Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, ``do not be fooled?'' Well, it is near trick or treat time, and what is the trick that the Republican majority is concerned about? Well, here is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader for the Republicans, saying it is Social Security that is a ``bad retirement,'' a ``rotten trick'' on the American people. As my colleague from Texas was just pointing out (Mr. Green), these views are ones that Mr. Armey keeps repeating. Questioned just a few years ago he was asked, ``Are you going to take the pledge? Are you going to promise not to cut people's Social Security to meet these promises? '' The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey): ``No, I am not going to make such a promise.'' Our Republican colleagues are the good folks who now come and tell us they want to preserve the Social Security Trust Fund. They did not vote for Social Security. They do not like Social Security. They want to substitute some privatized Social Security Wall Street private plan for the Social Security that has been so important to the American people over the last 60 years. Let us protect Social Security, let us recognize the Republicans have already dipped into the Social Security trust fund, and let us preserve Social Security for the future.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is so very refreshing to see the Republicans here on the floor professing an interest in protecting the Social Security surplus. It was only a short time ago that their majority leader was condemning Social Security as a bad deal and saying he never would have created it in the first place. What we do know this year is, after jeopardizing Social Security with a near trillion-dollar irresponsible tax break for those at the top of the economic ladder, that the Republicans' own Congressional Budget Office has verified that they have gone $13 billion already, if we stop right now and went home, $13 billion into the Social Security surplus. That is without ever having come to this House floor, 3 weeks after the Federal fiscal deadline, and presented the bill to fund education and health and a wide variety of other measures. The Republicans, if they stay on their current course, are going to dip into Social Security another $24 billion dollars. That is without any help from anyone but themselves. Apparently, their new interest in Social Security is to use it as a piggy bank.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that we could yield all of the time available to Democrats this morning to our Republican colleagues, and they could talk all day long and not convince the American people that this is anything other than the most do little, do nothing Congress since Harry Truman's day. In the words of one distinguished congressional historian, this Congress has a ``rendezvous with obscurity.'' This Congress has wasted its time. It has wasted the time and the hopes of the American people. It has not done its work. There are many examples that can be cited of that, but let me give my colleagues just two. There is one piece of legislation that this body must consider every year, and that piece of legislation provides the Federal funds to assure that our children have an opportunity to participate in the Head Start program. It provides the funding for the United States Department of Education. True, until recent months, the Republican majority in this House had as a top objective to abolish the Department of Education and the Federal commitment to education. But now, hopefully, they support it. I suppose that they support the educational technology funding in that bill, the funding for student financial assistance to give our young people who are willing to work to get a college education the opportunity to get that education. All of the funding for special education is continued in this measure. It is this same bill that provides the Meals on Wheels program and other assistance to our seniors, that funds the National Institutes of Health, which conducts vital research that we are hearing from so many people across the country that they want to see upgraded with reference to cancer, with Parkinson's disease, with diabetes, with neurological disorders. It is this same bill that funds the Children's Health Insurance Initiative that is so important to reach the millions of our youngest citizens who do not have any health insurance. Of course, this bill also provides the funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This piece of legislation is a very interesting piece of legislation because it is not really caught up in the conflict between the President and the Republican leadership. The President does not schedule bills in this House. The President does not have a vote in this House. We find ourselves today with the fiscal year having ended, having another 3 weeks, and this Republican leadership, which is so boastful and so proud of their successes this morning, has not brought the bill that does all these things to the floor. It has never even given the House of Representatives an opportunity to consider and debate the bill that deals with all of these vital national issues. It has no one, absolutely no one but itself to blame for having failed to provide us an opportunity to consider this bill. Let me add that, though they are here asking for yet another week to address this issue, they still have not even scheduled consideration of this important bill. That is not the fault of the President of the United States. It is certainly not the fault of the Democratic minority that stands here ready to consider this issue. It is quite clearly the sole responsibility of the Republican leadership that chose, on education, on health care, to never even bring to the floor of the House this piece of legislation. They had a whole year to do it. They had an additional 3 weeks to do it. And here we are near Halloween, and we have yet to have either trick or treat. We have no bill even scheduled to address that issue. Let me give example number two. Some of us feel that a key to the economic success