Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we can count, as the gentleman said in his words, with certainty that it will be up on the floor on Tuesday. Has the Committee on Rules made any announcement about when it will convene on that bill?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. It could be as late as Wednesday?

Mr. DOGGETT. Would it be the gentleman's recommendation that there will be an opportunity to consider an amendment on a substitute to the bill as it was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means?

Mr. DOGGETT. Does the gentleman expect to have a recommendation or does the gentleman have one at this time concerning approximately how much time we will have to debate a matter of this importance?

Mr. DOGGETT. Let me just say, that despite our differences on arranging matters, I want to be quite sincere in expressing my appreciation for your assurance today that we will have an opportunity next week to consider this matter, and I wish the gentleman a good weekend; and we will get ready for that vigorous debate.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if I might ask the majority leader, I noticed that H.R. 4717, the political disclosure measure has been added to the schedule since your original tentative schedule was posted at noon. I am so very pleased to see the leader honoring the pledge that he made to the House in June that that matter will be scheduled. Can the gentleman give us an approximate time when he thinks that will be reached on Tuesday?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I certainly oppose our withdrawal from participation in the World Trade Organization, but I share many of the concerns that have been voiced here today concerning the way the WTO operates. When a dispute arises in the WTO, perhaps over another nation's claim that an environmental law represents a discriminatory barrier to international commerce, the WTO tribunal acts in a somewhat star chamber-type proceeding. The complaint itself may be sealed. The hearings are closed. The briefs are confidential. If there are outside concerned parties that would file an amicus brief, if a United States court were involved, they are denied that right to reflect broader policy considerations that might arise from the dispute resolution. And conflict of interest procedures are lacking. I do not think, given that circumstance, that there can be any wonder why conspiracy theorists and why many people, who simply have a reasonable and legitimate concern about the environment and human rights, are very suspicious about the way that the WTO operates. An additional area of the decision-making processes of the WTO concerning trade policy, though not relating directly to dispute resolution, also fails both to provide openness and adequately to involve nongovernmental organizations or other international organizations, such as the World Health Organization. WTO reports are not being released immediately too much information is being classified out of public view. I do not believe that this administration has done enough to open up the processes of the WTO, nor has the international business community worked vigorously enough to open up the processes. The propensity of the WTO bureaucracy and many of our trading partners to be consumed with secrecy presents much of the problem that we have here today. Despite that wrongful secrecy, it should be noted that many of those who are basically opposed to more international trade have misstated or greatly exaggerated the consequences of WTO decisions. Of the 140 issues that have been brought before the WTO, only about 10 have involved health or environmental concerns, and these have not produced the adverse consequences claimed by some WTO opponents. I believe we need a trade policy that addresses environment and health concerns as much more central concerns. Have a sustained push for real reform of the WTO, but we must not follow a course of economic isolationism. That latter course would only reduce our economic growth, increase consumer prices, and reduce opportunities for more good high paying jobs in Central Texas and across the country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the provision that this amendment seeks to strike reeks of tobacco, it reeks of special interest, and it reeks of injustice. I think that this rider, and of course there has been considerable competition through the years, but it is truly the most disgusting that I have seen since this same crowd came to this same House and snuck into a bill for small business tax relief, $50 billion in a tax credit for the same tobacco industry, so disgusting that once it was exposed, they had to back off and remove the provision. Indeed, that action is one of the only bits of action that this House of Representatives has taken during the last 6 years to deal with that plague of nicotine addiction that kills thousands every day in this country. To those who say turn to the legislative branch instead of the judicial, Americans can look at what has happened in the last 6 years and rightly say that the tobacco industry has a stranglehold on this House. Sometimes we can prevent it from doing more wrong, but we have been totally unable to overcome the tremendous strength of the tobacco industry over the current leadership of this House to do anything affirmatively for the 3,000 children that every day will become addicted to tobacco. Supporters of this provision have the audacity to say we will not do anything about the children and their suffering from tobacco, and the fact that so many will eventually die from emphysema and lung cancer and heart disease, but we can find it in our schedule and in our hearts to provide more special interest treatment for this same industry. The friends of tobacco have the audacity to stand on this floor this evening and tell the American people that they are not terminating this lawsuit, they are just cutting off the funds necessary to its success. Let me ask my colleagues if they think Phillip Morris and RJR, and all the other big tobacco companies, are going to spare any funds when they are dealing with any thick-carpet lawyer in the country who will take their dirty money to defend them in this case. No, they are going to have an open checkbook. They are going to spend whatever it takes to obstruct the justice that this case deserves. I stood next to Janet Reno earlier in the day, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and leaders of our veterans' organizations, and heard her say in no unqualified terms that the effect of a vote against this amendment is a vote to dismiss the well- justified claims of American taxpayers against the tobacco industry. The provision that we are voting on tonight is testament to the weakness of big tobacco's legal case. They are seeking a motion to dismiss not in a court of law, relying on the justice system; no, they have come here to the Congress, a Congress that they have worked over pretty well through the years, particularly in election years. And they have asked the Congress to grant the motion to dismiss. This is just the latest underhanded maneuver in which they have engaged. What is at stake here is a rather clear choice. It is a choice between defending our veterans who have defended us or defending the continued wrongs of the tobacco industry. I believe we ought to stand with the veterans. They were there today with Attorney General Reno also, one veteran group after another, the