Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in Austin, Texas, working families of over 2,000 children rely on Federal assistance to cover part of the cost of their child care. Unfortunately, almost as many families cannot get child care assistance and are on a waiting list. Countless others never apply because they know the wait is so long. For those working families, this vote does not represent a tough choice; it is the wrong choice. It says these families will have to wait a little longer. Child care that is safe, affordable, and of high quality is essential for our families, and it is essential for our Nation. This bill makes the wrong choice on this vital need. For older children, working parents know that the period after school and before they return home from work is a critical time. It is prime time for juvenile crime, and a top need for constructive, after-school care. The cuts in this bill to after-school care are not a tough choice, they are the wrong choice for those students as well as their neighbors. For students who advance all the way through school and who deserve to be able to get all of the educational opportunity for which they are willing to work, college student financial assistance in the form of Pell grants is essential. The cuts to Pell grants in this bill are not a tough choice, they are a wrong choice for our students and their hope for the future. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that these wrong choices being forced on the House today are not by accident; they are directly related to the next bill that this House will take up. That is a bill to cut the taxes for poor old Steve Forbes, for poor old Ross Perot. Seventy-three percent of this huge, Republican-proposed tax cut would go to the wealthiest 17 percent of taxpayers. In order to give this huge tax cut to the very richest people in this country, they propose their so-called tough choice, which is the wrong choice on child care, the wrong choice for after-school care, and the wrong choice on grants for college education. The two bills are closely intertwined. And they are wrong on both. We ought not to cut Ross Perot and Steve Forbes' taxes in order to inflict so many cuts on the working families of this country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California and the other Republican members of the Committee on Rules have now joined their Republican colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, who have twice voted, on a strictly partisan basis, to ensure that this House does nothing to clean up the mess in our political system. My amendment that they rejected is to the gift tax, a critical part of this estate and gift tax bill. I believe that it is time for taxpayers to stop subsidizing those, who make unlimited, secret contributions to section 527 political organizations. What is a 527? Not some new kind of aircraft. A 527 political organization, quite simply, is a political hit squad. It relies on contributors who are hidden: they can be foreign, they can be Iraqi, Cuban, Chinese, whatever, or just home-grown special interest corporate treasury money. Its operations are secret, and its mission is character assassination. These are the groups that pollute the airwaves and fill our mailboxes with hate ads attacking one side or the other. Last week, before we recessed for Memorial Day, 201 Democrats and 6 Republicans stood on this floor and said, enough of that nonsense. They voted to clean up this mess, and at least get disclosure, nonpartisan disclosure. This amendment applies to everyone, regardless of political philosophy or association or allies, to see that all of them meet the simple, narrow requirement of merely answering: ``who gave you the money'' and ``what did you spend it on.'' Today, as we speak on this floor, on the other side of this Capitol, Republican Senators are rising to say they cannot do anything about cleaning up 527 political organizations because it is a tax measure, the very reason I offer the amendment here, and that the House must act first. So we have on one side, the Republican leadership saying the House must act first, while the House leadership hammers into submission the members of its caucus to keep them from doing what they know is right. Our Republican colleagues know that their leadership, and some have said this, they know their leadership's position is absolutely indefensible, that one cannot defend relying on secret, hidden money to produce these hate ads, and yet that is what the leadership insists that they do. Those who say that the Republicans, as some reports have suggested, now have a proposal to deal with this problem are wrong. They do not have a bill, they do not have a hearing, they do not have a proposal for which they will even provide an outline. All that they are doing is trying to provide their caucus some cover, because they also do not have any good excuse for not resolving this problem. As Senator John McCain has said, this is ``the latest manifestation of corruption in American politics,'' and we can do something about it with this bill. Tomorrow, there is going to be a moment of truth, a motion to recommit and an opportunity to vote up or down to stand and show whether we are in favor of more deceit, of more character assassinations on the television airwaves paid for with hidden money, or whether we are in favor of cleaning up this corruption of the American political system. The Washington Post said it best today in its editorial, ``In Love With the Dark'': ``It is hard to believe that a majority of the House, including the leadership, cannot be shamed into voting at least for sunlight. Why would they prefer the dark?'' Mr. Speaker, I would challenge my Republican colleagues to answer that question.