Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, that would be the only appropriate action if they had the courage behind the rhetoric. But I think, as a practical matter, they recognize they would do nothing but embarrass many of their own Members, many who have only voted for this measure because they were told it would never become law. They recognized and said in their own comments that it was irresponsible, but they would hold their nose as Republicans and follow their leadership because they knew it would never become law. The American people and this President would properly reject it.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this kind of tired old sloganeering that we have just heard is a lot of what is wrong with Washington, the unwillingness to come together in a truly bipartisan fashion and try to address the issue of appropriate tax relief, but to do it in a way that does not harm our economy. Tax and spend Democrats? That old tax and spend Democrat Alan Greenspan, appointed by Ronald Reagan as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told these Republicans time and time again that he thought their tax cut was a mistake, that it would threaten our economic prosperity, and the longest running span of economic prosperity we have had in this country in a long time. They turned a tin ear to him. Fortunately, the American people did not turn a tin ear, they listened to that. They recognized that when the Sun is shining, as we have it in this great economic prosperity today, that is the time to repair the roof, not to borrow more on the credit card. So it is today that the President has taken his pen out and vetoed, yes, this irresponsible tax bill, but it was really the American people that vetoed this bill when they had it presented to them because they recognized how truly irresponsible it was, that we cannot have it all. We cannot have a big tax break benefiting special interests, benefiting those at the top of the economy, and save Social Security and Medicare and meet the basic needs of the country. So we Democrats have proposed that we pay down the national debt, that we reduce the debt that has been incurred, and act in a fiscally responsible way to provide some targeted tax relief that is paid for, but that we meet our social security and Medicare needs. Mr. Speaker, I think as Americans look at this Congress, they probably recognize that Hurricane Floyd was not the only natural disaster to afflict the East Coast in recent days. This House Republican leadership has truly been spinning out of control talking about this irresponsible tax break. Meanwhile, the fiscal year, the Federal fiscal year, we have got 6 working days yet to conclude it. We have one of the 13 appropriation bills necessary to the operations of the government. After next weekend, one of those 13 has been signed into law.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, before coming to this body, I served as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court; and I know that on our courthouse and courthouses across Texas, and I expect in the State of my colleague, as well, there are the scales of justice. We expect that every litigant will be treated fairly and that those scales will be in balance. When we apply those scales of justice in this body on this Jackson- Lee amendment, on one side we have every public health organization, some 70 consumer groups, State judges, Federal judges, the State attorneys general, I am sure other law enforcement groups, and on the other side of that scale we have got the big tobacco lobby. Would not my colleague say it is easy to draw the appropriate balance as between the opponents and supporters of the Jackson-Lee amendment?

Mr. DOGGETT. Should this bill pass, Mr. Chairman, the delay will not only be for those involved in tobacco class-action suits. Certainly they will be damaged, but every litigant, be it corporate, individual, governmental, that has a claim pending, a legitimate claim in our Federal court system throughout this country, will find the already overwhelmed Federal courts to be logjammed even more. There are over 4,000 State courts that can handle State class actions compared to a much smaller number of our Federal district courts. If Congress today adds to these cases, the noise we will hear in the background will be the wheels of justice coming to a screeching halt. Tobacco companies will have successfully avoided any real threat of being held accountable, of being personally responsible for the damages resulting from their purposeful deceit. This Congress failed the American people by failing to approve comprehensive tobacco legislation. Let us not fail the American people once again by trampling on their rights to turn to the courthouse in their own State, in their own locality, when the Congress would not respond. Mr. Chairman, I would add one further note to my colleagues. Because of the stranglehold, and it is a strong stranglehold, that results from their having well oiled the machinery of Government here in Washington, the tobacco companies really face little threat in this Congress. We will not be able to get to the floor of this Congress meaningful legislation to reduce youth smoking; and my colleagues need to know that this vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will probably be the only vote this year by which the American people and the constituency in each district of the Members of Congress will have an opportunity to judge them as to whether they stand with big tobacco and its wrongdoing or they stand with the children and the public health organizations of America to have an effective remedy for such wrongdoing. I urge approval of the Jackson-Lee amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, for the last several years, this