flight. In the 30 days that have now passed since four airplanes were hijacked and crashed, the Congress has failed utterly to provide for airline security. This inaction borders on indifference, and it is a disgrace. If four crashes were not enough to make this body respond, what in the world will? Can we not devote at least as much time to this issue that every family in America is concerned about tonight as we devote to talking about abstinence? One week after this attack, and this is part of a series of problems; it is not just this amendment, one week after this attack, what was this House doing? We were debating a family court in the District of Columbia. Two weeks after this attack, we were establishing National Character Counts Week. Three weeks after this tragedy, we were considering the farm bill and approving the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve. This week, we are looking at Fast Track trading authority, more tax breaks for corporations, and abstinence. When in the world is this Congress going to deal with what Americans are really concerned about: Will my wife get home safe tonight? Can the kids come home for Thanksgiving? Those are the issues that we ought to be establishing as our priorities. We will not decrease terrorism by hoping that terrorists abstain from further attacks. We will not be able to trade our way into the hearts of the Taliban, and we will not make our families safer by spending millions of dollars on abstinence education instead of substituting skilled Federal law enforcement on our airlines to search the bags and be there when we go through the screening process instead of some minimum-wage worker who could not get a job anywhere else. And of all times, on a day when we are more and more concerned about Anthrax, to fund this increased abstinence education by cutting the Centers for Disease Control borders on insanity in terms of the priorities of this Congress. It has been 30 days, 30 days since September 11; and while most Americans would have said, if asked, and if they had been here on the floor of this Congress, do something about airline security, do something about bioterrorism, and leave all of this other stuff alone. This Congress is not doing it. This leadership will not permit us to debate the issue of aviation safety and the needs on bioterrorism tonight in this Congress because there is a hard-line idealogical commitment that if we add one worker to the Federal workforce, even if they are to screen our bags, even if they are to screen the passengers, that that is somehow a bad thing. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to put a stop to the old way of dealing with these problems and the old ideologies and recognize that we have a new world after September 11. It is time to reject those old ways. The failure to discuss airline security results from those old ways that some refused to abandon. Mr. Chairman, at 4:28 this afternoon, another headline out: ``FBI Issues Terrorist Strikes Warning,'' which says that either inside or outside the United States, during the next several days, we may face additional terrorist attacks. Whether they are through Anthrax or through airlines, this Congress ought to be dealing with these security issues are a top priority. The fact that our National Guard, and now our border guards, are being pulled off the border and put into the airports, the fact that this is happening results from the inaction of this Congress. The failure of this Congress to act, which caused one Member of the other body, Senator McCain from Arizona, to say it last night, this in his words ``a farce; and today is a continuation of that farce, resulting from our failure to deal with this security priority tonight.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, our vital airline industry has asked for a hand; and we ought to give them a helping hand but not a handout. And that is what this bill does with billions of dollars of hard-earned Social Security Trust Fund monies. While the airlines get those billions, the taxpayers do not get the protection, the workers do not get the support, and the traveling public does not get the safety. All they get is an IOU. We need to commit tonight to pay that IOU as quickly as the airlines cash the billions of dollars of checks that they are being granted in a bailout here tonight. While this is hardly last Friday's midnight blank check to the industry that was urged, it remains grossly deficient. And even tonight the comptroller general of the General Accounting Office states that after reviewing the bill. ``He has concerns that adequate safeguards need to be put in place to safeguard the taxpayers' interests.'' We need to do that, but tonight we need to vote ``no.''

Mr. DOGGETT. Let us face it, folks, this bill without the motion to recommit leaves the whole question of security for the traveling public in a holding pattern. It is time to get it out of the holding pattern and bring it down to Earth. Because when you ask the American people tonight what their concerns are, it is, is it safe? Is it secure? Will somebody else be sneaking by the minimum wage employees that are out at the airport something that is unsafe? This is the first measure considered on this floor that does something to address that concern. It will not hold this bill up a bit. Let us approve it and answer the basic concern of the American people. Flying is safe, it can be safe, if we are assured we have the security there and it is not somebody who is concerned with our most basic security who could not get a job somewhere else.