of this country has been technology, and that the research and development tax credit is helping provide opportunity for America to have more research, more emphasis on technology in this country and thereby more good jobs. I was across the hall here a few weeks ago in the Ways and Means Committee considering the extension of that research and development credit. Of course, we Democrats had already offered to the House a fully-paid, not robbing grandmother's and grandfather's Social Security, but a fully-paid research and development tax credit on a permanent basis. And yet here we find ourselves months after that credit expired and the Republicans, once again, have failed to present it to the House. They have failed to present that research and development tax credit to the House. The only gap in the availability of this important credit in its history was during this Republican leadership, back in 1996. Yet we find ourselves today with even a Republican lobbyist saying in today's paper that they think that credit is ``in serious jeopardy.'' Once again, like the funding for education and health, Republicans do not even have the measure to extend the research and development tax credit on the schedule of this House. If this continuing resolution is only going to continue the same kind of inaction that the Republicans have given us for the last 3 weeks and for the last few years, we are going to find ourselves right back here in another week debating the same thing.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of this measure back in March, I was particularly pleased when it received the unanimous approval of the United States Senate. However, I dissented from this particular version of the bill when it was before the Committee on Ways and Means because some last minute changes in the bill changed its form and substantially weakened it. I am pleased that today a number of further amendments have restored much of the harm that was done prior to the Committee on Ways and Means meeting. My concern has been that without the guarantee of health insurance this will not be for individuals with disabilities a ticket to work. It will be a ticket to nowhere. It is essential that these provisions be fully funded and guaranteed to individuals with disabilities so that we have more than a title to the bill; we have something that is meaningful for the many Americans who have disabilities and want to work in the labor force. A second concern was the effect on individuals who are HIV positive, who have Parkinson's Disease, multiple sclerosis, or some other type of disease which allows them to work now and who do not want to have to leave their job in order to get insurance benefits. It is my understanding that these last-minute amendments that have been made today address those concerns, and so I applaud them. I think to the extent that we are returning to the bill that a total of 247 Members of the House cosponsored we are moving in the right direction. Certainly, I agree that this bill must be fully paid for, as with any other measure, and that we not dip into Social Security funds. However, I can say that in the Committee on Ways and Means, there was no visible effort to pay for the abandoned provisions, and the one pay- for that was included in this bill is a new tax that is simply going to make it more difficult for people with disabilities to secure the representation they need in combatting a Social Security Administration which is often not sympathetic to their concerns. It is still flawed, but in order to move the process along my vote today is for a flawed bill, with the hope that the Senate will hang as tough as it did in the last session and give us truly meaningful legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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, the House Republican leadership has awarded this fellow in the fedora on the cover of Forbes magazines and all the tax shelter hustlers that he represents a great victory because this rule denies the right to pay for this legislation by calling on tax dodgers. As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), our Republican colleague, told the Rules Committee in urging an end to this tax dodging, ``there is a difference between a tax increase and stopping bogus tax loopholes.'' Bogus loopholes, indeed. This is a bogus rule that blocks the shutdown of abusive of corporate tax loopholes. Additionally, this rule represents fiscal irresponsibility at its worst. These bills are not paid for. It is wrong to dip into Social Security when the corporate tax dodgers should be paying for this legislation. While the costs of managed care reforms have been greatly exaggerated, all of us committed to patient protection believe this must be a fiscally prudent pay-as-you-go approach. The approach we sought in the Rules Committee was to pay for our reforms. Finally, this so-called Republican access bill is really access to the U.S. Treasury. It would open access to up to $50 billion of tax loopholes to be financed right out of social security. This is wrong, and the rule should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, of course the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is right. I think all America recognizes it is just a matter of coincidence that the Republican Party here in the House sucked out every dollar it could from the managed care and insurance companies on the eve of the consideration of a meaningful patients' bill of rights. What I prefer to focus on is not their failure but our success, a success in the Lone Star State. This is experience that this Congress should follow to protect health care consumers across this country. We began in Texas with bipartisan participation in crafting meaningful guarantees for every person in managed health care. Texas recognized that we have to reject the same sham insurance company talk that is being advanced here today, and the same misinformation that clutters the television airwaves. The result has been what Governor Bush's own insurance commissioner calls one of the most effective consumer laws in the country. Unfortunately, a Federal law is interfering with the ability of Texas and other States to assure patients full guarantees. Let us approve the bipartisan patients' bill of rights, empower the States, and empower the patients.