Republican Congress has stood idle as each day some 3,000 of our children across America have had the opportunity to be introduced to nicotine. Many of them, perhaps as many as a thousand per day, will die prematurely because of their nicotine addiction. Secret tobacco documents discovered in the course of class action litigation indicate that these tobacco giants targeted children as young as 12 years old with their propaganda about the joys of smoking. Before Congress grants this tobacco industry special protection, we need to weigh the heavy consequences of the deplorable history of targeting our youngest Americans to take up smoking, proven in industry documents discovered in these class action suits in State court. I believe that we must place a high priority on the deadly relationship between children and nicotine. We have to protect our children from the tobacco companies that spend over $5 billion a year, almost $14 million every single day of every single year, to promote their products because they need to replace the thousands of smokers that die off from using their products with new young victims. This legislation is truly back-door immunity for the tobacco industry. I commend my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her courage in taking on that industry and declining to give them that back-door immunity. These are the same tobacco giants that sought to ban class actions in 1997, that have known about the deadly consequences of their product for decades, and that are now back here again asking for special treatment. As my colleagues know, the relationship between the Republicans in this Congress and the tobacco industry runs very deep and constant. The only thing this House has ever done in response to this vital public health issue in the last two sessions was to approve a $50 billion tax loophole for the tobacco industry. And when people discovered it tucked in under a title called ``Small Business Protection'', the House Republican leadership got so embarrassed, Mr. Chairman, that they withdrew the whole matter. Just when we thought perhaps the Republican leadership had learned the lesson of that misdeed, they again have stood with the tobacco industry to offer them this major break from responsibility. Oh, yes, the Republican leadership talks about personal responsibility, but they do not mean personal responsibility for those who have produced the leading cause of preventable death in this country today, the tobacco industry. The victories that have been won in so many of these important States have occurred in our State courts. The States' attorneys general have played a critical role in exposing tobacco industry wrongdoing. In their pursuit of cases at the State level, they have been invaluable allies of the public health community. If this bill had been law, we would still be waiting for an answer because our Federal courts are overwhelmed and backlogged in too much of the country. Florida citizens would not know as they learned through the litigation that, ``tobacco companies have engaged in a persistent pattern of fraud, of conspiracy to commit fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.'' If this bill had been law, Minnesota State courts would never have had the chance to tell Americans around the country that the tobacco companies set out, ``get smokers as young as possible'' and that our own children were purposefully targeted for nicotine addiction. For these tobacco companies children ``represent tomorrow's cigarette business . . . and will account for the key share of total cigarette volume for at least the next 25 years.'' Those are the words right out of the secret tobacco documents discovered in state court proceedings. The Congress is not the only body, of course, that has considered changing its class action procedures. The same forces, the tobacco industry and its allies, that are attempting to destroy this useful remedy in this Congress came before the State capitol in the city I represent in Austin, Texas. They sought through other devices, along with their allies--the health maintenance organization and the insurance companies--to bar the doors of the courthouses of the State of Texas. Fortunately, the Texas Legislature had the wisdom to reject their entreaties, and I hope this Congress will do the same thing. As my colleagues know, a Federal civil lawsuit in too many jurisdictions is little more than a ticket to delay.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there are many ways that we can express our gratitude to those who answered their Nation's call and have made such great sacrifices for their country, sacrifices that protect our country and our people and ensure that we embody the highest aspirations of human endeavor to allow each individual to conduct a life with freedom and with dignity. I rise in support of this legislation, which not only extends long- term care services but also attempts to extend an additional degree of dignity to our veterans that comes with home- and community-based health care options that are recommended in this bill. The legislation recognizes that even though the Veterans Administration operates the largest health care system in the United States, there are still many communities that desperately lack resources for our veterans. Central Texas, which I represent, is experiencing a rapid growth in the number of veterans that are retiring there; and many of these folks are entitled to medical services that just simply are not available nearby at our local Veterans Outpatient Clinic or at other local health care facilities. If a woman in Travis County, for example, needs a mammogram, she has to drive 60 to 70 miles to get one. Despite all the orthopedic doctors in Austin, Texas, veterans must make the same long drive past those