Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed, he made the point quite well that so many economists share in, that we cannot count on those surpluses. They depend on everything, including the weather, and they are about as reliable as the weather report for 10 years from now.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the willingness of House Republicans to jeopardize our economic prosperity, to jeopardize Medicare and Social Security is truly shocking. Last night, the Republicans on the House Committee on Ways and Means approved a tax bill that is really based on the following principles: First, they will never pay down the over $5 trillion of national debt and will continue to saddle American taxpayers with hundreds of millions of dollars of interest payments each year, the second largest item in the Federal budget. Second, they will continue taking money that Americans have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund to use for other nonSocial Security purposes. House Republicans have made an art form this year of doing nothing in this House. But there is one thing worse, and that is doing wrong, doing wrong by Social Security, doing wrong by Medicare, and doing wrong that will interfere with our economic expansion. Let us say no to this outrageous tax bill that the Republicans are promoting on America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the World Bank recently issued a report entitled, ``Curbing the Epidemic: Governments and the Economics of Tobacco Control,'' which finds disturbing trends in tobacco use around the globe. This report concludes that, in another 2 decades, tobacco will become the single biggest cause of premature death worldwide, accounting for 10 million deaths each year. That is 10 million unique human beings choking to death with emphysema, withering away with lung cancer, or perhaps feeling the sharp pain of a heart attack as a result of nicotine addiction. Half of these deaths will occur to individuals in middle age, who will each lose 20 to 25 years of their life. Effective and aggressive action against tobacco smuggling represents one key strategy necessary in what should be a comprehensive global effort to address this pandemic, according to both the World Bank and the World Health Organization. To assure that our country is participating in such action, I am today introducing the Tobacco Smuggling Eradication Act. This measure is important in both fighting organized crime and in promoting public health. In a statement endorsing this bill yesterday, ENACT, a coalition of 55 major national medical and public health organizations, including the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, had this to say of my bill: ``Your bill would strengthen domestic antismuggling efforts and address the shameful fact that lax oversight of U.S. cigarette exports is fueling an international black market in U.S. cigarette brands. Researchers estimated that about one-third of all cigarette exports disappear into the black market. U.S. brands such as Marlboro, Camel, Winston, and Kent are the most commonly smuggled. Tobacco smuggling seriously undermines public health laws in other countries and is an embarrassment to our nation.'' Just how big an embarrassment is reflected in this national news story from the Washington Post last December, entitled, ``Tobacco affiliate pleads guilty to role in smuggling scheme.'' An affiliate of the RJ Reynolds Company, one of the tobacco giants, was caught up in illegality in participating in a scheme to avoid $2.5 million in U.S. excise taxes. Nor is RJR the only tobacco giant caught up in such criminality. Last year, a senior judge in Hong Kong concluded that British-American Tobacco and Brown and Williamson were helping international organized crime by selling duty-free cigarettes ``worth billions and billions of dollars with the knowledge that those cigarettes would be smuggled into China and other parts of the world.'' While most of the attention with our relations with the country of Colombia focuses on the illegal drugs from there to here, a study last year found that more than four-fifths of the 5.5 billion Malboro cigarettes that are produced here by Philip Morris and sold there in Colombia are illegal smuggled goods. Far from hurting business, tobacco companies have found that they can move their lethal products around the world by assisting smugglers. Big tobacco profits from selling cigarettes to smugglers who reduce the price for the black market and increase consumption and sales, helping them build a global market. My bill requires that packages for export be clearly labeled for export to prevent illegal reentry into the United States. That is the scheme that the RJR affiliate used, claiming that cigarettes were reentering our country for export to Russia and Estonia when, in fact, they were going on the black market smuggled from New York into Canada. Our bill also requires that packages of tobacco products manufactured here or imported here also be uniquely marked. Law enforcement agents have said will give the opportunity to trace the products, verify the source, and have the labeling requirements that they need for effective law enforcement. Under this bill, retailers and wholesalers will be required to keep documents on tobacco shipments which will greatly assist law enforcement. As our Treasury Secretary Larry Summers said last year during congressional testimony, ``The Treasury Department believes that the creation of a sound regulatory system, one that will close the distribution chain for tobacco products, will ensure that the diversion and smuggling of tobacco can be effectively controlled.'' With the help of the Treasury Department, that is exactly what this bill will do. It will also assist the States in enforcing and collecting their excise taxes on all tobacco products. Recent studies have indicated that the States of Washington, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York, and California each lose $30-100 million per year in excise taxes on tobacco products because of smuggling. Last year, big tobacco spent millions to promote false claims that our Federal legislative proposals to reduce youth smoking would cause smuggling. Now is the time for big tobacco to get behind this effective law enforcement legislation or once again to reveal its hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of this bill, we hope to stop the smuggling and stop the mugging of the world's children through nicotine addiction.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. We will have a recess next week. I doubt most people will know we are in recess. The Congress has done so little so far this year, they probably won't miss anything other than the rhetoric next week, certainly no meaningful action.