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is good news. The House Republicans have apparently yielded on their cruel plan to defer the earned income tax credit for working families, a plan deplored by Governor George W. Bush as, in his words, ``balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.'' But there is also bad news. The Republicans are so out of touch with the needs of American families that they have rejected Governor Bush's advice on the Patients' Bill of Rights that we will be debating tomorrow. Our Lone Star State has been a national leader on reforming managed care. Although Governor Bush initially fell victim to the same old tired insurance company rhetoric upon which our House Republican friends now rely, he permitted our Texas Patients' Bill of Rights to be signed into law. And last week his office declared it has ``worked well.'' Who could say otherwise with only five lawsuits from 4 million Texans over 2 years in managed care. Governor Bush's insurance commissioner has declared it ``a real success story,'' ``one of the leading'' consumer protection measures in the country. If the Republican leadership will get out of the way, we will do the same for all of America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with our action today, I am pleased that Congress will have finally completed its consideration of the naming of the Federal building in Austin after my predecessor and friend, J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle. This honor is long, long overdue. For all of those who come to central Texas by air, there is a good chance when they first touch ground, they will land on the J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle runway at our new Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. And if one is interested in higher education or in high technology, one will likely be aware that at the University of Texas we have a J.J. Pickle Research Center on the J.J. Pickle Research Campus from which great ideas and great spin-offs have had much to do with the success of the high-tech industry which has really fueled our progress in central Texas and certainly represents our central Texas economic future. In a joint project, the City of Austin and the Austin Independent School District have construction under way on the J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle Elementary School, Library, Health Clinic and Recreation Center. They are located in the St. Johns neighborhood and will be opening in the fall of 2001 as, I think, a living symbol and substantive statement about our commitment to equal educational opportunity in central Texas. To these Austin memorials it is appropriate that we add the J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle Federal Building. This is the place where, from the time of the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, until his retirement in 1994, Congressman Pickle had his district office; and I am fortunate to have the very same rooms up on the 7th floor of the Federal building in Austin that we are naming today, a place from which most of the important operations of the Federal Government in central Texas are conducted. Congressman Pickle is the only Congressman that I have really ever known during my life in Austin. He was elected when I was a senior at Austin High School, and he continued to serve until I was elected to succeed him in 1994. And serve our community he certainly does and continues to do. It was with that service in mind that on February 12 of 1998 I introduced H.R. 3223, the bill that the bill before us today copies verbatim. Unfortunately, even I was surprised at the way this Republican Congress handles such matters. For months last year the Republican leadership permitted consideration of few, if any, bills if they had the misfortune of having a Democratic sponsor. Finally, on July 14, 1998, with a bipartisan tribute, joined by Democrats and Republicans on this floor, we paid tribute to Congressman Pickle for his service and unanimously passed this bill through the House. My goal in filing H.R. 3223 early in 1998 was to have this bill signed into law by President Clinton in time for a ceremony in Austin, Texas, about October 11 of last year when Congressman Pickle happily celebrated his 85th birthday. My office was assured from the staff of the Senate sponsor of this measure, Senator Gramm, that we would get this done; that the President would be able to sign it last year; and, of course, this was not done. So on January 6, the first day of this session when I came down to swear my oath of office along with my colleagues, immediately after doing so, I refiled H.R. 3223 that the House had approved unanimously in 1998, and this year it was H.R. 118. Like most everything in this House this year, progress was painfully slow. But finally, finally on May 4 of this year, we had another bipartisan tribute which I hope Congressman Pickle enjoyed again, colleagues, Republican and Democrat, coming to tell some stories and to pay tribute to his excellent service. And the House again unanimously approved the bill. On June 16 of this year, my office received a call indicating that the Senate was at last about to approve H.R. 118. So we turned on C- SPAN to watch the happy moment; and, indeed, we learned that at the last minute, apparently at the request of the sponsor of S. 559, that H.R. 118 would not be approved, but S. 559 would be. Such action is highly unusual, even in this often too contentious Congress. During this year of 1999, three House naming bills of this type with Senate companions where both the House and Senate sponsor filed bills, three House bills have been sent over to the Senate first and each one of them is already law. The same has occurred with the naming bills that have come the other direction where the Senate acted more promptly than the