Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, just so that I am clear, then, and so that I will be able to urge the same point in the future, any reference to a member of the Senate, even though the title Senator is not mentioned, and even though the comments, instead of being on the floor of the Senate, were outside of the Capitol building with Common Cause as they released their ``stealth-PAC'' report against these 527 organizations, I may not utter the name John McCain or that of any other member of the Senate on the floor, even though they speak in a private capacity.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would make a parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman may quote any American citizen. I did not refer to any Senator. I referred to John McCain, a presidential candidate, and I would ask at this point, Mr. Speaker, if in fact it is not appropriate to quote other American citizens on the floor, particularly when they speak out as eloquently as Mr. John McCain of Arizona did on this question of corruption of American politics by 527 political organizations.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I support it. I am a cosponsor of it. I think we need more taxpayer rights, but this afternoon's debate is a strange one. Last week at the scheduling colloquy, the Republican leadership announced that we would have full and open debate on the question of taxpayer rights so that any Member could come forward with their ideas about how we might expand those rights. Today we do not have that opportunity because Republicans discovered one amendment that I have been offering, of which they were very fearful. This amendment addresses the right of taxpayers to know, specifically to know about taxpayer-subsidized, nonprofit political bank accounts that can keep their contributors unknown to the public and can spew out unlimited amounts of hate on the airwaves while they take hidden money. This is the so-called section 527, the new Swiss bank account for politicians this year. The Republican leadership was so very scared that their members would have to vote out here on the floor today against public disclosure that they terminated the debate. They have now limited us to 20 minutes to a side and prohibited any member from offering any amendment on any subject. Regarding these 527 organizations, I stood with John McCain on Friday, just outside this Capitol, and he said ``527 organizations are the latest manifestation of corruption in American politics.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a 527 is not a bird or some new model of aircraft, but it is the Superman or super weapon of this political season. Operating under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, these new political groups can spew out hate over the airwaves and fill our mailboxes with misinformation. These new political groups can take unlimited amounts of money, and they can take unlimited amounts of foreign money. The Iraqis, the Cubans, the Chinese can pour money into these secret Swiss accounts of the political season and use it to spew out more hate over the airwaves. The favorite feature of those who rely on 527s is that they can hide every bit of any dirty money that they collect. They can keep their sources secret. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership is so tied to these secret political accounts and so reliant on campaigns of hate that they will finance in the Fall that they are denying this House today the opportunity to require these groups to disclose their contributors. This is wrong, and the House should reject this tactic.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) just pointed out, we offered the Republican majority an opportunity in the Committee on Ways and Means last fall in the Thurman-Doggett proposal to deal with this problem of prescriptions for our seniors. It was soundly rejected, as it is in this resolution. Instead of addressing the price discrimination that our seniors face where, in Travis County, for example, on the five most commonly used drugs, those seniors who do not have insurance are paying 136 percent more than the most favored customers of the pharmaceutical industry, instead of addressing that discrimination which could be done for very little no cost to the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry's best friends in this Congress are blocking action. What do they offer in this proposal as an alternative? A new welfare program. I can tell my colleagues that our seniors do not need another welfare program. What they need is an end to the discrimination that the pharmaceutical industry, backed by its many Republican supporters in this Congress, cause our American seniors to face with reference to getting the essentials for their health care. But of course there is a medicinal aspect to this resolution. One can almost see in this resolution, coming out of the Old West, a dilapidated wagon with a banner that promises ``better health, restored youth, quality schools, more of one's money in one's pocket,'' this is the old time medicine man with ``tax cut elixir,'' the same old snake oil that pours out here every spring. We seem to have spring ritual, rite of spring in this House with this medicine man coming along most every year. It does not make any difference what the season is economically or the reason politically, there is always a tax cut for every need of this country. The same elixir that is offered every year at this time. Mr. Chairman, they used to say, how do you spell relief? T-U-M-S. Now it is ``tax relief.'' What kind of tax relief does the ordinary American citizen get? Not much from this Congress. We had the so-called ``marriage penalty relief.'' I do not know if my colleagues have noticed, but our Republican leadership devotes a lot more energy to the titles they put on their bills than what is in them. What did the marriage tax penalty bill do? Well, it gave most of its relief to people that do not incur any marriage tax penalty. Yesterday, in committee, we considered the educational savings account that is to allow people to send their kids to elite private academies. It is not the kind of tax relief that benefits most American families. I believe in reasonable tax relief but it must be accomplished in a fiscally responsible way. And this resolution fails to do that.