Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, and I do not intend to object since this is a resolution that I have authored, I do want, in working with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), to have a brief discussion of this resolution. Some 21 Members, Democrats and Republicans, some of whom are here on the floor this afternoon have joined in this resolution in a bipartisan acknowledgment of the great success of Lance Armstrong in France this past week. I particularly want to acknowledge and will recognize momentarily the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and an avid cyclist on her staff, Blake Selzer, who had been particularly interested in this subject. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, as Lance Armstrong, my fellow Texan and fellow Austinite, rode to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, I was overcome not just with the importance of that moment, but with the importance of all that Lance has accomplished in getting to this point. I was also struck with the meaning that this victory would have for thousands of people around the world. After an early budding career this young Austinite was stricken with life threatening advanced testicular cancer that actually metastasized and affected his lungs and brains. While his own recuperation was still incomplete, he began to worry not only about his own condition with this disease but with the impact that this disease was having on so many other people around the world. The drive and determination that the world got to see this past 23 days of the race in France was very evident to Austinites long before he ever rode up the streets of Paris, France. But to get to Paris, Lance had to cover some 2300 miles circumnavigating France on a bicycle in some 23 days. That is more than a hundred miles a day in all types of terrain, even in the French Alps and against 200 of the best cyclists in the world. Unfortunately, the French terrain never lets one coast and the saying that it is all downhill from here was something that never seemed to apply. As he rode into Paris wearing that coveted Yellow Jersey, the cheers from the good French people let the world know that indeed there was a new American in Paris. This drive to be the best that you can be and to make the things better for others manifested itself in his own physical healing long before this race in the founding of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a project of which my office provided some assistance. Lance undertook the foundation in December of 1996 just 3 months after his diagnosis. The foundation has as its mission, and I see a colleague from Ohio who has worked in this area as well, awareness, education, and research on cancer. It sponsors the annual Ride for the Roses where people come from all over the United States to bicycle in our Texas hill country each spring and, in the process, raise money for the foundation. It is a fun event that raises thousands of dollars, and that foundation also sponsors the Lance Armstrong Oncology Conference that gathers physicians from around the world to discuss and learn about advancements and treatments of cancer. Just last year, the Tour de France had fallen under the specter of performance-enhancing drugs. This once very prestigious bicycle race has lost glamor and credibility; but thanks to Lance, the credibility of the race has been restored. And in Texas we are suggesting to cycling friends in France that they respectfully consider re-naming this the ``Tour de Lance.'' His recovery and victory in the tour has surprised the world, but it has not surprised us in Austin where we watched Lance as he promised to defeat cancer, where we watched him create this Lance Armstrong Foundation, and where we finally watched him wear this coveted Yellow Jersey. I stand here today very proud to sponsor this resolution though I have been a recreational bicyclist who has had a little difficulty staying on my own bicycle at times. As an Austinite, as a Texan, as an American, we are very proud of his accomplishments. It was very exciting to see it this past week and to know that he was also not only representing Texas but there as a member of the United States Postal Service team and that this was a team effort of all of the members of the postal service and of the team that they sponsored. So Lance pulled off the unexpected in Paris, and now we have good bipartisan support for this resolution honoring him. We are not given many second chances in life, but Lance was given a second chance, and just look what he did with it. As he said himself, if you ever get a second chance in life, you have got to go all the way. The personal path that he has led certainly demonstrates that. We know here in the House that heroes are not just the giant statues against a red sky, they are the people that say: This is my community, my world, and it is my responsibility to make it better, and I know that my colleagues share in expressing our pride and gratitude to this young man from Texas, Lance Armstrong. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) who has been an inspiration on this legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Harris County, Texas (Mr. Bentsen), to end finally on a Lone Star note, quite appropriately.