House and the House paid courtesy to the Senate and approved those bills which have been signed into law along with these House naming bills that had no Senate sponsor originally, but were also signed into law. The Pickle bill is thus the first and the only lone exception from the Lone Star State to the courtesy and the bipartisanship that is normally associated with such matters. After more than a few unreturned phone calls to staff, I spoke personally with our senior Senator from Texas in August to courteously and respectfully request prompt approval of my House bill. About one month later a Senate staffer again assured my staff that we would get Senate approval of the House bill and that it would be done shortly. During the last month, however, we are back to largely the old unreturned phone call routine. Now this morning's Republican Whip Notice for this very morning indicates that, like Senator Gramm's original S. 559, they are designating 33 East 8th Street in Austin to be named for Congressman Pickle. If that address actually represents any place, it is part of a sidewalk in downtown Austin; and I think this error probably results from a Senate author who knows as little of Austin and Austinites, unfortunately, as that measure suggests. Mr. Speaker, I think that Congressman Pickle deserves far better from both the Senate and the House. A number of strange arguments were advanced yesterday for the belated rush and enthusiasm to approve S. 559, the copycat version of the House bill. Yesterday's Congress Daily quoted a spokeswoman for the majority leader, Mr. Armey, as saying the House had to schedule S. 559 this week because it was a way to save time and avoid a House-Senate conference committee. Of course that was phony because there were no differences between the House bill and the copycat version from the Senate for a conference committee to adjust. Then other stories were circulated, apparently Mr. Shuster heard one of them, suggesting that Congressman Pickle was in grave health. Well, I talked to him personally just after he returned from his morning jog, and I am pleased to report to the Members of the House this beloved former Member of our body is alive and kicking. Indeed, our community finds Congressman Pickle still mighty hard to keep up with because of the fact that he is no longer a formal Member of Congress, and only a former Member has not slowed him down a bit. We appreciate his energy and vigor, and we say thanks with the approval of this measure for what he has done. I have tried to gain some understanding of why it is that we would go through the kind of unprofessional conduct associated with the way this bill has been considered. First I think in this do-little Congress approving naming bills and commemoration of the Leif Ericson Millennium Medal is about all that is getting done, so it is not surprising why Republicans would want to sponsor as many of these measures as possible. Second, it is not unusual for Republicans to adopt good Democratic proposals. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and who could help but be flattered by Senator Gramm's enthusiasm for my proposal? Republicans, even in this Congress, rely on the wisdom of FDR, Truman and JFK; and it is hard to hear a quote from Mr. Nixon or Mr. Hoover. But I think finally it is plain old arrogance. For one form of that arrogance we years ago coined a new word in Texas. It is called ``grammstanding,'' which usually describes the fine art of claiming credit in Texas for what you voted against in Washington. But I think this silliness is not grammstanding. It is certainly not ``Profiles in Courage.'' I call it ``Profiles in Pettiness.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for a great man, Jake Pickle, whose career stood above the kind of deceit and pettiness associated unnecessarily with the process that results in the approval of this very good bill. I urge the House to approve it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, in June, I spoke to the House in connection with the introduction of the Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown Act. This cover of Forbes magazine pretty much tells the entire story. Forbes magazine bills itself as ``The Capitalist Tool,'' yet its cover story is ``Tax Shelter Hustlers: Respectable accountants are peddling dicey corporate tax loopholes.'' And when you open the magazine and begin the article, they continue: ``Respectable tax professionals and respectable corporate clients are exploiting the exotica of modern corporate finance to indulge in extravagant tax dodging schemes.'' During recent months, a number of individuals and groups have recognized the need to address these abusive and bogus loopholes. ``The Joint Committee on Taxation staff is convinced that the present law does not sufficiently deter corporations from entering into arrangements with a significant purpose of avoiding or evading Federal income tax. The corporate tax shelter phenomenon poses a serious challenge to the efficacy of the tax system. The proliferation of corporate tax shelters causes taxpayers to question the fairness of the tax system.'' And the Treasury Department has emphasized that, ``the proliferation of corporate tax shelters presents an unacceptable and growing level of tax avoidance behavior.'' Within the last several weeks, the American Bar Association tax section has again declared, ``growing alarm with the aggressive marketing of tax products that have little or no purpose other than the reduction of Federal income taxes.'' The New York State Bar Association expressed concern as to ``the negative and corrosive effect that corporate tax shelters have on our system of taxation and again called for congressional action.'' And even the Republican chair of the Committee on Ways and Means proclaimed much earlier this year that ``the area of corporate tax shelters is one field which merits review. . . . We are going to try to eliminate every abuse that circumvents the legitimate needs of the Tax Code.'' Unfortunately, neither that committee nor any of this House has addressed specific