clinics and to a VA Hospital because none of the services are available locally. So I am pleased that the committee is exploring new ways for the Veterans Administration to spread its resources. For instance, the bill allows the Veterans Administration to enter into long-term leases to improve services. The veterans health care system is facing considerable budget pressures as it attempts to deal with an aging veterans population and escalating pharmaceutical costs. But while we must maintain fiscal discipline, it is important that our veterans who defended our freedom do not bear a disproportionate share of the burden. Mr. Speaker, in August, the New York Times reported on an audit of the Veterans Health Administration by the General Accounting Office, the investigating arm of Congress, under the headings ``Audit of VA Health Care Finds Millions Are Wasted,'' and says ``Money That Could Improve Treatment Goes to Operate Unneeded Buildings.'' That report noted that the Veterans Administration ``Spends more than $1 million a day to operate unneeded hospital buildings, where a dwindling number of veterans receive care in under-populated wards,'' and that of the ``more than $17 billion that the Veterans Administration receives each year to provide health care to veterans, it spends about one-fourth of the money caring for 4,700 buildings around the country.'' The Austin American-Statesman editorialized similarly ``Veterans Hospitals Monuments to Waste.'' The General Accounting Office itself noted that the Veterans Health Administration ``could enhance veterans' health care benefits if it reduced the level of resources spent on underused, inefficient, or obsolete buildings and reinvested these savings, instead, to provide health care more efficiently in future facilities at existing locations or new locations closer to where veterans live.'' That is certainly what we need in Central Texas. And the advice seems pretty reasonable. It reminds me of the baseball legend Wee Willie Keeler who, when asked the secret to hitting, replied ``hit it where they ain't.'' Well, I believe the Veterans Administration needs to provide more services where our veterans are rather than simply maintaining under-utilized buildings and making people come to them. I believe that today's legislation represents a modest step in that direction. We should pledge ourselves to the fulfillment of our obligations to those who have suffered in the defense of our country. To do less would be to sell short the very principles we profess to value so highly as a nation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the national Census mandated by the United States Constitution and conducted every 10 years since 1790 has been newly discovered by our Republican friends and declared an emergency for spending purposes, to avoid spending limitations. Now the Republicans have found a new gimmick. They are actually rewriting the calendar. The old 12-month calendar to which America had become so accustomed is just not good enough for the current leadership. In order to create the appearance of new money, they have found a 13th month to include in the Federal fiscal calendar. Perhaps they will call it Bucks-tober, or maybe Big Bucks-tober. I believe there is perhaps no silliness in which this leadership will not engage. One truth, however, remains most constant. To whom do the Republicans turn to fund their folly? The same folks they always turn to, those who do not have a fleet of lobbyists here in Washington, or a political action committee; in this case, the working poor. They propose to gain $7 billion by postponing refunds to recipients of the Federal earned income tax credit, typically working families with children who earn about $20,000 a year. Working folks end up paying a high price for Republican irresponsibility.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, of this amendment it can be said, seldom have so few worked so hard to do so little. Who could be against the little that this substitute proposes? Only those of us who are committed to doing more, who realize that the modest changes proposed by the Shays-Meehan approach are the minimum necessary to bring any real change to this Congress. Those intent on blocking reform have carefully crafted the rule governing the procedure for this debate so that the approval of any alternative, even one as meager as that advanced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), will serve to nullify real reform. The sole purpose of this substitute is not some newly discovered interest in correcting some minor provisions in the Federal Election Code, but it is to defeat true reform, an objective its author has made clear by his repeated votes against cleaning up this mess. Without a vote for genuine campaign finance reform tonight, special interests will continue to have a strangle hold on this body. The pharmaceutical companies will decide whether seniors get access to prescription drugs. The tobacco companies will decide whether we do anything about nicotine addiction among our young people. The special interests will continue to write a tax code that is replete with loopholes that burden the rest of the American people. We need a clean sweep of this campaign finance system, not some modest housekeeping touch-up; not mere toothless tinkering with a clearly very broken system. Reject this amendment and adopt true reform.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today this House has an important opportunity to clean up the special interest money mess that dominates our campaigns. Approval of the bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform legislation can go a long way in correcting some of the wrongs that dominate this Congress. To get real change, however, we must approve this bill without any change. The amendments that are being offered, the substitutes, some of them appear to be direct, straightforward efforts to kill this legislation. Others of them are in seemingly innocuous form but the sole purpose of every amendment, every substitute, is to block reform. Last year, the Republican leadership, every single Member of the Republican leadership of this House, voted against reform. And they managed to delay consideration of this bill, delay it long enough that they finally succeeded in killing it. Today we call on them to join with us, to join with leaders on both the Republican and Democratic side, in support to reform, in cleaning up this mess, so that we can move forward to address the real issues that concern the American people.