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and in opposition to the fantasy that is properly called ``the Star Wars Missile Defense System.'' I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his courage in advancing this amendment. It is not too early for the Congress to debate this important issue. Indeed, it is quickly becoming too late to have a meaningful debate about a national missile defense system. The United States has already spent over $100 billion dollars, on Star Wars. Now we are told that for a mere $60 billion more, according to the Republican Congressional Budget Office, we can have a ``limited missile defense system.'' Of course, the many advocates of Star Wars, who say that a mere $60 billion system would be too limited, recommend spending two or three times that amount. They mistakenly search for absolute security by absolutely draining the taxpayer for a very questionable venture. Without the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), this debate is limited to choosing between bad and worse, between an ultra expensive program and a larger, more outlandishly and even more expensive program. There are multiple problems with Star Wars. First, Star Wars does not work. The supporters are really saying, ``do not let good science get in the way of good politics;'' ``Deploy first and then see if it works later.'' Hitting a bullet with a bullet is a significant, technical challenge. The advocates of this plan promise that it will shield the entire country when, in fact, it cannot dependably destroy even one incoming missile. Nor can this system adequately detect the difference between missiles and decoys. The second problem with Star Wars is that it does not adequately deal with what is a very real threat from rogue nations and terrorist groups. An enemy that wants to detonate a weapon of mass destruction does not need to develop an intercontinental missile system. They can rely on a smart bomb, which can little more than a suitcase and a fanatic. A human being with a nuclear or biological weapon can do great damage. But this defense at $60, $120, perhaps $200 billion offers absolutely no ability to defend against that kind of threat. The third and perhaps most important problem is that Star Wars is counterproductive. It actually jeopardizes our security. In Asia, Star Wars even the possibility of deployment is already encouraging the Chinese, to produce even more missiles and to plan for MIRVing existing missiles with multiple warheads. A much larger Chinese nuclear force will be the natural result of the deployment of even a so-called ``limited'' system. As China expands its nuclear capability, India will feel threatened. As India expands its nuclear capability, Pakistan will feel threatened. In short, Star Wars will create the very reality, the very threat that it seeks to avoid. In Europe, we send forth a message of division. All of our major allies for whom this ``limited'' deployment offers absolutely no protection are left to fend for themselves. That is one of the reasons that they have consistently objected to even a limited, ill-advised Star Wars system. With the foolish decision that was made in this Capitol last year to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the refusal to ratify other arms control agreements, a decision to deploy now sends a Cold War message to Russia when we should be seizing an historic opportunity to dramatically reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this planet. Deploying Star Wars, whether on a limited, complete, or in between basis, will fuel a world arms race that will make this Earth a much more dangerous place for all of our families. It substitutes political arrogance for good sense and good science. In short, Star Wars means that American families will pay more taxes for much less security. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT. I do not want to get into anything classified.

Mr. DOGGETT. Not the major tests?

Mr. DOGGETT. The major test is scheduled for 2005 according to published reports in the press within the last month.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, is it correct that there are no plans to test the capability of this system to deal with decoys even scheduled until the year 2005, as has been reported in the press?

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am here to applaud the Committee on Rules for giving us the opportunity today on the floor of this House to have the first, and given the way the Republican leadership runs this place, perhaps the only vote in this new millennium on genuine campaign finance reform. We are going to do that today through the motion to recommit, because what has happened in American politics is more distasteful than ever. It made a little fun of it last year in Roll Call referring to the 527 loophole airbus. It is a giant loophole that has been committed in our campaign finance laws, and now it is being used to hammer people into giving huge contributions to political organizations to conduct character assassination of people with hate ads on the airwaves throughout this country. One can hammer a person to give $100,000 or a million dollars after they think they have gotten what they call fair treatment in this House. What they can tell that person they are hammering is that no one will be able to trace the money because they are going to run it through something called a 527, a giant loophole in the campaign finance laws. Some have referred to this loophole as the political equivalent of a Swiss bank account, and we have already begun to see how these 527 organizations operate. They operate in secret. Common Cause has referred to them as stealth PACs. One leading reformer in this country has said, this is the latest manifestation of corruption in American politics. That is John McCain, and we are going to put a stop to it today, at least in part, thanks to the Committee on Rules providing for a motion to recommit.