Mr. DOGGETT. At least in terms of the time available here, there is no reason why we could not have already considered the Patients' Bill of Rights. And as far as prescription drugs, whether it is the approach the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has taken, the approach that the President has recently indicated he supported, or any number of other avenues, there are other pieces of legislation introduced, the reason that those are not getting considered here on the floor has nothing to do with the Congress not having time to consider them, does it?

Mr. DOGGETT. So to all those major interest groups that are opposing the gentleman's legislation and saying we are going to have cost controls and we are going to threaten research and all these various straw men that they raise to oppose doing something for seniors who have to pay the most when they have the ability to pay the least, the gentleman is saying, really, he is going to let the market work, but he is going to bring a little equity in the bargaining power to the marketplace. Then I would ask the gentleman, and I appreciate very much the gentleman's leadership on this measure, I would ask the gentleman from New Jersey about why it is, at a time when Congress has recessed early, before people have left work in Austin, Texas, and in much of the country, I think Congress recessed today again just after doing very, very little and nothing very meaningful for the American people. We were not here on Monday. There is some debate whether we will be here on Friday. Why is it that there can be an issue as important as providing prescription drugs for those who are over 65 and addressing the concerns through a Patients' Bill of Rights of those of all ages who rely on managed care, why is it that the Congress is not out here having a full debate, where Republicans and Democrats are debating about what the best way is to solve this problem?

Mr. DOGGETT. But that is not true for veterans, is it? We also have some veterans here today from central Texas. A veteran going through the Veterans Administration can avoid that problem to some extent, can he not?

Mr. DOGGETT. How is it that the Veterans Administration is able to get these prescription drugs at a more reasonable price than an individual veteran not covered, or someone who is on Medicare and not covered can get them?

Mr. DOGGETT. There are various ways to deal with this problem, but what the gentleman is spotlighting, those least able to pay get charged the most. I know one very commonly prescribed medication for those over 65 having to do with cholesterol, that it is 300 percent more if one is a senior paying individually than if one is in some kind of group health insurance plan, like many of my folks are there in central Texas. So, for example, I have here in Washington today a number of teachers from our public schools. They have a better arrangement probably now through their group and health insurance to get prescriptive drugs than they would have as an individual retiree once they are on Medicare, because there is no Medicare coverage, and they are going to be charged all the market will bear when they are having to bargain for themselves individually, is that not correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if I might address some queries to both gentlemen, first, if I understand the legislation of the gentleman from Maine, it does not involve any cost to the taxpayer at all. Is that correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. I know next week during the recess here in Washington I am going to be meeting with seniors in Austin at a pharmacy to do very much the kind of presentation I know the gentleman has already done in New Jersey, to point out for a neighborhood pharmacy in Austin, Texas, the difference in the charges that seniors without prescription drug coverage get charged and that everybody else gets charged. It is a cruel disparity. I have one letter after another here that I expect I will have an opportunity to explore with the gentleman at another time as we try to draw attention to the failure of the Republican leadership to deal with this issue; of people saying that they have to make some really critical lifetime choices, and sometimes it is a matter of choosing food, of choosing groceries, or choosing prescriptive drugs. I think the American people should be appalled at the failure of this Congress to come to grips with these issues. It is not a lack of time, it is a lack of leadership and a lack of interest in these kinds of pressing problems that the American people face. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in November of 1996, Linda Stone was fatally shot by her abusive husband in the parking lot of Austin's Oak Hill Motorola plant. Her death was tragic for more than the simple reason that it occurred unnecessarily. Linda Stone was employed at that Motorola plant; and, on the day of her death, she was en route to make extra security arrangements with her employer because of new threats from her husband. This occurred in a community that has been a leader in domestic violence assistance and prevention for over two decades. I think Our Safe Place enjoys broader community support than any public service organization in central Texas. But since stories such as Linda are becoming all too commonplace, I am introducing a bill today that will give new options to those unfortunate victims who face danger in the workplace. The Domestic