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and while reserving my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who played such a significant role in the interests of bicycling and cyclists in the new transportation legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, indeed it is amazing today that Republicans who tell us we ``cannot'' when it comes to affording prescriptions for seniors, we ``cannot'' when it comes to holding managed health care insurers accountable; but they now tell us we ``can'' have what is really the ``Financial Freedom from Reality Act,'' a near trillion dollar tax cut where they choose party loyalty over fiscal sanity. Instead of tax fairness for the middle class, they propose to jeopardize our long-term prosperity, Medicare and Social Security. This is a House that has done so very well at doing so very little this year. Of course the Republican leadership had to engage in desperation tactics on this bill. They are desperate for anything that would mask their many failures and continued refusal to schedule meaningful action on the major issues that truly concern American families. There is no $3 trillion surplus. $2 trillion is committed to assure the solvency of Social Security for the coming decades. The other $1 trillion is based on false assumptions that are as unreliable as a 10- year weather forecast. Further, they forget the advice of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who when asked about their 10 percent across-the-board tax rate cut said he rejected it; he flatly rejected it in favor of building up the surplus to pay down the debt. There is one other matter, and that is the matter of tax fairness, because I think most Americans are willing to pay their fair share, but they resent the high rollers cheating and gaming the system while honest taxpayers have to make up the difference. We must help law enforcement close loopholes, eliminate sham transactions, and stop tax shelter hustlers. These tax shelter hustlers even commanded the attention of Forbes Magazine, known as ``the capitalist tool,'' because they do a disservice to this country and the practice of accounting. Republicans say closing tax loopholes for their corporate shelter buddies is a tax increase. We say it is an opportunity to provide more tax relief to middle-class Americans. We say these tax-and-borrow Republicans are trying to borrow more money to give more tax breaks to those special interests, who are cheating and gaming the system. We have the courage to take on the special interests. They have demonstrated once again they are here to serve the special interests.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, since 1990, over $1 billion in frozen Iraqi assets sitting in American banks have been available to satisfy the just claims of American citizens. But almost a decade later, this Congress has still not approved legislation that would let Americans collect. This amendment would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to vest this Iraqi money in an account known as the Iraqi Claims Fund and authorize the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to begin the process of resolving these claims against that Iraqi money with just one stipulation: The first claims to be resolved should be those of our Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans, many of whom have been plagued with all the physical ailments that are referred to as Gulf War Syndrome. Mr. Chairman, these men and women gave their all against an enemy of the United States, and now these brave veterans deserve nothing less from the government of the United States. The House has already gone on record twice to support this objective. In 1994, by a vote of 398 to 5, in support of a similar provision in a State Department bill, and in 1997, in support of my motion to instruct conferees to reject an outrageous Senate provision in the State Department authorization bill by a vote of 412 to 5, we stood up at those times and declared that the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country are second to no one. Now we must do so again. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member on the Committee on International Relations.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, it appears that no one will rise to speak against this amendment. I am pleased about that, and I know that our Nation's veterans will be pleased about it. The Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Gulf Veterans Resource Center have been active in supporting this measure. When this measure came before the Committee on International Affairs back in 1993, these organizations and other veterans organizations spoke out in favor of this provision. Yet, why is it that with such strong support from veterans, with a near unanimous vote of this House in 1994 on a strong bipartisan basis, again on my motion in 1997 a strong bipartisan basis, we have not provided our veterans with the mechanism to have a chance to get some recovery from the frozen assets of Saddam Hussein that are sitting in banks right here in the United States? It is because there are some who have claims that are competing with the veterans and do not want veterans to have a first claim on these assets. Some of the entities that have registered their claims with regard to these assets are the very companies that supplied Saddam Hussein with the means to have weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, components that could be used in the development of nuclear weaponry, conventional weapons that were made available to Saddam Hussein. They