legislation to even slow down these guys, the corporate tax hustlers, with or without a fedora like this follow on the cover of Forbes. And no other Member of the House, except those of us who joined behind the Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown Act, has offered a specific legislative answer. Madam Speaker, tomorrow the House will hopefully have an opportunity to cast a vote for tax fairness and tax equity. The supporters of the bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvements Act, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), Republicans and Democrats, are supporting this Tax Shelter Shutdown legislation both to deal with this problem and in order to pay for the costs of the bill. I want to commend their efforts. While I think that the costs of managed care reform have been greatly overstated, all of us who are committed to the Patients' Bill of Rights are taking the fiscally prudent approach and recognizing that this must be a pay-as-you-go Congress even on a measure as important as protecting the rights of those in managed care. And I am particularly pleased that it is the tax dodgers that will be financing this important measure to improve the health care of the millions of Americans who must rely on managed care. My legislation which should be considered as an amendment to the Patients' Bill of Rights, will curtail egregious behavior without impacting legitimate business transactions. It will eliminate the well- justified feeling of many people that high rollers are cheating and gaming the system, a feeling which leads to distrust on behalf of our taxpaying public. My bill seeks to shut down abusive tax shelters by prohibiting loss generators, transactions which lack any legitimate purpose and are ginned up to obtain lower taxes. Second, a company that thinks it has a proper shelter is required to provide complete, clear, and concise disclosure. And third, the penalty for tax dodging is increased and tightened. Getting some downtown lawyer to bless what some high-priced accountant has cooked up will not save the corporation from penalties anymore, if it has clearly overstepped the line. Some of the worst tax inequities arrive from those who use abusive tax shelters to exploit loopholes. The Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown Act is not a panacea, but offered as an amendment to the Patients' Bill of Rights. It will not only advance the cause of quality health care, but it will help law enforcement to close the loopholes, eliminate sham transactions, and stop hustlers like this. Madam Speaker, as we say in Texas: shut them down and move them out.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this term, do-nothing Democrats, is a curious term to me. As best I remember, the Republicans have a majority in this House, the Republicans have a majority in the United States Senate; and yet they have been unable to complete their work. We have begun this new Federal fiscal year without the necessary appropriations acts and they have yet to even present one of the largest of those appropriations acts for our consideration. Likewise, they have produced so far this year, perhaps, the most unique set of legislative accomplishments largely centering on naming a few places and buildings and memorial coins and doing little or nothing on the real issues that concern the American people. One of those real issues is having a true patients' bill of rights for those in managed health care. With consideration of important consumer legislation delayed this month after month, week after week, we will finally this week have an opportunity to provide Americans some real protection with a genuine patients' bill of rights. That is what Democratic efforts, joined with a handful of Republicans who were willing to buck their leadership to stand up for the rights of ordinary Americans against mismanaged care, can accomplish. Give us a Democratic majority, and my colleagues will really see what Democrats can do to address health care and other concerns of American Families.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, while I have not heard many cries of Happy New Year or singing of Auld Lang Syne, today is New Year's day for the Federal fiscal year. This is day number one, and we find ourselves in this new year with the Government being able to operate only because a stop-gap emergency measure was approved earlier this week. As we begin this new year, the Federal Government is supposed to have some 13 appropriation bills approved for its normal operation. Fewer than half of those at this late date have even been sent to the President. The measure that funds all of our Federal education programs, our health research, a number of other very important programs for seniors, and for Americans of all ages, that bill has not even been presented for consideration on the floor of this House, much less sent to the President. I have just come from a press conference with the Concord Coalition with the national debt clock, which displays by the second how the national debt continues to rise. Billions of dollars of new national debt are being incurred as we fail in the Congress to deal responsibly with our budget. Instead of responsibility, what we have seen throughout this year has been one budget gimmick after another. We have had more budget emergencies designated here, I think more emergencies than the EMS has to deal with; the census being declared an emergency; an emergency on fuel assistance, since it still turns hot in the summer and cold in the winter, as it always has. All these gimmicks just like the proposal to go to a 13-month Federal fiscal year are designed solely to circumvent the spending limitations established in the Balanced Budget agreement. This year the Republicans have dipped some $18 billion into the Social Security Trust Fund just to fund the measures that they themselves have advanced this year without even getting to their irresponsible tax bill. Particularly indicative of the problems that we have been dealing with in this Congress is what has happened just within the last 24 