Violence Economic Security Act will provide that no State shall deny unemployment assistance solely because a victim has left work due to a reasonable fear of domestic violence. This approach to the problem was originally suggested to me by my friend, Texas State Representative Sheri Greenberg, who sponsored a similar measure in the Texas legislature, got it passed in the House, though it did not finally make it through the Texas Senate at the conclusion of our legislative session. We recognize that each year six-and-a-half million acts of violence are perpetrated against women, and nearly a million of these occur in the work environment. Victims attempting to escape these abusive relationships often find themselves most vulnerable where they spend the most time, and that is at the workplace. In fact, 96 percent of domestic violence victims report that they have had some type of problem in the workplace as a result of abuse or their abuser, ranging from threatening calls to unwanted and harassing visits. For victims who are financially dependent on their job, avoiding violence in the workplace can be extremely challenging. A victim manages to escape the relationship at home and move out. But giving up a job is another thing and even more difficult to change. The resulting harassment, of course, hurts both the employer and the employee. At least 94 percent of corporate security managers have reported that they rank domestic violence as a very high security problem in the workplace. Businesses recognize that domestic violence is not only harmful to workers who are victims, but it is bad for business. My bill gives a new alternative to employers and employees confronted with violence in the workplace. It ensures that no victim who leaves a job because of a reasonable fear of violence is denied some assistance. For these victims, unemployment compensation would provide a temporary form of financial assistance until a safer job can be found. In cases such as Linda Stone's, this monetary support could mean the difference between continued abuse and self-sufficiency. Second, this bill gives some general guidance to the States that they can follow in determining eligibility. They are advised to consider factors such as whether the applicant has been offered work at home or in a different location, whether a law enforcement officer or health care professional has advised them to leave and find a new workplace. And the States, of course, could consider other factors that they deem relevant. These standards will give our States the means to correctly identify and assist the victims who need temporary financial assistance. Tragically, in this country, every 15 seconds another woman is battered. When that violence spills out into the workplace, everyone loses. For victims attempting to escape abuse, the Domestic Violence Economic Security Act will provide temporary assistance while not otherwise affecting the existing unemployment compensation requirements. Too many victims across our country face a daily struggle of needless workplace violence. This bill assures them a safe avenue to self- sufficiency.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, some of us think the problem is that too many people across America are being buried, buried unnecessarily because they have been managed out of their managed health care. We gather here today to sign a petition to discharge from a Republican committee stranglehold a bill of rights for health care consumers. We gather to discharge this vital legislation because the Republican leadership has failed to discharge its responsibilities to the American people. For too many folks, managed health care just means being managed out of the care that they need. Under our bill, physicians will be able to provide the best quality health care available rather than having some clerk be rewarded for denying care with a bonus. The Republican leadership has served the insurance industry very well in blocking this bill. We believe it is time to discharge it for floor action, time to serve America's health care consumers, not the insurance lobby and the HMOs that are denying Americans the quality of care and the rights that they deserve.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to draw the attention of the Congress to five communities that are being nationally recognized today for making particularly effective use of public dollars on behalf of families who have children with or at risk of special needs. Considering all of the different funding sources, the many different rules and regulations from various Federal departments that exist, these communities have found ways to make government more efficient, more flexible and more responsive to families with these young children. This year, Communities Can!, a growing national network of communities dedicated to serving children and families, including children with or at risk of special needs, is announcing its 1999 Communities Can! Communities of Excellence award winners. They are: Fremont County, Colorado; Goldsboro, North Carolina; Augusta, Maine; and Mile City, Montana; as well as Livingston County, Michigan. Communities Can! is endorsed by the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council for Early Intervention, which is cosponsoring these awards. These communities have been chosen as award winners for demonstrating exemplary efforts in meeting the following very important goals: First, all young children and