now are competing with our veterans. Another group of entities that are competing and seem to have played a big role in this bill during the last Congress are the major tobacco companies. They also have claims. One has a claim of some $12 million. Now, I am not suggesting that any of those, even those that supplied Saddam Hussein with the means for his war machine, ought not to have their day in court or the day before the commission. But I am suggesting that before they have their day in court we should at least resolve the claims of those who put their lives on the line and some of whom actually sacrificed and gave their lives and others of whom will be plagued for the rest of their lives, bright young men and women with a shining future who now suffer disability as the result of Gulf War Syndrome. I would say, as to those young men and women who gave their all to this country, who put their country first and made this sacrifice, that they deserve to have their claims put ahead of the companies that supplied weaponry and the means to develop weaponry to Saddam Hussein and that they deserve to be placed ahead of the major tobacco companies that say they want their claims settled, not that they are left out, but that our veterans go first. I know that there are others across this Capitol, Mr. Jesse Helms in particular, that disagree with this approach. But I believe this House, for a third time having spoken out with, I hope, a unanimous voice and a recorded vote, will be sending a message that we will not leave our veterans behind anymore and that, as we close out this millennium, we will finally put our Gulf War veterans first and let them have a claim, a legitimate claim, against these assets of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to respond to this question. I believe the gentleman was here on the floor in 1997 when we had our motion to instruct. It took up an entire hour of time. Am I not correct that, in the course of that debate, only one Member of this entire House on either side of the aisle or a Republican colleague of ours rose to oppose the motion to instruct and after the debate he voted with us in favor of the motion to instruct to tell Jesse Helms and all the members of the conference committee do not put veterans last, because if we put them last, given the size of the claims of some of these companies that helped fuel Saddam Hussein's war machine and supplied tobacco to the children and adults of Iraq, if we put the veterans down behind them, the veterans will not get a penny; it will not be a matter of putting veterans last, it will be a matter of putting veterans out and they will never get a dime? Is that not correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) who represents the largest military base in the world, Ft. Hood, Texas.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if no one is claiming time in opposition to this bill, I ask unanimous consent to control the 5 minutes allocated for opposition.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I call on the Republican leadership to pull down the tax bill that they have scheduled for today, an irresponsible piece of legislation that accelerates the $5.6 trillion of national debt we already have, and jeopardizes the future of Social Security and Medicare. Those of us who are genuinely concerned with more tax fairness for middle-class taxpayers will not find any help in this bill; but, should the Republicans proceed with the bill, it is important to know what is in and what is out. Tax relief with a credit for those who have children and seek child care, that is out. Tax relief for the two-martini business luncheon, that is in. Tax relief for the wealthiest people in this country to send their children to private, elite academies, that is, of course, in. Tax relief to repair dilapidated overcrowded public schools, that, of course, is out. Tax relief that assures one-third of the benefits of this bill go to those that earn over $200,000, that is in. Relief for the public debt and security for Social Security, that is out.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely outrageous, and Chairman Greenspan shared that concern also. That is why he emphasized in unequivocal terms that this Republican tax proposal would be a mistake, and pointed to the advantages that he said would accrue to the economy from a significant decline in the outstanding debt to the public; that that is the kind of thing that can keep our expansion going and can help us to secure social security and Medicare.

Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely.

Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely. And I know we will hear shortly about a Democratic alternative to try to provide some fairness to middle-class workers in this country and families. I know the gentleman himself has introduced a proposal to try to simplify this complicated web called the Internal Revenue Code. We have a number of creative Democratic proposals to try to get a little fairness for the people that are out there trying to hold their families together and earn a middle-class income. But to give it all to those at the top of the economic ladder, one-third of the benefits to individuals in this Republican bill go to families that earn over $200,000 a year, so that is not the typical middle-class family. They want to just let a little dribble down to the rest of us. But I think that is not the right approach.

Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed, this proposed Financial Freedom Act, the Freedom From Reality Act, proposes about a $1 trillion cut in the next 10 years, and then, as those baby boomers are really beginning to demand and need social security and Medicare, it explodes in the next 10 years another $2 or $3 trillion. These numbers do get so big, but we are talking not about billions but trillions of dollars that are likely to be additional debt at the very time many Americans are retiring and need social security and Medicare. That is why I think Chairman Greenspan, not only in answer to my questions, but just to turn the chart around, answered a specific question about the very kind of proposal, an outrageously irresponsible proposal, the Republicans have presented. A Republican colleague, asking in front of the committee that approved this bill, ``Would you support, say, the proposal being touted currently for a 10 percent across-the-board reduction in tax rates?'' And Chairman Greenspan says, ``Well, Congressman, as I said at the beginning, my first preference is to allow the surplus to run, because I think that the benefit to the economy through the strength of increasing savings is a very important priority for this country.'' We are concerned as Democrats not with spending but saving, saving the economic expansion we have, saving Medicare, and saving social security.

Mr. DOGGETT. Do not bet on the come, stick with economic reality.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. As the soon-to-be chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means himself, would the gentleman from New York expect that this year it would be possible to have a few fully paid for, not taken out of social security, but fully paid for tax cuts that could be targeted to help middle-class families?

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, let me just say that I want to associate myself fully with the remarks just made by my Republican colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). He made some excellent points. Though it may not have been intended, I think he makes a very compelling case for how extremely irresponsible the Republican so- called Financial Freedom Act is that is to be presented on this floor tomorrow. I, as a person who has for the last several sessions been among the leading deficit hawks, according to the Concord Coalition, refer to the comments of the founders of that organization, Warren Rudman, a former Republican Senator who wrote just within the last week remarks very similar to our Republican colleague, the gentleman from Florida, in saying that the surplus is only a projection that cannot be spent. If spending is increased, and he adds something my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, failed to mention, our taxes are cut based on the expectation of large surpluses, and the projection turns out to be wrong, deficits easily could reappear where surpluses are now forecast. Most economists have therefore advised that the best thing to do with the surplus is to pay down the debt, or to deal with this problem of the retirement security through security accounts. I believe that is correct. If we are to dissipate a surplus that may not even exist over the course of the next 10 years, we will be back into the years of Reagan red ink, where we have more and more deficits which we are finally, through responsible policies, being able to work ourselves out of. I think, though there is substantial competition in this Congress, it is very difficult to find anything more irresponsible than the so- called Financial Freedom Act. It is really a bill that ought to be called ``the Freedom From Financial Reality Act,'' because it disregards the very realities our colleague, the gentleman from Florida, has just been pointing to. This bill proposes to have essentially a $1 trillion tax cut. It is the equivalent, in terms of financial responsibility, of our Republican colleagues piloting the SS Titanic through the deficits ahead, and the dance band playing the tune of ``We don't believe in icebergs,'' or in this case, ``We don't believe in deficits.'' So irresponsible has their path been that they now find themselves proposing to reduce their own tax cut I think it is by approximately $72 billion, because they have exceeded their own irresponsible budget resolution, as noted by our colleagues across the Capitol. But shaving off $72 billion from a bill that is as irresponsible as the one our House Republican colleagues have proposed is little more than the equivalent of tossing the deck chairs off the Titanic after the iceberg has been hit. We face very perilous times if this Republican proposal is advanced, because it threatens the very security of our economic expansion. We have an unparalleled economic expansion going on at present in this country. Families all throughout this Nation have benefited in varying degrees, many just now beginning to share in the benefits of this economic expansion, and to threaten that by going back to the old deficit approach I think would be a real mistake. It is that same threat of irresponsible action in this Republican tax bill that also jeopardizes our ability to assure the security of Medicare and social security, and to address the concerns that our colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia, just raised about the lack of prescription drugs and the discrimination against seniors with reference to prescription drugs. All of these issues are at stake in this battle over the Republican tax bill. Indeed, it is not only our colleague, the gentleman from Florida, but the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, who has addressed this issue as he came before our Committee on Ways and Means. He had pointed out that, ``It would be a serious mistake to avoid reducing the surpluses and to yield to the short-term political temptation of a tax cut.'' I urge the rejection of this Republican mistake.