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I joined a number of colleagues this morning, some of whom will be speaking here this afternoon, about the importance of addressing the issue of H1B visas. As I visit with local business leaders in central Texas, I know that the number one high technology issue in our community, and I think across this country, is work force development, the fact that we could have and do have already some serious shortages of skilled workers that can slow down the expansion that has fueled our economic growth throughout the country. From offices regularly assisting our local high-tech companies in securing H1B visas, I also know that this is one of the answers that can assist us in addressing this worker shortage. One of the reasons that central Texas prospers is that we live the lyrics of a great Lyle Lovett song: Oh, no, you are not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway. And it is because we have been able to reach out and bring the best and brightest, not only from all over the country but from all over the world, that we have been able to keep our high-tech economy booming. I support this bipartisan effort to get increases in the number of visas for highly-skilled high-tech workers to address this problem of worker shortage. It is a stopgap measure, however. We are only at March and we are already running out of the H1B visas. We need to solve the problem for our high-tech companies now, but we need to realize that this is not a permanent solution. That is why this legislation also increases the fees for getting these visas, and then will plow that money back into developing our domestic work force and helping our teachers and our young people pursue careers in technology. I believe that it is important also that we not only focus on the amount or the number of visas, or the amount of the money that will be charged to get them, but on the entire system that the Immigration Service and the Department of Labor use in addressing this issue. I find it a system that is so plagued with bureaucracy that it is almost a daily problem for my office in Austin, as well as for the many companies with whom we work. It is time that that bureaucracy move into the electronic age in which our businesses operate at present. So a principal focus of this bill is to see that the Immigration Service and the Department of Labor recognize that many people search for jobs now over the Internet and recognize those postings to fulfill the statutory requirements, and that we move to a system where one can file for an application on-line, where one can track an application on- line, and we reduce the level of bureaucracy in this entire process. I am pleased to join in this bipartisan effort. I believe that it will be successful. There is already some legislation moving in the Senate. The White House has recently announced an interest in this topic. With good bipartisan support here, there is no reason that we should not be able to act and fulfill this very definite need in the very near future.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Members may not recognize this fellow in the fedora standing in the shadows, but they ought to be aware of what he is doing. He is a caricature of America's leading tax shelter hustlers. This bill is his bill. By restricting amendments, by assuring that we cannot deal with the leading causes of injustice in our tax system today, Republicans have protected the tax shelter hustlers. Only yesterday, the Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Summers, told the Senate Finance Committee that failure to address this issue of tax shelters ``in a meaningful way puts the fairness and efficacy of our tax system at risk.'' He has also said that the most serious compliance problem we have in the American tax system today is the failure to deal with tax shelter hustlers. This bill in particular, like the Committee on Ways and Means, in general does absolutely nothing to stop the tax shelter hustlers that are robbing the Treasury of upwards of $10 billion a year. Only this week we learned that the tax shelter problem has gotten so serious that one insurance company after another is moving to Bermuda. It is so bad that even some of the insurance companies that remain in this country are saying, our competitors are gaining an unfair advantage through their tax shelters. It is wrong, and that is why the substitute that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has proposed incorporates a bill that I wrote concerning abusive tax shelters. It would do something about the most serious compliance problem with our tax system. The instant bill does absolutely nothing. There is another problem that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) addresses. As incredible as this tax shelter hustler problem is, there is even one greater problem. Some Americans