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, today the business of this House will focus on the question of campaign finance reform. It is indeed an important debate because the agenda of this Congress is being set by the special interest contributors that increasingly dominate our elections. It is the American people who have to foot the bill for those special interests, and they foot it in many ways. Without a vote for genuine campaign finance reform, and that is the Shays-Meehan bipartisan campaign finance bill, which represents the only true reform, if it can be approved today without amendments. Without a vote for genuine campaign finance reform, pharmaceutical companies, who contribute to campaigns will determine whether our seniors ever get access to affordable prescription drugs. Without a vote for genuine campaign finance reform, insurance companies will determine whether folks in managed care ever get their rights in a true, meaningful patients' bill of rights to hold the insurance companies accountable for their misconduct. Without a vote for true and effective campaign finance reform, it will be the tobacco companies, who through their contributions determine whether we ever do anything to address the increase in nicotine addiction among our children. Without an effective campaign finance reform embodied in the Shays- Meehan bill without amendments, it will be the gun manufacturers through their contributions, who will determine whether we ever address the question of gun violence in our society. And certainly, as we have seen in this abominable, huge trillion- dollar tax cut proposed by the Republican leadership, unless we get effective campaign finance reform, it will be the special interests here in Washington, who continue to write loopholes for themselves in our Tax Code, designing it as a more and more complex code where the ordinary, hard-working American family has to pick up most of the cost of Government and the special interests manage to avoid paying their fair share. The debate in this Congress today on this bill will determine on whether or not we really require complete disclosure by the so-called independent campaigns when they are really campaigning with unregulated, undisclosed money for a handful of special interest candidates. Secondly, it will eliminate the soft money contributions, the unreported, unregulated, unlimited contributions that these same special interests, the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, the tobacco lobbyists dump into these campaigns to tie up the Congress and to control its agenda. I believe that what we need to do is not just some slight housekeeping amendments, as have been proposed, to thwart the Shays- Meehan bill, but we need a clean sweep of the system. If the Shays-Meehan bipartisan campaign finance reform has any defect, the defect is that it does too little, not that it does too much. But it does represent an important first step on a bipartisan basis to overcome the deficiencies in our current system, which permit a stranglehold through special interest contributions on the operations of this Congress. Doris Haddocks, a woman from New England, who has referred to herself as ``Granny D,'' is 89 years old. She began a walk out in California. I believe she has about reached the Mississippi River, walking by herself across America, as an 89-year-old great grandmother, to speak out and draw attention to the need for reforming our campaign finance system and getting so much of this special interest money out of our system. I would say to my colleagues that she has a better chance, a much better chance, of completing her walk step by step across the wide expanse of America, ``from sea to shining sea;'' she has a much better chance to accomplish that objective than this Congress does to ever escape special interest domination unless we reform our campaign finance system. We need true, genuine reform. Without that reform, this Congress and its entire agenda will continue to be set largely on the basis of who gave how much to whom. I believe that campaign finance reform, certainly the modest steps we propose today in the Shays-Meehan bipartisan campaign finance reform, will not correct every wrong in this Congress. But without real, meaningful, comprehensive reform, the American people will continue to be wronged by the special interests that dominate this Congress. Let us approve bipartisan reform today.