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending President Bush for his efforts to bring our Nation together. This is a time for bipartisan commitment to make common cause on behalf of our country. Yet the handling of this bill, I believe, violates that very spirit. We now debate what is really a ``jam rule,'' jamming through this Chamber a piece of legislation involving a tremendous expenditure of taxpayer money without an opportunity for the Members to read and understand the provisions; and it will be immediately followed by a ``gag rule'' that denies the Members the slightest opportunity to improve this bill by offering amendments and strictly limits their remarks during debate. Such parliamentary tricks, really, I think divide us at a time when we should be coming together. There was a plainspoken Texan who once sat in that chair, a legendary figure who presided over this House, by the name of Sam Rayburn. He said that, in conducting the people's business, three of the most important words are simply ``wait a minute.'' That simple maxim I think has never rung more true than with this piece of legislation. At midnight last Friday, when many Members of this House were asleep, like many members of the American public, when we had been told that all of our regular work was completed, an attempt was made to force through this House, in a matter of minutes, a bill that spent $15 billion, that is billion with a B, of taxpayer money, a bill composed of a mere three pages. All that I personally did about those three pages at that time was to apply Mr. Rayburn's three words: Wait a minute. Wait a minute, because the bill that we had then and that we have now contains nothing meaningful, not one word, well, a few words at the end of the bill that are meaningless, making passing reference to previous legislation, but it does nothing to assure the security of Americans on planes flying across this country. That is deferred until later, instead of making it our first priority now. We have 31 pages tonight instead of last Friday's three pages, but those pages provide no more security for the travelling public. I said ``wait a minute'' because that bill did not contain protection for the taxpayer; those three pages were only a blank check. In that regard, I want to commend again President Bush's administration, because had it not been for them seizing the opportunity of these last few days and demanding an Air Transportation Stabilization Board, it would not be in the bill. This very provision of which the supporters tonight boast in this bill would not be there if they had overcome my objection at midnight last week. I said, wait a minute then, because it contained no provision to protect those who do the hard work within our airline industry. It contained no shared sacrifice. At that time all the money could have gone to executive compensation, to those at the top. Tonight, now that it has been studied carefully, they put a limitation in the bill. And do you know what that limitation is? That limitation is that those at the top of the airline industry cannot make any more than they did last year. Do you know how much that is? For one fellow that is $35 million. And the poorer CEO's can only make $6 million. And so the American taxpayer is going to contribute to their $35 million; and, oh, by the way, if they bail out this next year, they can get up to $70 million in a golden parachute. What about the people that cook the meals, that clean the cabins, that stand out there and risk their lives for the safety of all of us? What security do they get in this bill? They do not get one dime or one plug nickel in this bill. That is why I say it is a shame what is happening here tonight. They got nothing last Friday, and we have come around to another Friday and those hardworking Americans do not get the protection they need in this bill. It is wrong for this Congress to help those at the top and forget those who are doing the hard work out there. And we have been told in the interim that 100,000 Americans working for the airlines will probably be laid off even if the airlines get every dime for which they are asking. It is not my intent to demonize this industry or question the motives of those who have come forward. This is a vital industry to our country. I am ready to help it. I am ready to respond. I am ready to respond this very minute. But crafting this bill has not been an open inclusive process. Rather it has been one closed-door session after another where the taxpayer rights, the safety of the American public, and the rights of American workers have been ignored. I'm voting no because it's not right to put those at the top in first class seats and leave everybody else--the taxpayers, the flying public, and the workers out on the tarmac without even a bag of peanuts.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. That is the whole problem. You started at 4 o'clock.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I think it was only a week ago, well, maybe not a week ago at this time, at 12:20 in the morning, but about a week ago that individuals in this House of both parties expressed their concern about our budget, our financial situation, about whether or not it would be necessary with the budgetary pressures that we have to reach into those monies that are payroll taxes, that businesses and individuals have paid in for their Social Security, and use that for other purposes. In the tragic week that has transpired since that time, the world has been turned upside down for families in New York, in Washington, across the country. Certainly our situation with regard to the budget has been turned upside down as well. But it is not one that has made our situation better. It has made the pressures on our budget worse. Last night this House, with no explanation as to the specific purposes for which the monies would be spent, voted to approve the expenditure of $40 billion out of what are basically Social Security monies. That number went up from $20 billion in the morning to $40 billion at night. Perhaps there were those that were watching the success of the growth of those funds, because now, tonight, before all the bodies are removed, before the dust has settled, before perhaps all the fires are extinguished, there are those that are lining up here at the Capitol door, at the public treasury, asking that they receive some public subsidy, right out of the Social Security fund. Perhaps that subsidy is well justified. I may vote for it myself because it is so compelling. But if it is so compelling, it will be as compelling in the bright light of day as it is with insults and threats at midnight. I feel that the taxpayers of this country are owed a better explanation than to hear about a bill at 4, with promises and and's, if's, or's and but's, that is going to take perhaps not