have grown so prosperous that they can afford the arrogance of renouncing their citizenship and discovering one day that the Port Royal Golf Course in Bermuda is their hometown, that they have new citizenship. This expatriotism problem represents a multi-billion dollar scandal of people renouncing their citizenship for the sole purpose of dodging taxes. Once again, like the fellow in the fedora, those who have so little patriotism, those scoundrels, who would renounce their American citizenship to evade their taxes, they are fully protected in this bill. But they are fully dealt with in the substitute of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Republicans are so fearful of dealing with these real tax problems in this country. And who do Members think picks up the tax tab for the hustler in the fedora and the scoundrel, who renounces his American citizenship? Small business and individual taxpayer because who else is left to pick up the tab? So by dodging these serious problems of tax dodging our Republican colleagues are actually imposing more burden on the small businesses of America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, I voted to increase the Social Security earnings limit to $30,000, effectively the year after next. In 1998, I voted to increase it even further, up to $39,000. So I am, of course, supportive when the Republican leadership finally gives us an opportunity to take the cap off entirely. This bill may help as many as 5 percent of our most successful seniors. But amid all the self-congratulatory back-slapping that we see here today, let us be sure to understand what this bill is and what it is not. It represents well-justified relief for the top 5 percent. It represents top-down reform, but it does nothing for the 95 percent of the remaining Americans who rely on social security. It does nothing for those seniors whose health does not permit them to work, and who would benefit more from getting access to prescription drugs and an end to the discrimination they face with huge prices they are charged by the pharmaceutical companies. This legislation is very significant to older Americans who have the capacity to keep earning more than $30,000 a year, but in terms of overall reform of the Social Security system, to preserve it for future generations, it is a very modest change. Of all the changes that we can make in this Congress, interestingly enough, this is one of the few that is politically painless. It represents essentially an eat-dessert-first approach to reform. Congress should be grappling with the tough choices that we face on how to extend the solvency of Social Security for all Americans and for future generations of Americans, not just the politically easy step that primarily puts more benefits in the pockets of the most successful seniors, coincidentally, during an election year. I would say this morning, better a reform for 5 percent than no reform at all. But for most Americans who are counting on Social Security, this change makes no real difference in their lives. It is long past time that this Congress got about doing something for them.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, when two people walk into the same pharmacy and one, who has no insurance, is forced to pay 136 percent more than the other, who is one of the pharmaceutical industry's most favored customers, something is very wrong. That something wrong is price discrimination against seniors for whom these pharmaceuticals are vital to sustain their health. That is exactly what I found when I surveyed our local pharmacies in Austin, Texas. This occurs, not as a result of any fault on the part of the local business, but because the pharmaceutical industry discriminates against the uninsured. Last September, I secured the first vote in this Congress to outlaw that type of price discrimination. Unfortunately, the Republican members of the Committee on Ways and Means joined with the pharmaceutical industry to block that initiative. But with today's discharge petition, we are renewing the struggle, the struggle to see that America's seniors are dealt with fairly and that they have access to prescription drugs. We must put a stop to this wrongful price discrimination. Join us, renew the effort by signing this petition to end the discrimination against seniors.

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, this candy is about 2 years too late, is it not?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, well, leave it to the House Republicans to convert an issue that enjoys such broad bipartisan support into a totally contrived election-year ploy. Had they the slightest interest in correcting the marriage penalty in a timely way, it would have already been done. In 1997, the Democrats proposed to implement fully the Contract on America provisions, which they so widely ballyhooed all over this country, to put them into effect immediately. But Republicans had other priorities, other special interest priorities. The ``American dream`` about which the last speaker spoke in fact, that is the title they put on their bill regarding the marriage penalty to implement the Contract with America. They called it the ``American Dream Restoration Act.'' But they dropped that provision when Democrats offered it in the Ways and Means Committee as an alternative to other special interest priorities. Last year we had the same thing happen. We proposed more marriage penalty tax relief than Republicans did. But they had their own priorities. They had that special interest provision to provide a tax subsidy for chicken manure. And they had a whole