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to give one of the examples of what our motion to recommit will address. It is called Shape the Debate. This is the Web page from Shape the Debate, one of these clandestine organizations whose specialty is character assassination. Shape the Debate advertises to those who might contribute $100,000, $1 million or more. It advertises on the World Wide Web, so this can be Iraqi money or Cuban money or Chinese money or just homegrown special interest corporate treasury money, that the good thing about contributing to Shape the Debate is that it will not disclose to anyone who gave how much. That is the beauty to those who have discovered the 527 loophole, because their idea of shaping the debate is to do something that no one else of any political persuasion is doing in America today, and that is to use a secret stealth attack. The hitman can take the blood money to engage in that character assassination and one never knows, one never is able to trace the money. That is why our Republican colleagues think they cannot control the House in the future unless they rely on the money passing secretly by stealth to these 527 committees that totally subvert the Federal election laws. We have called on them. I have called on them. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) has called on them to join us in a bipartisan correction of this loophole. At every opportunity, no matter how much we had pled, they said, no, wait till next year. Wait until we have won the next election by using character assassination with secret money that no one will be able to trace. Wait till that happens, and maybe next year we will think about doing something about it. I think the American people want reform now. That is what this motion to recommit is all about; it represents the first vote of the new millennium on the floor of this House for campaign finance reform. Despite the efforts of this Committee on Rules at every turn to block us from discussing campaign reform, despite the fact that the use of 527 secretly funded ads has been called another example of corruption in American politics by John McCain, the Republican leadership has blocked us from considering reform. Today, finally we have a tiny opening to do what is right for the American people by beginning to clean up this mess.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), who has been a part of the effort to get a discharge petition so that we can take up, through regular order but has thus far been blocked, this whole issue of the 527 stealth PACs.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), who is a large man in stature but gentle in personality; and I am convinced that contrary to today's Roll Call, he did not jump anyone on the floor, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), or anyone else concerning this bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is not only linked to this telephone tax; it is linked to everything that is happening in this building and throughout this country. The gentleman challenged me to look into my heart, and I will do that. I look into my heart, and I think of the seniors who are out there who are forced to choose between getting a prescription and buying food. I see a pharmaceutical company that can dump unlimited amounts--millions of dollars--into attack ads, as they have done against the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and other Members of this body. I look into my heart, and I see the problems of public health; and yet I know the tobacco companies are dumping millions of dollars of undisclosed money to assassinate the character of those who would do something about it. I look into my heart, and I think about those who are getting managed right out of their health care and cannot get the health care they need, and I know the managed care companies are dumping millions of dollars into these campaigns to be sure this Congress does nothing about that or any of the other issues I have mentioned. And perhaps even more importantly, I think of the schoolchildren of this country. They cannot even get their agenda up in the Congress because they do not have a 527. That is what I see when I look into my heart. Mr. Speaker, I would just say this: I am tired of people coming to this Congress and being hammered into giving money to secret stealth organizations and then having their cohorts come out and say, we will duck, dodge, twist, and turn, but just do not make us do anything about it this year. Wait until we have left the House. Then, maybe 100 years from now, like this tax we are repealing, we will get around to doing something about it. The American people demand reform now and this is our one opportunity. I challenge my Republican colleagues to buck their leadership. They know we are right; that is why they have not been out here speaking against it. They know the American people deserve full disclosure for a complete democracy. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the motion.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who has led this House in the effort to get campaign finance reform through a number of sessions, and who I am pleased to have support this motion to recommit.