families in need of services and supports are effectively identified early and easily brought into the community's system for delivering services and supports. All young children and families will receive regular, ongoing and comprehensive services and supports that they need. There is a way to fund the services and supports needed by these young children and their families. And services and supports for young children and their families are organized in the way that families can easily use them. Finally, they ask the families what they need and involve them in the decision-making process at all levels and determine the specific services that will be most beneficial to their real-world concerns. These communities are being honored for their accomplishments this morning here in the Capitol Building, and I know that many of my colleagues will be participating to celebrate this very important event. Congratulations to each of these communities, and congratulations to Communities Can!, because it is demonstrating that every community in this country can make a difference in the lives of young children with or at risk of special needs. It can assure that each of them is able to achieve to the full extent of their potential.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, long ago, Will Rogers suggested that, ``people want just taxes even more than they want lower taxes. They want to know that every man is paying his proportionate share according to his wealth.'' Today, some of our worst tax inequities arise from those who use abusive tax shelters to exploit loopholes in the Tax Code. To stop these, and to make our tax system more fair and just, I am introducing the Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown Act of 1999. Forbes Magazine, which proudly proclaims itself ``The Capitalist Tool,'' recently reported on, as the cover of the magazine says, what are called ``Tax Shelter Hustlers: Respectable accountants are peddling dicey corporate tax loopholes.'' Here on the cover, we see the fellow with the fedora standing in the shadows. Unlike those supermarket tabloid stories about UFO abductions, with this particular cover, the substance inside actually lives up to the teaser on the cover. It is true that most abusive tax shelters are already against the law. The problem is that every time we shut down one, more spring up. That is not by accident because, as Forbes also reported, some of the Big 5 accounting firms actually have teams of staffers, and my guess is that most of them dress a little better than this fellow does, who are out there and have as their job to come up with one new tax shelter every single week. Deploring what he calls the ``energy, creativity and viciousness'' of these so-called ``shelter shops,'' Calvin Johnson, a professor of tax law at the University of Texas, has labeled these hustling operations ``skunk works'' because of the sorry odor surrounding their fouling of our tax system. The literal hustling of improper tax shelters is so commonplace that one representative of a Texas-based multinational corporation has recently indicated that he gets a cold call every day from someone hawking or hustling one of these shelters. Some are even called black box proposals. They are kept under wraps and they are not offered to any but a select few so as to avoid public notoriety. As a partner at one national firm boasted, ``A whale cannot get harpooned unless it surfaces for air.'' What a whale-sized gulp of arrogance toward honest taxpayers everywhere who dutifully file our returns on April 15 and who have to make up for the taxes that the big boys dodge. My legislation will curtail egregious behavior without impacting legitimate business deals. It will eliminate the well-justified feeling that these high rollers are cheating and gaming the system, a feeling which leads to distrust and disrespect on behalf of our taxpaying public. This bill seeks to shut down abusive tax shelters by prohibiting loss generators. These are transactions that lack any legitimate business purpose that are ginned up just to obtain another tax loss, credit or deduction in order to dodge taxes. The second thing the bill does is it says that a company which thinks it has a proper shelter will be required to provide complete, clear and concise disclosure, verified by a corporate officer. This does not make them forfeit their buried pirate treasure but on these complex transactions it does require them to give up the map where X marks the spot of the treasure. These disclosure provisions were drafted based on the sound advice of tax practitioners; not the kind of practitioner that is proud to define their success by having another loophole named after them, but the thoughtful commentary of the tax section of the American Bar Association. The third provision is directed to the penalty for tax dodging, and we tighten and increase the penalty for such tax dodging. Just getting some thick carpet, downtown lawyer to bless what the accounting department has contrived with the help of these tax shelter hustlers is no longer going to be sufficient to save a corporation from penalties if it has clearly stepped over the line with an abusive tax shelter. These abusive tax shelters have grown and have become so extensive that some experts estimate that they account for $10 billion a year in lost tax revenue. Typical is a recent ad selling a guide to offshore tax shelters that ran in the Wall Street Journal. Featuring a happy, smiling, bikini-clad couple, sipping cocktails on the beach, obviously enjoying the good life at someone else's expense, the ad promised, ``Live simply and easily make a tax-free fortune using the world's most exotic places,'' and you can do all this, it claimed, ``in complete privacy and full protection from everyone, including your spouse, competitors, partners and more.'' Such schemes suggest the challenge that we face. Surely if locally owned businesses in central Texas can play by the rules, the big boys should, too. The Abusive Tax Shelter Shutdown Act is not a panacea but it will help law enforcement close some loopholes, eliminate the sham transactions and stop the hustlers. As we say in Texas, move 'em out and shut 'em down.