lot of other special interest tax breaks. They were not interested in coming together and cooperating in a bipartisan way to really do something about the marriage penalty. We now have a new millennium. But, unfortunately, we do not have a new era of cooperation from this House leadership. If we had that, the American families, about which they are expressing such concern about today, would have already had the relief in place, instead of waiting for Valentine's Day. Now, we also know that this bill cannot pass the truth in packaging standards. Over half of the relief in this so-called marriage penalty tax relief goes to families that do not experience any marriage tax penalty. The sponsors of this bill have never been able to refute that point. In fact, it is a central purpose of their bill. What that means is that over half the relief goes to families that already enjoy an advantage over people who are filing as a single taxpayer under the Tax Code. I have been blessed with 31 years of marriage to a great woman, my parents over 55 years of marriage. It is a great institution. But I do not see any reason why I need to discriminate against a family that is not as fortunate as I am. The victim of domestic abuse, the widow who is out there, what do they get out of this great valentine? They do not even get a stale candy wrapper, not one penny. There is no reason why the 50 million American families that are single-parent families, most headed by single women, many of them facing much greater struggles than my family has faced, trying to be a sole provider, trying to care for a family, why they should be discriminated against. By providing an additional bonus to those taxpayers who already enjoy a bonus or advantage under the Tax Code, this bill actually discriminates against single individuals. And finally, the most comprehensive discrimination is imposed on our children both of those families who incur and those who do not incur a marriage penalty; it imposes on them a new penalty and that is to share a greater burden of the national debt. We need to do what the nonpartisan Concord Coalition said yesterday, ``giving away chocolates rather than giving away the surplus would be the most appropriate way to celebrate Valentine's Day.''

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, did I understand, then, that 3 years ago every Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means voted to implement 100 percent of the contract of America marriage penalty relief, and the Republicans rejected it and did not think it was the appropriate priority?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Unfortunately, this bill is made only marginally better by the amendment that is offered. It is called a repose bill, but what we are doing in this debate on the amendment is the expose part. And if my colleagues will just listen to a little of this debate, what they will know that both sides agree on is that, by their silence, the proponents of this bill, if a manufacturer manufactures a dangerous product that can cause death or can cause serious injury, that manufacturer is totally absolved from any responsibility once that product reaches its 18th birthday. No more need it worry. Even though it knows how to correct the defect, even though it knows that dozens of people have been killed or maimed or burned alive as a result of the defect, the manufacturer need do absolutely nothing. And the only answer that the proponent, the author, of this amendment says is, well, we all seem to have kind of a bad attitude about the willingness of American manufacturers to correct the defects in their product. What this bill does is to assure the lowest common denominator of the worst and most irresponsible manufacturer is now the law of the land. It says that those manufacturers, indeed even if they put a silver medallion on the side of the printing press and they say this printing press is good for 25 years, and they know it is defective, they know how to repair the defect and they know dozens of Americans are being hurt by that product, they do not have to do a single thing. Zip. Nada. Nothing. That is what this bill does. That is what this reasonable bill does. Every Member that votes on this bill needs to know what they are voting to do, to totally absolve that manufacturer. There is the second issue, and the chairman-to-be just made that point, and it is one that has not gotten the emphasis that it needs, and that is the very strong anti-business bias to this bill. What am I talking about when I say an anti-business bias? It is designed to protect and absolve the giant multinational equipment manufacturers. But who does it ask to foot the bill when the sponsor says, well, we will just let the workers' compensation. Do not worry about it, the worker is going to be compensated. Those workers' compensation premiums are not free. Who does my colleague think pays those premiums? The thousands of small businesses around this country that are out there generating new jobs. Now they are going to have shifted to them the total responsibility for covering that same dangerous product that has the silver medallion that says it is good for 25 years and it causes harm. Now we are going to shift to the small businesses of America the responsibility of paying for damages that they did not cause. Some irresponsible manufacturer caused that damage. I would say anyone that is concerned about the growth of small business ought to vote against this bill, because it is an anti-small business bill. Third, what about the workers? It is so good to hear that they do not have anything to worry