Mr. DOGGETT. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who has been already a victim of these 527 stealth PAC attacks.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, over 200 Members of this House of Representatives have called for full disclosure by the new political superweapon of this political season, the 527. The 527 is not some new type of aircraft, but it is a superweapon designed to undermine the election process in this election year. Today is our only opportunity, not because we wanted an opportunity like this today to be the vehicle for doing this, but because every other opportunity has been denied. Our colleagues say that they are surprised and that they did not know about this. Well, they were not surprised when I asked every one of them, even the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to join as a cosponsor with over 200 other Members in support of the Underground Campaign Disclosure Act. This legislation would require these groups to open their records, disclose their donors, and engage in a fair fight like everyone else. Last year, they stood here on the floor of this Congress after they tried for months to block the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). They stood here, and they fought those efforts by saying that it is unconstitutional. They said the only thing that would be constitutional was disclosure. Now, I read from the chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee in this morning's newspaper he thinks disclosure is unconstitutional. What they think is that anything that would be a genuine reform of the corrupt campaign finance system that we have today in America is unconstitutional or any other excuse that they can come up with. We have pled with our Republican colleagues to join with us in a bipartisan effort. We have offered other opportunities for them to participate, such as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, to give the taxpayers the right to know what is happening with this subsidized activity. But they have reached the conclusion that they cannot keep their power in this Congress, and their power over the American people, if they operate in the open. It is essential to them that they begin--and they have already begun--a program of political character assassination where the gun for the political assassination is pointed and the bullets are paid for, but we do not know who paid for them. That is the whole idea. One can take corporate money, one can take Iraqi money, one can take Cuban money, one can take any brand of money one wants and no one will ever find out. The reason they will not engage us in debate today is they have nothing to engage us with. They know they are wrong. They are afraid. That is why they have previously blocked us from coming to this floor after telling us we would have an open opportunity to debate the issue. They are afraid to debate the issue of why they have to rely on secret money. They know it is wrong. They absolutely know it is wrong to pollute the political process of America with hidden money. They are a big standard barrier for reform. A great man from Arizona has said this is the latest indication of the corruption of the American political system. He has joined in a bipartisan effort with Members in the other body to reform this system. We cannot even get a fair vote on the floor of this House. So we must rely on a motion to recommit to deny these 527 organizations the opportunity to get the telephone tax cut that is being proposed here today. Let me make it clear to my colleague from California who talks about bipartisanship. This motion to recommit is not going to delay the approval of this telephone tax repeal by one second. As soon as this motion to recommit is approved, it will join my amendment with this bill, we will repeal the tax, and, at the same time, we will get a little equity for the people of America and a little openness in our democracy.

Mr. DOGGETT. I would be glad to disclose it.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, my first concern in evaluating this agreement has been deciding what course would be most supportive of the interests of central Texas families. I believe that more trade will mean more good, high-wage, technology jobs not only for central Texas but for all of America. A vote against normal trade with China will only deny American firms the access to Chinese markets that will now be open to all of our competitors around the world. This would likely disrupt commerce without resolving any of our human rights, worker rights or environmental concerns. I applaud the successful effort of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) to amend this bill to create a commission to monitor human rights and trade policy in China. To be sure, this is an imperfect answer, but so is the way we have conducted our annual review process for the last 20 years. That unusual existing process does not appear to have been particularly effective over in the last two decades in securing improvement in these areas either. I believe that this Commission represents a better alternative. We will not gain leverage over the Chinese by voting against continuing our commercial relationship. Rather, engagement and continual annual reminders through this commission of the need to have a more open Chinese society are more likely to produce that result. I also appreciate the willingness of the administration to provide both more meaningful environmental review of our trade agreements and the first genuine participation by the environmental and public health communities in shaping trade policy. Our trade policy must be significantly improved to take into consideration the environmental and public health consequences of our decisions. Recognizing its many shortcomings, and recognizing the need for significant reforms to open it up to meaningful public participation, the World Trade Organization will at least be one more form of international rule with which the Chinese must comply. Both sides of this debate have advanced some meritorious arguments, and some overstatements. I believe a vote to continue normal trade relations with China, a country containing one-fifth of the people of the world, will neither guarantee a new China nor the catastrophical end of old jobs in America. On balance, an affirmative vote is the best overall choice for the security of American families.