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, surely one of the most bizarre announcements of this do-little Congress was the declaration yesterday by the Republican leadership that there will be no tax bill this year, because there simply will not be enough time to consider the matter after the President vetoes the Republican tax giveaway. This is the same Republican leadership, of course, that has delayed now over a month in sending the tax bill to the President so that it can be vetoed, as they knew he would do all along. Could it be that the real reason that they are dropping the tax bill is that the American people have already vetoed it? They have vetoed the idea of borrowing from a still rising national debt to give more to those who have a PAC and a lobbyist here in Washington for the hundreds of billions of dollars of special interest tax provisions in this measure. They have vetoed the idea of taking from Social Security and Medicare to give a tax break to those at the top when most Americans will get pennies out of this tax proposal. I believe the American people have vetoed this bad idea, and perhaps that is the real reason that even the Republican leadership, that has done so little this year, is giving up on the tax cut.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we say ``No'' to their chicken manure subsidy, and we say ``No'' to a bill that jeopardizes Social Security and Medicare in order to provide tax breaks to chicken manure producers and many other special interests in this country. This so-called $3 trillion surplus is nothing but a figment of a Republican political imagination. $2 trillion of this amount simply represents the money that hard-working Americans will be paying into Social Security, and that $2 trillion, as large as it sounds, is not enough to ensure Social Security will be there for future generations of Americans. Republicans do not provide one new dollar to help Social Security or to help Medicare in this bill. The other trillion dollars is funny money. The Republicans have already consumed all of this funny money, this projected surplus for next year with the bills that they have under consideration in this Congress. That $1 trillion is as unreliable as a 10-year weather forecast. But what I really object to is plucking Social Security and Medicare clean in order to provide tax breaks for most every special interest with a PAC and a lobbyist. This is wrong. Reject this bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague exactly what we object to. We object to funding tax breaks for special interests by jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare. That is what this bill is all about. They call it the Financial Freedom Act. Well, it provides a little more freedom for some folks than for others. In the words of Dr. King, some people are ``free, free, God Almighty, free at last.'' And at the top of the list are the chicken manure producers. Hundreds of millions of dollars of tax subsidies for chicken manure producers in this country. Down in Texas we have Whataburger. Well, ``What a chicken'' this is. They have given new meaning to ``chicken deluxe,'' to ``chicken special'' in this bill by giving hundreds of millions of dollars of tax relief to chicken manure producers. And who do my colleagues think pays for that? I think it is best summed up in this copy of a painting that hangs here in Washington. It is entitled ``Plucked Clean.'' And that is exactly what happens to Social Security and Medicare. They get plucked clean. Social Security and Medicare do not enjoy the benefits of the chicken manure producers. They get plucked clean. This $2 trillion figure that they keep talking about, it is not a surplus, it is the money that hard working men and women across this country are expected to pay into the Social Security System. It is their money; it is there for Social Security. In this bill, Republicans do not add one additional dollar for Social Security. And we know the money, that $2 trillion, is not by itself enough to fund Social Security forever. Likewise, with reference to Medicare, Republicans do not add an additional dollar for Medicare. They are not funding the long-term solvency of Medicare or covering the much-needed prescription drugs. Why is it that every time that there is some tax cut, it goes to the special interests? And if my colleagues need further verification of the fact that Social Security and Medicare are being plucked clean in order to provide tax breaks for the special interests, examine the phony ``trigger'' mechanism in this bill. It will supposedly cut off, in certain circumstances, some of the future tax relief provided by this bill. But the ``trigger'' does not apply to the chicken manure producers; it only applies to the section of the bill addressing tax cuts for individuals. Special interests get the special treatment; individual taxpayers get left out. This is wrong. Do not pluck Social Security and Medicare clean to help the chicken manure producers and most every other special interest which has a lobbyist and a political action committee.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker pro tempore'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, listening to these excuses this morning from our Republican colleagues, I cannot help but think how far this great Republican revolution has sagged. My colleagues claimed they wanted to change everything, and yet they justify this morning's adventure in fiscal responsibility on the grounds that we ought to keep doing things the same old way it has been done in the past. Last year, this Congress managed to pack in billions of dollars of pork into a weighty bill, weighing in at 40 pounds to be exact, something called the Omnibus Spending bill. Some of us called it the ``Octopus Spending'' bill, because of the strange reach of its long tentacles. Labeling projects as ``emergencies'' that did not have any genuine emergency associated with them at all was done for the sole purpose of avoiding the limitations of the Balanced Budget Act. Again this spring, billions of dollars of projects that did not have anything to do with Kosovo were given that very valued appellation ``emergency'' as a way of increasing defense spending while pretending to comply with the Balanced Budget Act. Apparently, getting away with such charades only whetted the appetites of those who come to this floor and preach