hours. The latest of these gimmicks is to turn to the working poor in this country, the starting police officer or teacher, the fast-food worker, the nursing home worker, those who earn an earned income tax credit and get a tax refund at the end of the year as an incentive to continue working and providing for their families. The Republicans voted yesterday in committee and plan to present perhaps as early as this next week a deferral of that earned income tax credit. Instead of providing it to the folks that are working hard to make ends meet, they want to defer it. They have had the audacity to suggest that this gimmick to gain $8 billion right out of the hides of working families; the Republicans defended that in the Washington Post this week saying their plan ``would encourage better monthly planning for the beneficiaries.'' They want better monthly planning for the nurse who is looking forward to that tax refund in order to make a down payment on a car, for the police officer that is looking forward to that money to pay for her child's tuition. I think that that is wrong, and I am pleased to see within the last few hours that another person who thinks it is wrong is Governor George Bush of Texas, who said ``I don't think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor.'' Another Texan responded to that, an indication of the problems we have here in this House. The majority whip, my colleague from Texas (Mr. DeLay), is reported to have said ``It is obvious that Governor Bush needs a little education on how Congress works. I don't think he knew what he was talking about.'' I happen to believe that when you choose between these two Texas Republicans, Governor Bush has the better of it, and the American people will have the worst of it, if this Congress proceeds next week to balance the budget on the backs of those people who are there working hard trying to make ends meet, entitled to receive this earned income tax credit, House Republicans would deny working families from receiving that refund on a timely basis in the way that they have in prior years in what even Ronald Reagan called one of the ``most effective anti-poverty programs we have,'' the earned income tax credit. Because of their irresponsibility, because of their failure to budget in a proper and timely way, Republicans have turned to this gimmick. Mr. Speaker, let us hope the House will reject it next week.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, of course the raid on Social Security is the one our Republican friends have already incurred through this year, but what I would like to focus on are the millions of Americans that are out there right now preparing our lunch at a fast food restaurant, caring for seniors at a nursing home or for our children at a child care center, a young police officer who is putting his or her life on the line, a young teacher trying to assure educational opportunity; all of these folks working at low-paid jobs, as they work, receive an earned income tax credit as an incentive to work, to contribute, to pay their taxes. It is to this group of working American families that this Republican majority has turned at this very hour to finance their fiscal irresponsibility. They could have closed at least one abusive corporate tax shelter. They could have ended a tax loophole, but instead they turned to working Americans in what one executive at H&R Block says would ``cause confusion and disrupt the personal lives of hard-working American families'' by delaying their tax refund. This is wrong. This tactic must be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. During the first 7 months of this year in this Republican House, we met for a total of 87 days. In those 87 days, the House managed to pass a little less than five bills per month that actually have been enacted into law. This is significantly less than even the record-setting do- nothing Republican Congress of the last two years. It is a truly awe- inspiring record of the Republican leadership working so very, very hard to accomplish so very, very little. There are so many issues out there that demand the attention of this Congress: public education quality; health care; the repeated requests from all over this country for this Congress to address the matter of the rights of those who are in managed health care organizations; the requests of our seniors from all over this country to provide a mechanism for getting prescription drugs at a reasonable price; the desire of so many Americans to see that their private health care records that contain confidential information that should be just between them and their health care provider, but they see this information spread out across the Internet and shared with others, those privacy rights, very, very great concern. Certainly the question with health care, even a more modest bill but vitally important to many American citizens who are currently disabled, to try to help them keep their health insurance so they can get back in the workforce. These are all measures that this Congress should be considering, should be acting on, but over the last year this Congress has failed to address any of these issues. Questions of environmental quality, of the amount of public lands that are available, whether we are protecting against the devastation of our natural resources and the spoiling of our air and our water. The question of tax equity and tax fairness. I have a bill myself concerning the way that some corporations are cheating and gaming the system and causing the rest of us to have to pay more than our fair share of taxes because they use tax loopholes and exploit their position and think that because they are big enough, they can get away with these corporate tax loopholes that are so abusive, a bill that we have been unable to even get a hearing on in this Congress. So on one issue after another, and I have named only a few of the issues that this Congress should be attending to, it has not been because this Republican Congress has been attending to other business, to the Nation's business, to the priorities of the American