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, from the travel industry to the food industry, Internet commerce has spurred growth in all sectors of our economy. I believe we should encourage this new economy by minimizing regulation and maximizing the freedom to innovate on the Internet. The bill that we will have before us through this rule, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act, furthers that purpose. The bill extends the Internet tax moratorium which was too short as originally approved in this Congress, and it eliminates the grandfather clause of the Internet Tax Freedom Act that has enabled a dozen States, including my own State of Texas, to impose access charges on the Internet. I believe that access to the Internet must be free, that we must prevent discriminatory taxes from being imposed now or in the future that would impede the ability of individuals and of businesses to gain access to the Internet and access to electronic commerce. Electronic commerce is still very much in its infancy, and if we burden it with regulations, if we overburden it with taxes, it will not be able to expand and achieve its full potential. As a strong supporter of the Internet Tax Freedom Act when it was approved in 1998, I realized then that, while 3 years was all we could get approved in this Congress, it was insufficient to do the job of exploring the complexities of how any taxation in the future of this type of commerce would be achieved. That became particularly apparent in the overpoliticized atmosphere of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, which we asked to look objectively at this issue, but which was not able to resolve this and make a recommendation to the Congress. Now, if this Congress were, as my colleague has just indicated, to do what this particular House this year and last year has demonstrated that it is most experienced in, and that is, doing nothing or next to nothing, we would not incur any additional burden on electronic commerce this year, because the current moratorium does not expire until October of 2001. So if there is inaction, nothing will occur that would be disadvantageous. It is, however, an election year, and so this measure has been rushed through the Congress in the manner that was described, and that is unfortunate, because it would be good if we could have a dispassionate, objective, bipartisan review of these issues. Our Republican colleagues have found it necessary continually to bring up measures to try to drive a wedge between the new economy, the high technology portion of our economy, and the Democratic Party. That is unfortunate, because I believe that only if we move in a bipartisan fashion are we going to be able to resolve these issues. The State of Texas is one of those that has had the highest access charges, and I am pleased that we can provide a tax cut through this measure to the people of the State of Texas. The Texas Legislature would have been the better avenue for accomplishing that. They could have done it last year. It is unfortunate they did not. The minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri, has spoken out in favor of an extension of the moratorium. He suggested 2 years. Naturally being an election year, the Republicans have come in and said, no, make it 5. If the gentleman from Missouri had suggested 5 years, they would have come in and said, no, make it 10. This is not the kind of process that is going to lead to a bipartisan addressing of these issues and eventually resolving how any commerce that transpires on the Internet, the goods and services that are sold over it, might be taxed so that we are not faced with virtual public schools and virtual fire departments instead of the real thing in the future if we see the total erosion of the State and local tax base. So I would prefer a more deliberate process than this, but I think it is important to have some extension of the moratorium. The Senate will have an opportunity to look and craft this measure more carefully and see what the appropriate time limits are. The much greater danger to the Internet that this bill does not address the problem that is raised by the gentleman from Georgia's bill to impose a 59.5 percent sales tax not as a State and local source of revenue, but as a Federal source of revenue, something about which I and other Members of our high tech advisory group as Democrats have strongly approved. We feel that using electronic commerce as a source of Federal sales tax revenue poses a much greater potential burden, which this moratorium does not really reach. There is a lingering danger that Republicans, in their dogmatic zeal to junk the income tax code, will impose a new sales tax on all electronic commerce that adds 60 percent to the price of every purchase made online. We must both reject that bad idea and extend this moratorium.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the economic dream of America is still alive and well in Central Texas. A business can begin in a dormitory room, as Dell Computer did, or in a garage, as hundreds of start-ups in our community have done, and can grow into a multi-million dollar publicly traded corporation. This is an old principle of America that has now been applied in what we call the ``new economy''. And if these start-ups, some of which are very small, struggling companies before they become big prosperous companies, are overburdened with having to file tax returns as thick as a telephone directory in some 30,000 jurisdictions across the country, we will stifle the growth of this new economy. That is why I was an early supporter of the Internet Tax Freedom Act and why I will vote for this Internet Nondiscrimination Act. I also believe that there is great merit in permanently banning all forms of taxation that could be imposed on use of the Internet itself, on getting on the Web. We have seen that the Europeans have slowed the growth of electronic commerce in their countries because it costs too much and they get taxed too much even to get access to the World Wide Web. Let's ``free the web'' of taxes throughout America. I believe that a tax-free zone on the Internet will encourage the growth and stimulation of this new economy and all the innovation, the associated creativity that holds so much promise for the future of America. But I also know that our new economy has boomed in Central Texas, largely because of entrepreneurial skill, an educated workforce, and a quality of life with some secure neighborhoods, and environmental awareness. If we do not have the local tax base to provide a police department, if we have to rely on a virtual fire department, if we cannot get the resources to upgrade our workforce and our public education system, then our new economy will suffer just as much as if we are overburdened with taxation. Texas has some of the highest access charges in the country. I do not know why some of our State Republican leaders, who have offered so much pro-technology rhetoric, have not worked to repeal those taxes, but they have not. And, so, we are doing that in this bill. The Internet Tax Freedom Commission failed in its responsibility to balance these conflicting concerns. In short, what I would say today is that a good concept is being applied in this bill in a bad way, it is being rushed through not to help the Internet but to help in the next election. The desire is to mislabel Democrats as being pro-tax and anti-tech. That is wrong. We should be coming together to resolve this issue, not having the kind of electoral grandstanding that is occurring here. Further, there is a danger that an extended moratorium will open the door to the 59.5 percent Federal sales tax that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), who was just out here, and too many Republicans have been advocating. Republicans are advocating replacing the Income Tax Code with a 60 percent tax on every Internet transaction. That would be a real setback.