Paralyzed Veterans, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, speaking out and asking us to defend interests, as they were willing to defend our country, by supporting the Waxman amendment. We owe them nothing less. And, of course, this is not the first time that big tobacco has trampled our veterans, just as they have trampled on our children. In each of the last two years I have advanced legislation in this Congress to give our veterans their fair claim against Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi assets that have been frozen for a decade. But big tobacco said, no, we want to go first. We want to get reimbursed for all the cigarettes we sold the Iraqis before our veterans get reimbursed on their just claims. It is that same kind of greedy attitude that they bring tonight to this House, saying that they deserve immunity, which is what they would effectively gain if the Waxman amendment is defeated--immunity to continue committing the same wrongs they have been engaging in previously. The American people have a much greater understanding of the wrongs done by the tobacco industry than this Congress has demonstrated over the last 6 years. 430,000 people every year will die as a result of tobacco, thousands will require care in hospitals and hospices. We ought to be able to remove at least some of the tremendous cost of the care incurred for the American taxpayer and for the American veteran.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. DOGGETT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, what remedy exists under the rules if six or more Members of the House are standing in the well holding their card asking to be recorded, and a rude and unprofessional Member refuses them the right to vote, under our rules?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, our effort to mandate full disclosure from clandestine political organizations began with a bipartisan appeal. Unfortunately, it has gone largely unanswered. Unlike the Senate, where an idea that began here in the House, was approved last week as the McCain-Feingold-Lieberman amendment, the House Republican leadership has steadfastly opposed reform. Finally, last week, they promised a vote on this vital reform issue during this month. This morning we have a way to assure that promise is fulfilled through the signing of this discharge petition. I call on my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, to join with us on the petition to guarantee that we get at least a little campaign finance reform in time for this year's election. The developments since last week have not been all that promising. One Republican says their bill may exempt this year's election. Another says that Tom DeLay, who has been so involved in promoting these organizations is a principal advisor in drafting the reforms. Let us clean up this mess now. It can be done. It must be done. We can yet achieve a bipartisan victory on campaign finance reform, just as the Senate has done, by signing this discharge petition and having a full debate concerning reform this very month.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), another leader in this effort. (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the leader of the campaign reform effort here.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), a leader in this political reform effort.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, last night, across this Capitol, 14 Republicans stood up to their leadership and took a firm stance against the corruption of our American political system. This motion once again seeks to achieve what now they have really already accomplished. Mandatory full disclosure by every secret political organization is the one modest reform that we can put in place in time for this year's election. Like yesterday's successful McCain-Feingold amendment, this gift tax motion presents each of us with a moment of truth, a choice for more secrecy or more democracy. Six Republicans joined 202 sponsors of this measure to choose openness and reform on my previous motion to recommit in May. We need only a few more to make reform a reality. This motion, effective immediately, will not delay by 5 minutes the estate tax repeal. This motion specifically applies to all organizations engaging in political activity. It does not exclude, contrary to what my colleagues have been told, or offer any special treatment, for labor unions or trial lawyers or any other group allied with Democrats. This motion seeks no organization's constitutionally protected membership list. Mr. Speaker, this motion parallels language that I offered and had rejected in the Committee on Ways and Means almost 3 months ago. The last-minute offer this morning of a vote by July 4 on a new bill, not yet filed, is just another way of running out the clock on reform, which each day more dirty money is collected. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, please, do not be hammered into submission. Do not be hammered into submission to cast an indefensible vote against disclosure. Join us to stop the collection of money so dirty that your leadership is ashamed to identify the donors.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, ``Inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government.'' ``If ever our people become so sordid as to feel that all that counts is moneyed prosperity, ignoble well-being, effortless ease and comfort, then this Nation shall perish as it will deserve to perish from this earth.'' Those are the bold words of a Republican, a different mold of Republican than we find today, one named Teddy Roosevelt who was the person who first proposed the estate tax in 1906 that this new crowd of Republicans is so intent on mislabeling as the ``death tax.'' Teddy Roosevelt's words ring as true at the beginning of this new century as they did when they were uttered at the beginning of the last. This bill should rightfully be called the ``Billionaire Protection Act.'' Treasury Secretary Summers said yesterday that this represents ``the most regressive tax bill'' he has ever seen. That is because 95 percent of the benefits go to the richest 1 percent of the decedents. Masquerading as the defenders of small business and family farmers, this crowd saves its true benevolence every year for Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, and what Forbes magazine recently described as the ``overclass'' in America, because they have so very much more money than what we usually consider as being wealthy. This ``overclass'' of the privileged few will be welcoming this bill with open arms and open wallets. Yes, we should modify the estate tax to meet the legitimate concerns of small businesses. The substitute that I support provides family- owned businesses more estate tax relief sooner than the Republican proposal will. There is no good public policy reason to eliminate taxes on the ultra-wealthy in order to meet the needs of family-owned businesses and farms. As for the last speaker's comments about charity, remember that the wealthiest estates give twice as much to charity as they do to the tax collector. Every charity, every religious and educational institution in this country will be a loser under this bill. All of this harm to the Treasury and to our charitable institutions for the sole purpose of giving those at the very top, the richest few in this country, the ``overclass'' in this country, the benefits of this bill. It is wrong and it should be rejected.