about; that they are going to be fully covered by workers' compensation. I have a feeling that the sponsors of this bill never had to try to live on workers' compensation in most of this country. That worker that lost his arm, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) talked about out in California, would have to live on a subsistence level under workers' compensation, and usually it is for a fixed period of time. It does not offer lifetime benefits to someone who just merely lost the use of their arm at the most productive time of their life. If a secretary was in that printing shop to pick up the stationery and she is burned and she is disfigured as a young woman, what will she get if this bill passes? Absolutely nothing from the manufacturer. If the Federal Express delivery person happens through there, what will they get if they are burned and have to go through the pain of a skin graft? Absolutely nothing under this bill. If that worker who is going to be so generously compensated with subsistence workers' compensation has to go through, as happened to a man in Texas, skin grafts because a defective product causes him to be burned over 30 percent of his body by hot spewing oil from a defective valve that was 20 years old, if he has to go through one skin graft after another and suffers with pain in going through that, how much does he get out of workers' compensation for that? Absolutely nothing for the pain and suffering of going through that process. The people who might be affected who are not workers are not fully compensated. I heard the gentleman say in his opening remarks that what he wanted is uniformity. Well, he is not providing any uniformity so that the workers of this land who would suffer as a result of these defective and dangerous products so that they would get a uniform amount that they can live on and support their families on. Some States provide practically nothing with reference to workers' compensation. This bill is wrong. Let us expose what repose is all about.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, what better way to begin this Congress in the new millennium, when we have a leadership here in the House that is engaged in a perpetual debate, should the Congress do nothing or should the Congress do just a little? With plans for doing so little, perhaps absolutely nothing for the typical American working family, it should come as no surprise that one of the first pieces of legislation, indeed the first piece of major legislation, that this House would take up in the new millennium is one that says the House is not going to do anything for working people; and we want to be sure that another branch of government cannot do anything for working people either. We want to say to the judge and jury across America that has the audacity to suggest that just because a product is old a manufacturer ought to be responsible for the harm done by a defect in that product, no, let us throw that out and let us substitute the views of a do- nothing House to totally insulate from any accountability, any sense of personal responsibility, that manufacturer for the damage that is done. They say that 18 years is the cutoff. I do not know why it should be 18 years and why they do not lower it to 6. We have had Republicans in charge of this House for 6 years. That seems interminable to some of us, and though it is soon going to come to an end they have pulled 18 out of the air. Currently, a judge and a jury can consider as a part of determining whether a product is defective how old the product is. They apply the standard of knowledge that was available when the product was manufactured. Who are some of the people that are going to be impacted by the decision today? They are going to be the delivery person who just happens to be walking through the manufacturing setting at the time the product blows up, no right of recovery under this bill. They are going to be the repair person who happens to be there repairing another piece of equipment and when a fire begins as a result of a defective product, no right of recovery. It is wrong and this legislation should be rejected.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Do I understand, without getting into all the factual context of that particular case, that if you have a situation where the manufacturer knows without a doubt that there is a defect, a hidden danger in their product, and they have an inexpensive way to fix and prevent that defect, and they receive reports that dozens of other workers have been maimed or killed as a result of that defect, and the manufacturer simply sits on their hands and does absolutely nothing, that as long as the product is 18 years old, under those conditions it will totally absolve the manufacturer from its responsibility?