people that it has failed to address the appropriations process, because it has not done anything about any of these problems, either. And so we find ourselves coming now to the final month and the 11th hour of this Federal fiscal year. And what work has been done? Well, nine of the 13 appropriations bills necessary to prevent the government from having to shut down, nine of those appropriations bills have not even been sent to President Clinton to consider. We know that on some of them because of all the unrelated riders and attempt to change the social policy and overturn the environmental policy that this administration has pursued, that some of those bills will be vetoed and sent back for congressional consideration, but nine of the 13 have not even been sent over for the President to react to, and here we are literally hours before the end of this fiscal year. One of those 13 bills has not even had a first draft written. The Republican leadership has scheduled one of the largest appropriations bills for the last day, the 365th day of the Federal fiscal year, they finally decided to meet together as a committee and to try to come up with a first draft, not presenting it now to the President, not even presenting it now for a vote in this House but just to get together amongst themselves and work out that first draft of this important legislation. It just so happens that that final spending bill contains all the Federal funding for education. It contains the Federal funding for our research and investigation of health care at the National Institutes for Health. It contains much of the funding that is so important to our seniors, such as Meals on Wheels, a program that has been jeopardized by the whole Republican approach to budgeting. On all of these matters the Republicans have basically said, ``That's our last priority,'' because it is the bill they waited until the last day of the year to even consider. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin would agree with the observation that this is a ``Congress that has a rendezvous with obscurity.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when the Republican Majority Leader was campaigning in Texas, he declared Social Security, ``a bad retirement program,'', ``a rotten trick on the American people'', and said, ``I think we are going to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out.'' Of course all of us remember Speaker Gingrich's prophetic remarks that we should let Medicare ``wither on the vine.'' So it is that, every time people that are predisposed against Social Security are caught meddling with it, they come up with a gimmick like this resolution. Now, this year in Congress, the most amazing thing has been that we have been in an emergency state all year long. Every time that there has been a need to reach into Social Security, an emergency is declared. That is what happened in April when the price of getting the necessary funding for Kosovo was to attach billions of dollars of unrelated projects. That is what happened when the Republicans discovered the census that we have taken every 10 years since 1790 and declared we needed $4 billion to fund that. Now, I understand the Republicans have discovered it gets cold in the winter and hot in the summer, so they declared the Fuel Assistance Program an emergency. These folks have almost as many emergencies as EMS--all of them to reach into Social Security. Of course we would have had a true emergency had President Clinton not vetoed their tax bill. This designation of an emergency is just a way of grabbing money out of Social Security and spending it on unrelated projects. So this resolution basically says, by the Republicans, ``help us,'' ``help us to not steal money from Social Security again.'' I think it ought to be approved, and I only wish there were a way to enforce it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, when this House recesses early today at 2:00 in the afternoon, it will be another recess from reality. To continue the normal operation of our Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, 13 appropriation bills should be passed by next Thursday, the last day of the Federal fiscal year. One has thus far been signed into law. With so much yet to be done and so many other issues, from gun safety to public education that this Congress should be addressing, the Republican leadership response is to declare a long weekend recess and to meet next week for 3\1/2\ days before the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, if this plan represents ``making the trains run on time,'' as the Republican leadership has so often professed, maybe we would be better off taking a plane or even a bus. Little wonder that one distinguished congressional historian recently observed that ``this Congress has a rendezvous with obscurity.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) familiar with the record of this Congress on appointments and vacancies in the Federal judiciary in Texas and across the country as to whether or not, over the last several years, there have been literally dozens of vacancies left in our Federal trial courts and in our Federal appellate courts, which are the very ones that will now have shifted to them significant and expansive new litigation?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, so will not the effect of this legislation be to shift the rights of those who have been wronged to Federal courthouses where the bench and the office is empty because the same Republican Congress that is proposing this legislation will not approve judges to sit in the seats to deal with the business that those courts have that they are overburdened with today?