fiscal restraint and then proceed to engage in this kind of gamesmanship. In this bill, they designate almost $5 billion for the 2000 Census. That is the same ``emergency'' that our Founding Fathers required us to do every decade in the United States Constitution. It is the same ``emergency'' that we have had every 10 years since the year 1790. This is not an emergency, it is just another example of Republicans cooking the books. Republicans say they want to get all of this money out of Washington with an irresponsible tax cut. Apparently, they just want protection from themselves. They really cry out, keep us from taking more money from Social Security for purposes that have nothing to do with Social Security at all. That is what they are doing this morning to pay for their phony ``emergency.'' Webster's dictionary defines an ``emergency'' as ``an unforeseen combination of circumstances.'' Certainly, the census is not that, but the second definition is applicable. It is ``an urgent need for assistance or relief.'' That is what America needs relief from this kind of Republican fiscal irresponsibility. It is urgent. It is an emergency in that context.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have never really understood why our Republican colleagues are so opposed to COPS, the Community Oriented Policing Services. It works. It gets more law enforcement officers on our streets. It reduces crime. It involves a minimum, of administrative expense and delay and a maximum amount of crime prevention. The only reason I can think of that they oppose the COPS program is that they did not think of it first. Through COPS, we have added in my home area of Travis County, Texas, the equivalent of almost 300 new law enforcement officers in our neighborhoods and on our roads. Chief Knee, Chief Buesing, and Sheriff Frazer who are outstanding local law enforcement officers. Through the COPS program, we say to them and to crime fighters across America, ``keep up the good work.'' We provide them the additional tools that they need to provide law enforcement that is highly visible and extremely effective. Some of these new officers in my hometown are helping to prevent school violence; some are addressing domestic violence. Some are combatting drugs and gang violence. Together, they are not only making our community safer, they are making all of us feel safer in our community. This week, I expect further announcements of the Troops to COPS program that permits some of our veterans who have gained skills in the military and need jobs the opportunity to transition into law enforcement, an excellent program. Yet, our Republican colleagues come forward today in this bill and propose to slash the COPS program by a billion dollars. I would say that, with this bill, the Republicans are not only cooking the books in a fiscally irresponsible manner, but neither set of the budget books that they use contain the priority for law enforcement that I think American families have a right to demand. This rule and this bill should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this Republican tax bill has declared Christmas while it sizzles. On this Christmas tree that has been erected here in Washington, one will find a package wrapped up for anyone who has a lobbyist and a political action committee. There is one break after another. They think nothing of having the taxpayers subsidize 80 percent of the cost of a $100 bottle of cabernet or a two-martini lunch. They want the taxpayers to subsidize our defense contractors to go out and start more arms races around the world. And these conferees will even be considering a tax subsidy for chicken manure, something that many people have said symbolizes this entire bill. Instead of simplifying the Tax Code, this bill makes the Tax Code even more complex, and it certainly does not reduce the abusive billions of dollars that occur in corporate tax shelters that all the rest of us end up having to pay. And of course when it comes to fairness, this Christmas tree, while it sizzles, is one that provides a third of its proposed individual tax benefits to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. It is truly amusing to listen to this debate about Alan Greenspan. After all, what difference does it really make? Well, the difference I think centers on the fact that he is a President Ronald Reagan appointee, an admitted Republican, who has been given credit by many people, Democrats and Republicans, for the success of our economic expansion. It has been said he would prefer tax cuts to spending. My guess is he prefers tax cuts to death, as well. But that is not the alternative that he was presented. There is the alternative instead of this massive tax cut bill of reducing the Federal debt. When he was asked last week about this House and Senate Republican approach to taxes, he said it would be ``creating a risk that I don't think we need.'' We do not need to jeopardize either Social Security or our economic success. And the leading Republican economic expert in this country is the one who said we ought not to do it. If he were here tonight, he would be endorsing the motion of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), which is only a motion to assure a fiscally responsible bipartisan alternative; and it ought to be preferred over this tax break and borrow-more scheme that is being advanced by our Republican colleagues.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the only means of conservation is innovation, and I believe that is what Vice President Gore had in mind in recommending an innovative proposal called Better America Bonds. I joined him back in January of this year over at the American Institute of Architects with a number of outstanding planners and conservationists to announce this initiative. Now, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and I, along with a number of our colleagues, have filed this legislation to establish the Better America Bonds program. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Federal Government should be an active partner with local communities supporting their efforts to build more livable communities as we approach the 21st century. I believe that there is strong, broad-based support for these locally developed, ``smart growth'' or sustainable growth initiatives. The Better America Bonds program would assist State and local governments in their efforts to plan for their future growth and development. Through the issuance of this new type of bond, one that carries a Federal tax credit as opposed to a small amount in interest payments, local governments would be enabled to make purchases to preserve green space, create or restore urban parks, or simply to clean up land or water. I believe that the preservation of more open space, more green space in which families can enjoy life, is becoming a leading environmental issue across this country. Both property values on homes and the basic quality of life that we all expect are improved with additional open space and parks. It really is not that hard to understand why that is so if we are coming or going from Washington, D.C. along the George Washington Parkway or the Rock Creek Parkway. Or if, as my wife and I like to do, one is enjoying bicycling along the trail that leads beside the parkway down to Mt. Vernon, one recognizes how much the beauty of the green space and the opportunity to walk and play in that green space adds to the quality of life. Mr. Speaker, the Better America Bonds legislation has some 110 Members of this House now as cosponsors. We would provide up to almost $10 billion in bonding authority for communities across the country to buy up threatened farmland or to purchase downtown waterfront property to convert into a park perhaps, like the great hike and bike trail we have along Town Lake in my hometown of Austin, Texas. In Austin, we have a number of new projects that are under consideration, including a project along Waller Creek, and a project for an additional Town Lake park, both to preserve green space. Additional green space provided through these projects means not only more fun but more opportunity for economic development in some areas that have been neglected and not properly used in the past by the city. My constituents back in central Texas have realized the importance of additional green space acquisition and of clean water by approving local bond initiatives through which the City of Austin has already purchased some 15,000 acres of land towards this objective. These new land purchases will protect our sensitive environment in central Texas and provide additional parks. They have also provided a unique opportunity for some groups that have warred against each other to work together. In Austin, the Save Our Springs Alliance, the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce and the Real Estate Council were once opposing each other over some of the environmental efforts in the community. Now they have united in what is called a ``Vast Open Spaces'' project to acquire additional land and in the process of uniting over this issue, they have come to achieve some common ground on a number of other issues toward improving the quality of life in central Texas as well. I believe that the Better America Bonds program, by supporting that kind of effort, will allow them to do an even better job, reach more parts of our community, and provide more parks and green space, not only along Town Lake but throughout central Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think the same kind of thing can happen around the country, whether it is along the Anacostia here in Washington, the Chattahoochee in Atlanta, or along the Los Angeles River, these bonds provide the opportunity to reinvigorate downtown areas, make them more livable, and reinvigorate the economy in some of these areas. The Better America Bonds initiative has received support from the American Institute of Architects and the National Realty Committee because they support strong neighborhood planning and this program provides the means for communities to do just that. Communities and local governments are also supporting the Better America Bonds program because these bonds are much less costly to a local government for them to use than the traditional interest bearing ones. As Vice President Gore said earlier this year, ``Plan well, and you have a community that nurtures commerce and private life. Plan badly, and you have what many of us suffer from firsthand: Gridlock, sprawl and that uniquely modern evil of all, too little time.'' We incorporated this concept of Better America Bonds in the Democratic tax substitute. It received a substantial number of votes, and I hope that we can come together in a bipartisan effort to support Better America Bonds in the future. I believe that we must all be active participants in preserving our livable communities for our children and grandchildren. Through innovative conservation programs like Better America Bonds, we can ensure this legacy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), who has been such a leader in the efforts here to deal with the issue of cancer.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from the Dallas area in Texas (Mr. Sessions) so that he might offer further explanation of the bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the timely consideration of this resolution so that this body could go on record immediately in honoring Lance and all that his effort represents in a strong, bipartisan way. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.