Mr. DOGGETT. That is the effect, is it not?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. Too often an insurance clerk gets right in the middle of the relationship between doctor and patient, and the consequences of that interference can be absolutely disastrous. We want to do something meaningful about that problem. It is called a Patients' Bill of Rights. The same Republican leadership that is up here today saying wait to the American people is the same leadership that fought tooth and nail to prevent us from ever taking up a Patients' Bill of Rights in the first place. The same folks that say wait today are the same people that came to this floor and voted for every amendment they could come up with to kill this Patients' Bill of Rights. The same Republicans that are here today saying wait are the same Republicans that after their amendments were defeated, they all voted against a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. The same Republicans that say wait today are the same Republicans that, after the Senate appointed its conferees, dillydallied around here, they waited, they delayed, they did anything they could except act. They waited until the week before we went out of session to even name conferees. The same Republicans that say wait today are the same Republicans that refused to even appoint the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), both doctors and Republicans who knew something about this issue and cared about patients. They would not even appoint them as conferees. They say wait to the American people. We say do something to give them a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. Is there politics at issue here? You bet there is politics at issue today. It is the politics of inaction, which is the whole story of this worthless Republican leadership.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the reports that the House is returning to work today are inaccurate. This House will complete month one of the new millennium with no action either on this floor or in committee on any of the major issues that this country faces. Nothing on education, nothing on Social Security, nothing on the environment, nothing on tax reform, nothing on health care or prescription drugs for seniors. There is some question as to whether this House will even vote on the trivial matters that usually occupy its time any time during the month of January. With an abbreviated year and the opportunity for meaningful action largely ending in July, I think this is unfortunate. This Thursday we will hear from the President on the State of the Union. We already know the state of this House: Lost in inaction.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen the heartbreaking stories of huddled masses of refugees after a flood or hurricane, a civil war, a natural or manmade disaster, searching for food and water and lost family members. It warms our hearts to hear of international aid efforts, frequently led by America, to provide those in need with the assistance that they require. Congress decided long ago that we should reward these outreach efforts through generous tax deductions for property or items that are donated to help those most in need, even if the recipients are at the four corners of our world. While many of these efforts are truly commendable, like those of the International Red Cross, others simply represent the dumping of worthless products. Under the title, ``In a Wave of Balkan Charity Comes Drug Aid of Little Use,'' the New York Times reported this very summer how camps filled with refugees from Kosovo received anti-smoking inhalers and hemorrhoid treatments instead of much-needed antibiotics. The Times reported that ``the outpouring of aid from corporate America and elsewhere for more than a million refugees who flooded into Albania and Macedonia during the war was indeed vast and included many badly-needed medicines. But the World Health Organization said about one-third to half of all of the shipments were inappropriate and likely to gather dust in warehouses or be destroyed at government expense.'' Should American taxpayers subsidize the donations of useless pharmaceutical products to foreign countries? I think the question really answers itself, but this practice continues to occur, encouraged by our U.S. tax laws. Normally when a corporation donates property it may deduct its cost to produce the item. To encourage donations to a charity for needy causes, as is the case for these drugs that are destined for foreign relief, our tax laws permit a corporation to receive twice its basis. That is fine when the drugs are useful, but it is totally unjustified when they are worthless. I am filing legislation today to prevent this abuse of the enhanced charitable deduction for overseas contributions of worthless drugs, and some 50 of my colleagues are joining me in this effort. A recent study by the Harvard School of Public Health entitled An Assessment of U.S. Pharmaceutical Donations concluded that up to 40 percent of the drugs that are sent abroad were not requested and that about one third had less than a year of usefulness remaining. This is not a new problem. The New England Journal of Medicine had previously described a similar situation surrounding the misery in Bosnia. After analyzing about 30,000 metric tons of drugs and medical materials donated over a 4-year period, the Journal of Medicine study concluded, ``in total, we considered 50 to 60 percent of all the medical supplies donated to Bosnia and Herzegovina to be inappropriate.'' Over one-third of these donations consisted of the dumping of large quantities ``of useless or unusable drugs.'' They even included medicine for leprosy, a disease not found in these countries, and this is a problem not limited to the Balkans. It stretches from Armenia to Papua New Guinea. Yet our existing law continues to encourage and subsidize such contributions. We should stop this now with straightforward amendments to the Internal Revenue Code. These amendments would include requiring that there be one year of good shelf life remaining as specified by Food and Drug Administration regulations, that drugs be labeled in a manner understandable to foreign health professionals, and that charities assure the drugs that are sent are drugs that are requested and needed by the foreign recipient. Said one World Health Organization official, ``if you overload people with things that they do not recognize