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, occupational therapy is a health and rehabilitation profession that helps people regain development and build skills that are important for independent functioning, health, well-being, and happiness. Occupational therapy employs purposeful occupational tasks, the kind of thing that we do in our everyday life, to return individuals with disability to function. The American Occupational Therapy Association has a motto that expresses it so very well. ``Occupational Therapy: Skills for the Job of Living.'' In Texas and across the Nation, we recently recognized contributions of this important profession with an official designation of Occupational Therapy Month. Our therapists help those whose lives are dramatically impacted by injury or stroke. They help people return to work and resume their place in the community. They work in the aid and development of children. They assist parents in developing and improving the skills necessary to participate in school, work, play, or leisure activities. My wife, Libby, has had an opportunity to see firsthand the incredible work that our occupational therapists perform to improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities. I join in recognizing the significant benefits of occupational therapy for Americans from childhood to old age and salute the efforts of our occupational therapists across the country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, last year we forced a vote on reform to clean up the way congressional campaigns are conducted. In the words of the respected commentator, Mary McGrory: ``To get the bill to the floor reformers had to pry it out of the clenched jaws of Speaker Newt Gingrich by gathering signatures on a discharge petition.'' When that vote for reform finally and belatedly occurred, we found out why. Every single Republican leader voted against the bipartisan reform, supported by good government groups, and every Democratic leader voted for it. Nevertheless, Republican delay wrote the obituary for this proposal in the Senate. This year we face the same problem. Here in this House, 196 Democrats have signed a petition to force debate on all proposals, Democratic and Republican, now. Speaker Hastert and Mr. DeLay say wait until some time in the fall. Every Republican member who refuses to sign this petition for timely action is complicit in killing reform. Join us in a bipartisan effort. Sign now and act now.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how appropriate the timing of this debate. As we speak, folks are lined up around the block across America to see the new Star Wars movie. And what better time than right now, with the refrain of that great Star Wars theme music, the opening day of ``The Phantom Menace,'' for us to be taking up this proposal. Just like the original movie, this bill puts a tractor beam in the Capitol dome and aims it right at the wallets of the American taxpayer to support this defective system. This Star Wars scheme is a technological failure. It has failed one test after another, again and again. An accelerated program to test it has been described as ``a rush to failure'' by former Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welsh. I am reminded of Han Solo's admonition to Luke Skywalker: ``Jumping through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy.'' Well, hitting a bullet with a bullet, hitting in fact many bullets, with bullets raining down over the entire continental United States at 15,000 miles an hour, and doing it accurately and reliably, is not like dusting crops, either. And yet here we are, year after year, having demands to throw more good money after bad. I disagree with my colleague from Washington State about this measure, but he is right about one thing. Wishing is not going to make it so. The first law of Disney Wish and make it so, does not apply here; rather it is the laws of physics and thermodynamics that control weather this can be accomplished. Just 3 days ago, we acted in this Congress on spare parts and training and readiness. As Joint Chiefs Chairman Hugh Skelton said recently, the massive amount of experiments on these kind of Star Wars programs drain resources from personnel and readiness accounts. If there is a readiness problem, it is a problem that this Republican Congress created in preferring pork over readiness. We are diverting these kind of precious resources away from our true military and nonmilitary needs because we have people here who keep coming up year after year asking us to throw an infinite amount of taxpayer money at a problem that has real physical limitations. I agree fully with my colleague from Texas, Mr. Frost, about the substance of this