just $2.5 billion, but perhaps $15 billion out of that Social Security money, that they are entitled to know a little more about it. If it is so desperate and if it is so essential that this be accomplished before Monday, then I suggest we stay and work on it. I am prepared to do that. I suggest that we stay and have a hearing. If the gentleman has so much wisdom and insight on this, I suggest he convey it to us in the course of an ordinary hearing. I have been asked tonight what it is that I want. I do not want anything special. I simply want the same consideration I would want for any expenditure of $15 billion out of the Social Security monies, and that is a fair chance to ask some questions about it, to see it deliberated, to get a little investigation to question whether there is business interruption insurance, to question whether or not there are other resources, to question those who say if we do not get all this approved by Monday, people would be laid off. What guarantee is there that they will still be hired on Monday if it is approved? To ask if it is so very, very important that we act here after the midnight hour, why the President of the United States has not found it sufficiently important to call for it in some kind of proclamation. So, for all of those reasons, I object to doing this tonight. I certainly would have no objection to the kind of resolution the gentleman from Pennsylvania has talked about, or some other way of expressing our concern about this; but I object to this bill coming up, if it has even been filed. I suppose in the last few minutes it has. I object to it coming up in this fashion, in this manner. It sends a signal to others who will stand at the door of the Treasury and ask for their subsidy. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this time of great peril has brought forth the best in our people, from those who rescue and heal and protect at ground zero, to those who across America raise flags, collect donations and give blood. But times of peril can also cause our well-justified anger and desire for immediate action to overwhelm democratic safeguards erected over the last 2 centuries. The tension that we face tonight is to provide the President with enough authority to eradicate wrongdoing without wronging the carefully crafted systems of checks and balances so essential to our democracy. Neither should this body lightly yield the power of the purse by granting unlimited access to the public treasury to the executive. As we vote for this important resolution with the lives of so many at stake in this important endeavor against terrorism, we cannot let the executive branch become the exclusive branch. Our approval must represent not the end but the beginning of congressional involvement. Today, we pledge to redouble our efforts to assure the security and the well-being of people in America and in many other parts of the world as we challenge terrorism. But we do so, entering this difficult course of national involvement, with an eagerness to see that our most precious democratic institutions are also preserved.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, against this backdrop of an unfolding and unforgettable horror, we draw our loved ones a little closer. Let our prayers comfort those in pain and our gratitude sustain those who rescue and protect and heal. As our grief yields to anger, we unite in support of a swift response, commensurate to the evil, targeted against the guilty, sufficient to deter others who would visit terror on our shores. The words of President Bush have been well chosen; his response has been firm, but measured. All of us want to join our President with a bipartisan display of national unity, just as we did last evening on the steps of this Capitol. As President Bush well understands, nothing good would be accomplished by attacking the innocent based on mere suspicion. In today's world, there can be no absolute security, no impenetrable ``Fortress America.'' For as long as tyrants exist, they will challenge and demonize the United States because of our ideas of freedom and liberty. We can only dedicate ourselves to determining how this terrible attack occurred, redouble our efforts to protect our families from the greatest dangers, and ensure that only the guilty bear our retribution. As we renew our declaration of war against terrorism, we know that if our enemies could be easily vanquished, they would already be gone; if we could buy our way out of such tragedies, the dollars would already have been spent. More money may be needed for some purposes, but a blank check is no substitute for policies that are sound, well coordinated and effectively implemented. Certainly the lessons we learn in this kind of situation and the memories we take away are very individual. As I passed the Tidal Basin yesterday and witnessed the smoke rising from behind the Jefferson Memorial coming from the still-burning Pentagon, I will concede to being moved by the juxtaposition, the gray smoke from the Pentagon against this classic white marble structure where the words of Jefferson are inscribed: ``I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'' Today we join in subscribing to that same oath.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as the representative here in Washington for the capital city of the Lone Star State of Texas, I take pride in the fact that our State has provided national leadership in protecting patients from their insurance companies with a model patients' bill of rights. Now, all America should know that our success in Texas came despite the continual objection of then-Governor Bush, who threw up as many roadblocks as he could to those meaningful guarantees, in fact, almost as many as he now throws up to the bill we consider today on the Federal level for a national patients' bill of rights. Incredibly, President Bush now seeks to override the effective State guarantees that we got enacted over his objection in Texas. And like the fine print in one of those policies that only pays if you get struck by lightning at leap year on a midnight summer day, this patients' bill of rights is riddled with loopholes for insurance companies to take advantage of sick patients and distressed families. It should be rejected in favor of a real patients' bill of rights, the kind we got in Texas over President Bush's veto.