and do not know how to use, you're not helping.'' And indeed to those in need around the world, the dumping of useless drugs is actually worse than no help at all, since such toxic junk must be destroyed by those most in need. The Journal of Medicine study estimated that the cost of destroying 17,000 tons of inappropriate drug donations in the Balkans reached $34 million. That is $34 million wasted, some of which went to destroy drugs subsidized by American taxpayers that never should have been sent in the first place. The bill that I am filing today has received the support of the Partnership for Quality Medical Donations, a group consisting of a number of major pharmaceutical companies and international relief agencies. The provisions of this bill are drawn from the drug donation guidelines of the World Health Organization. These guidelines and this bill incorporate what are really the ``best practices'' of industry at present, but we incorporate these into Federal tax law. Some companies have been singled out for public praise, and rightly so, but U.S. tax laws provide an incentive for foreign dumping that must end. Let us stop rewarding those who have been more interested in obtaining a tax deduction than helping those who are truly in need. Let us stop the tax subsidies for drug dumping.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. As my colleagues know, this Congress is quickly running out of Federal buildings to name around the country. It has about commemorated everything that could be commemorated, and since these uncontested measures represent the principal legislative product of this Republican do-nothing Congress, it is appropriate that this legislation would be before us today as really only another of these uncontested commemorative resolutions. It commemorates failure. It deserves a name: The Republican Congressional Failure Act of 1999. As late as September 19, the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), told the country that ``by the first of October we will have all of the appropriation bills passed out of the House and the Senate,'' and here we are, nearing November 1, not October 1, and one of those very important bills has never even been presented to the House for consideration, much less the Senate or the President of the United States for his consideration. We will have later today that bill finally come before us, and it is clear that the reason for the delay of that bill; now that we have it, is that it has failure written all over it. This legislation funds all of our Federal commitment to public education in this country, funds all of our major health research for all the very dreaded diseases that touch families throughout this country; and yet here we are a month after the conclusion of the fiscal year for which it was supposed to have been approved, and it has never even been debated on the floor of the House. This is a measure that touches every family, one way or another, throughout the United States. Like the other parts of the Republican legislative agenda, this bill fails to add one single dollar to strengthen Social Security, and it also fails to meet the standard of the rhetoric we have heard about Social Security here this morning. I have a letter that the Congressional Budget Office sent this morning, October 28, to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. The Congressional Budget Office says, and I quote: Outlays from congressional action on appropriation legislation including the latest action on all 13 appropriation bills would also exceed the discretionary caps (those are the ones put in place to assure a balanced budget) by more than CBO's baseline estimate of the on-budget surplus. After taking that surplus into account, the Congressional Budget Office projects an on-budget deficit of about $17 billion. That is $17 billion directly out of Social Security Trust Fund monies. To say that they are not using Social Security monies for non- Social Security purposes is flat wrong, and the evidence is here from the Republican Congressional Budget Office to demonstrate it. This bill and the legislative program of which it is a part fails to get prescription drugs to seniors, fails to ferret out waste. It is late, and it is wrong for America. This bill should be rejected, and another stop gap continuing resolution undoubtedly will be presented to this House, because of the same failures that have characterized the first 10 months of this year.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I believe one thing that is very obvious to anyone who has been observing this Congress is that we would not be here today debating this resolution or debating anything else if our Republican colleagues had done their job. They have not done their job. They are desperate for distraction. So I expect we will have more resolutions. This is not the last one. There will be more of these kind of resolutions to distract from the simple fact that they have failed utterly and completely to do their work during this past fiscal year. They are a competitive group. They are competing with themselves. We thought last year's Congress set the standard for doing little. It certainly was the least productive Congress since the days of Harry Truman. But they are competing with that record and I think they are winning. I believe they will have an even less productive and even more do-nothing Congress than they did during 1998. That incredible record reminds us that today we are entering week four of the new fiscal year, and they still have not done last year's work. It is incredible that almost a month after the