resolution, about the important meaning of the Senate amendments. But the effect I disagree with him on, because it is clear that the Star Wars advocates are using this measure to boost their cause. The missile defense that is being advocated, even if it worked, would not defend us from the real threats we face from terrorism, with bombings at the World Trade Center, with gas attacks like that that occurred in a Japanese subway. If we really want to do something to address our security, the Congress ought simply to read the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science report this week about the threat, the very real threat that we have from the potential or diversion of Russian nuclear materials. Our Energy Department had to spend $600,000 in emergency funds last year because guards at some of these facilities in Russia had no winter uniforms for outside patrols and left without paychecks searching for food. That is a real security threat that should concern every one of us. We are not doing very much about it. Implementing the START II nuclear missile reduction treaty would eliminate 3,000 Russian nuclear warheads, in fact, that this fantasy proposes to deal with in outer space. Such implementation would do a great deal more to assure the security and safety of American families than this proposal. We should be giving that our highest national security priority. Instead of diverting attention from this vital objective, this Congress should be encouraging a START III to have further reduction in nuclear armaments around the world and truly protect our freedom. What so many in this House fail to recognize is that national security is measured in terms other than simply how many bombs, bullets and missiles we possess. It is measured in economic strength, in productivity and in the success of our efforts to reduce threats from abroad. I urge the House to consider defense programs that meet our true security needs and reject this proposal.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly there are many sorry provisions in this conference report. It is hard to really concentrate on just one or two of them. But it seems to me the one that has gotten attention from several speakers because of its very adverse environmental consequences, the crown jewel open-pit gold mine, is appropriately placed in this bill. The problem is that those who are supporting this conference report view the Social Security surplus as the crown jewel open-pit gold mine to fund whatever it is they want to fund. This bill has very little to do with busting Belgrade and a great deal to do with bursting the budget. Keep in mind that well over $10 billion in this proposal is paid for directly out of the Social Security surplus. This is the same surplus which the Republican leadership was planning to come to the floor this week and lock up in a lockbox. Well, they were ashamed to come out the same week that they are turning on the spigot on the Social Security surplus, because that is just exactly what is happening here when we drain out for short-term, allegedly emergency purposes the Social Security surplus to pay for things that ought not to be paid for by the next generation. In this particular proposal that we are considering, the Republican Congressional Budget Office only within the last month told us what it would take to fund this war. They said $600 million in the initial phase and about a billion dollars per month to sustain an air campaign. Supposedly in this emergency appropriation we would fund those appropriations necessary to carry us to September 30, when the regular appropriations bill would come into play. How did that amount of money get blown into almost $15 billion of money? In the way this Congress seems to operate, too often Republicans said that they did not like this war, they were proud to vote against the President on this war. Well, I have to tell my colleagues, if these generous folks give this much to a war that they do not like, heaven protect the taxpayer from one that they do like. I think that we do need to provide reasonable humanitarian relief, we need to provide our young men and women in the Balkans with whatever they need to protect themselves and to carry out their mission, whatever that may be. But let us be very clear that the billions of dollars that are the price tag of this bill do not have anything to do with securing our military position in Yugoslavia. They may have something to do with securing the position of some of the Members of this Congress. Under the Republican leadership, this Congress in the last 4 years has voted to provide the Pentagon with $27 billion more than it requested, and yet only 14 percent of those unrequested monies went for readiness rather than for pork. And so if there has been any emergency created here on readiness, it has been by the priorities of a Congress led by Republicans for the last 4 years. I do not believe that the money provided to the military in this bill could be spent for purposes in Yugoslavia between now and September 30 if they were dropping it out in bails over Belgrade each night. No, it funds things like libraries in Germany, a dormitory in the District of Columbia, a road in Bahrain, ATMs on ships, things that have nothing to do with the emergency situation we face in Yugoslavia, all designed to permit a raid on the Social Security surplus rather than to meet the legitimate needs of our military in the Balkans. I believe that it was a former member of the Committee on Appropriations who said, ``Every emergency is an opportunity.'' Certainly there are those who found great opportunity to deal with many other subjects here. But when all is said and done, it is the taxpayer who must pick up the tab, and in this case it is the Social Security surplus that must feel the pinch.