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, for the great tobacco companies; the health maintenance organizations, for which so many people are asking that this Congress pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, as this Congress sits on its hands in inactivity, about abuses of patients in managed care; for the gun manufacturers and their role in gun violence; for the great insurance companies; for all of those who believe that personal responsibility is a wonderful, basic, moral concept for everyone except for themselves, this is a great piece of legislation. It is based on the concept that personal responsibility is for someone else, but for some who engage in wrongdoing, Congress must step in and insulate and protect them from the consequences of that wrongdoing. This bill is based on the concept that if you are big enough and bold enough, and if you lubricate the system of government at campaign time enough, and if you just steal a little bit from everyone, that you are entitled to not be held accountable for the consequences of your wrongdoing. That is why over 70 public health and consumer organizations, groups like the American Lung Association, the American Women's Medical Association, the National Council of Senior Citizens, have said, well, if personal responsibility is such a basic American concept, how about applying it to these entities in this country that are content to just take a little bit from everyone? I join them in opposing this misguided legislation. For some reason, our Republican colleagues are always eager to protect State wrongs. If a State neglects its citizens, if it is not meeting their needs, Republicans object to the Federal Government playing any role. That is the position that Republicans took, for example, with reference to the creation of Social Security and Medicare, and with reference to Federal support for education. But if a State has true States' rights, the Republicans are not a bit reluctant to interfere and take away those rights. This bill would take all class actions filed in State courts and rip them out of the hands of the State judiciary and take them into Federal courts. Of course, these are Federal courts that are already overburdened and clogged and unable to meet the responsibilities they already have. As my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) just pointed out, that is why many within the Federal judiciary oppose this legislation. The same is true of our State judges, an independent State judiciary being very fundamental to the organization of our country. Since most of these class action suits are based upon the law of an individual State, Mr. Speaker, it is that State judiciary that is most familiar with the substantive law involved in these various class action suits. If a health maintenance organization in Texas abuses a Texas citizen, I have confidence in the Texas judiciary within our State to examine State law and determine whether our State deceptive practices act or other provision of our Insurance Code has been violated, not just with regard to one Texan, but with regard to many Texans, rather than shifting that into the Federal judiciary. I believe that Texas ought to have the right to establish its own law to protect its consumers in health maintenance organizations, as it took the lead in doing, and have those actions disposed of by our Texas judiciary. This legislation would destroy that right and shift into a crowded and overwhelmed Federal judiciary the job of policing the wrongdoing of the few against the many. It is the taking away of States' rights that, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, has rightfully noted, has caused the attorneys general of these States, has caused State judges, to say, do not interfere with what we are doing. There has been no case made that our State courts are abusing their responsibilities, are not fulfilling their responsibilities, to justify this amazing assumption of power by the Federal courts, a right they do not want in the Federal judiciary, and which, at the same time, will cut out the heart of the right of the States to decide cases interpreting State law as it affects the citizens of their State. The only justification for this legislation is for those who have committed some of the greatest wrongs in this country, the tobacco companies that continue to addict 3,000 children a day to nicotine addiction, the insurance companies and the health maintenance organizations that continue to have a stranglehold on this Congress, to not pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. Other wrongdoers in our society are now influencing this Congress to take away one of the only effective remedies that our citizens have. That is to come together in an efficient way in the court system, when the Congress will not act, to turn to the courts and seek a remedy there in front of a jury of their peers. If someone has taken a little from the many, not to bar the courthouse door, the way citizens have been blocked out of this Congress, but permitting Americans to join together before a local State judge and proceed in the State judiciary and seek some remedy for wrongdoing that has occurred, which this Congress would not address. Now that same crowd of special interests, which has encouraged this as an inactive do-nothing Congress, is saying, close off the one remedy the people have to join together in their individual States. It is wrong. This bill should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with only 6 congressional working days remaining in this Federal fiscal year, only one of the 13 appropriations bills necessary for the continued operation of our Government has actually been signed into law. This is the kind of record of inattention to duty, of inaction that brought us the costly Republican government shutdowns in the all-too-recent past. It is perhaps most symbolic of this Congress that one of the few bills that has been approved was a commemorative medal for the great explorers Lewis and Clark, for I think that not even such great explorers could find any accomplishment in this Congress. In the words of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), ``We have sort of bumped into a wall.'' With this Congress, America is bumping into a wall of inaction. Now the Republican leadership is even considering the creation of a thirteenth month on the Federal calendar. If they worked more than halftime during the first 12 months, we would not need such nonsense.