end of the Federal fiscal year, the bill that funds all of the Federal assistance to education, the bill that funds all of our health research in this country to try to cure dreadful diseases like Parkinson's, cancer, diabetes, that bill has never been presented on the floor of this House. That is what I mean by do-nothingism. It is the failure to do your work and to present for debate on the floor of the House that very fundamental bill. I know the Republicans, some of them still want to abolish the Department of Education, but at least they could bring that bill to the floor and let the House debate it. Let me give my colleagues a second example since we are talking about taxes. On September 24, all the members of the Committee on Ways and Means were called into an emergency meeting directly across the hall from this Chamber in which we gather today. We were told that unless we rushed through a bill, the tax forms could not be prepared by the Internal Revenue Service. It had to be done by October 7 or the forms would not be ready. That bill was a very important one to people in central Texas, because it continued the research and development tax credit. That is a tax credit established by a Democratic Congress. It is true that under Speaker Gingrich it was allowed to expire and our technology companies were denied the benefit of that tax credit in 1995, but we saw an opportunity to extend it and continue it. Well, where is that bill? It has never been brought to the floor of the House. October 7 is past; we are approaching November 7, and they have never brought the research and development tax credit, the Sec. 127 and other so called ``extenders,'' employer provided education assistance, they have never brought these to the floor of the House to be considered. That is why a number of people are concerned that the Republican do-nothingism may jeopardize this tax credit and cause its loss for research and development. This credit expired on June 30, and we must not lose it again as happened under this Republican leadership with Newt Gingrich in 1995. I do think it is important to note one important improvement in this resolution, and that is the deletion of the attack on a tax on tobacco. The only thing this Republican Congress ever did about tobacco usage and the fact that 3,000 of our young people get addicted each day to nicotine, the only thing they ever did was to provide a $50 billion tax credit to the tobacco lobby. When the public found out about it, Republicans got so scared about it that they withdrew that credit after it had been approved by the House. But it is at least worthy to note that while the sponsors of the pending resolution initially attacked the tobacco tax, they have removed that language from this resolution. And that happens to be the only significant tax increase the President has proposed. It is certainly better to tax tobacco than to take money from Social Security.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution on keeping the Internet a global tax-free zone. We must achieve a global consensus on banning tariffs and discriminatory taxation on electronic commerce. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has provided leadership last year in gaining approval of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. I joined with him then and I believe that all the reasons that we advanced for supporting that moratorium on taxes by 30,000 potential taxing jurisdictions here in America, all of those reasons apply around the globe to the need for a global free trade zone and limitation on taxation. While currently none of the members of the World Trade Organization are imposing tariffs, it is very crucial that we prevent new barriers from arising. Clearly, the imagination for new forms of taxation and new restrictions on trade seems unlimited. A bit tax, for example, which could be levied on every bit of digital data that is transmitted over the Internet, would significantly impair the expansion of electronic commerce. The high-technology community that I represent in Austin, Texas, has been a driving force for growth throughout our State. Fortune Magazine calls Austin the best place in the country to do business. And in large measure this is the product of the environment we have created with high technology. Meanwhile, the United States is the world leader in high-technology research and development. The actions that have already been taken by this Administration and the actions that this resolution urges will solidify our Nation's competitive edge in the world economy. In 1995, I believe there were about 3 million people who were Internet users. Today, we are at about 200 million. And within 5 years we are expected to have a billion Internet users around the globe. Clearly, an Internet Global Free Trade Zone will foster continued growth, and not only benefit one of the most important engines driving our strong economy, but it will also benefit consumers at home and abroad, who will be encouraged to get connected. And this also means more good high-paying jobs here in the United States, and it means more opportunity for the citizens of the world to share in this important new revolution in technology. We need no tax on e-mail and no tariffs or other trade restrictions on the Net. I applaud the Administration for what it has already done in placing this important agenda item on the list of top priorities when the World Trade Organization convenes in Seattle, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his continued leadership to ensure that government does not impede continued expansion of electronic commerce.