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, a patients' bill of rights should be about helping patients: someone who has just received the bad news from her doctor that she faces a life-threatening illness requiring extensive and expensive medications, a parent, who has a child with a serious disability, a family that has been shocked by an accidental injury to a bread winner. With the patient already at a disadvantage, and then further disadvantaged by an abusive insurance company, this Congress has to decide today whether it wants to provide patient protections or insurance loopholes. The kind of bill that is being advanced by our Republican colleagues is a little like the fine print of some worthless insurance policy that promises much, but in the fine print limits coverage only to those struck by lightning on a summer's midnight during leap year. That is the kind of protection, riddled with countless loopholes for insurers, that Republicans would afford. In Texas, we stood and chose. We chose the patient and adopted a model law that the rest of the Nation has looked to for our patients' bill of rights. We adopted that law, it should be noted contrary to the suggestion today, not because of, but in spite of then Governor George W. Bush, who fought it every step of the way, who tried to undermine it, as he has this bill, who vetoed the state legislation once before it became law. He finally let it become law without his signature as he worked hand-in-glove with the insurance companies in Texas in making the very same arguments that are being advanced here today. Our Texas law has worked well. Our newspaper in the capital city, the Austin American-Statesman, editionalized that this law had ``changed the health care climate in Texas.'' Yet there was a serious problem. The courts interpreted an old Federal law called ERISA, designed originally to protect employees with their pensions, as overriding or preempting our state patient guaranties. This Federal law meant that while some Texans can get state protection, millions get nothing. Federal law wipes out what the State of Texas, over George Bush's objection, adopted to protect our citizens. ERISA preempted that law. Today, what do we find? We find George W. Bush, now as President, perhaps using the same pen with which he vetoed the guarantees in Texas, and he comes forward and says that preemption for some Texans is not enough. With this Norwood amendment, preemption will apply to all of those State guarantees for all, Texan's and folks in States with such guarantees. These State patients' rights provisions will be wiped out, and replaced with this new federal loophole law. Well, that is not a patients' bill of rights, that is only protection for the insurance industry. Before I came to this Congress, I served as a judge on the highest court in the State of Texas. I was called a ``Justice'' and expected to do justice. And yet time after time I saw victims of insurance company abuse come into our court and like other judges, my hands were tied. They were tied by Federal interference in States' rights under ERISA. Our laws, our guarantees, our consumer protections were preempted, and no judge could do justice. Justice was not only blind, but rendered helpless. In this Congress, we are not helpless. We can reject the same approach that Governor George W. Bush tried to impose on our State and not let it be imposed on this country. We can stand up for patients and reject loopholes for insurance companies.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents another partisan Republican failure. It offers no balance either for our energy policy or our federal budget. The only balance involved in this plan is the balance sheets of big oil, dirty coal, and dangerous nuclear industries. They receive substantial boons and largesse from the bounty of this bill. The balance here is the balance of sweet words about conservation and the environment, like those we just heard, with the harsh reality of huge subsidies for these industries at the expense of all the rest of us. Yesterday, we learned that the Treasury is having to borrow more money, incurring more public debt, increasing the amount of red ink in order to fund the already unwieldy tax cut upon which the President has insisted. What solution do the Republicans offer us today? Well, they are going to increase the flow of red ink. Today, they are drilling. They are drilling for red ink. And as we would say in Texas, they have hit a real ``gusher'' of red ink in this bill, because they have over $30 billion of mostly special interest tax breaks to be paid for directly out of the Medicare trust fund. And it is not my word, but a recent Republican memo, as reported in the July 27th BNA Daily Tax Report, that says they are already into the Medicare trust fund, and the Social Security trust fund is next. Those hard-earned payroll taxes going right back to these special interests that have been so generous with their campaign money and their special interest lobbying. This is not an energy policy, it is a collection of unjustified tax breaks, loopholes, and dodges masquerading as an energy policy. The only energy it reflects is the energy of campaign fund-raising and high-powered lobbying. Little wonder this plan was concocted in secret by Vice President Cheney and that he is afraid to disclose the participants and contents of his various conclaves with special interests, even to the nonpartisan General Accounting Office. Each year, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, identify subsidies that both waste taxpayer money and harm the environment. It is called the ``Green Scissors Report.'' And if this hodgepodge of a bill is approved, there will be plenty more to cut. Indeed it is the American people that are really getting cut by this bad bill, which should be rejected. We need a conservative national energy policy that emphasizes conserving our precious natural resources, increasing energy efficiency, and providing reasonable production incentives. This bill fails to achieve any of these goals.