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Central Texas area, where high technology has really provided the engine for the unprecedented economic growth that we have experienced. I want to support reasonable legislation that will benefit that industry and our community, but I really do not believe that this is it. I have the greatest respect for my colleague (Mr. Davis of Virginia), with whom I am in general agreement on technology issues. But on this particular issue, I believe that there is a bit of overreaching that gets us into some really serious problems. The exclusion by the Committee on Rules in this debate of the amendment by our Republican colleague Mr. Ehlers and of several proposals by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) suggests that the debate is designed to force an up or down vote on a version of this bill that does much more than is necessary to protect the technology community. As a former State court judge, I am particularly concerned by the unequivocal rejection of provisions of this bill by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That is a body composed largely of Federal judges appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush. This bill takes what the Judicial Conference describes as a ``radically different approach'' with ``the potential of overwhelming Federal resources and the capacity of the Federal courts to resolve not only Y2K cases, but other causes of action as well.'' The United States Department of Justice has likewise opposed this extreme measure, noting that ``even a defendant who recklessly disregarded a known risk of Y2K failure could escape liability.'' The Department of Justice also opposes this bill because it ``would preclude federal and state agencies from imposing civil penalties on small businesses for first-time violations of federal information collection requirements.'' Most of the reasonable provisions of this proposal, and there are a number of reasonable provisions, are so reasonable that they are already the law in Texas and in most other places: penalties against anyone who brings a frivolous lawsuit, a requirement of adequate notice to someone who is going to be sued, a cooling-off period, an opportunity for a wrongdoer to cure the wrong, a duty for the victim to undertake reasonable steps to mitigate or minimize damage, and the use of mediation or alternative dispute resolution to avoid a lengthy jury trial. To the extent that there may be some deficiency in the laws of the States, the State legislatures are the place to deal with these kind of problems, and they are dealing with them. That is why we have legislatures convene in places like Austin, Texas, where the Texas Legislature is sitting today. And only last week, the Texas Legislature unanimously sent to Governor George W. Bush a proposal that he supports that deals in a much less expansive way with this whole Y2K issue. I increasingly hear that my Republican colleagues are pretty enamored with George W., and I would just ask if he is good enough for you, why is his Y2K bill not good enough for them? Instead, by preempting Texas law, by overriding and essentially saying to the Texas legislature and our Texas governor that on Y2K, you are nuts, we are suggesting in this legislation that the good people of Texas or Florida or Minnesota or anywhere else in the country should yield to the alleged wiser wisdom of Washington. I think that that is the false premise of this bill. As we look back over history a thousand years to the beginning of the current millennium, there were many apocalyptic visions of what might happen about this world. Today, a variety of people are approaching the new millennium with similar grave concern. Jerry Falwell, who believes the end is near, is predicting ``a possibility of catastrophe.'' There is a dark vision of the millennium at the Planet Art Network where you can get your galactic signature decoded and learn the real cause of Y2K. And there are a group of people, including some not far from where I live in Texas, that are stocking up on canned goods and bottled water, heading for the hills and abandoning the community in anticipation of all the ill that will flow in the millennium change. Today we see the legislative view of this survivalist approach to Y2K. This is law making, which really fails to build on a bipartisan approach, but instead employs a measure that is opposed by every Democrat and one Republican and supported by every other Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Rather than trying to come together and find some true middle ground on addressing this Y2K issue, this bill really is attempting to set a precedent for undermining in other types of civil cases trial by jury, which represents one of the most valued rights shared by American citizens. This bill will encourage irresponsibility rather than responsibility; it does not represent the appropriate way to address the Y2K issue.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. DOGGETT. I am suggesting that the governor of Texas has fulfilled his responsibility in calling for Y2K action in Texas, in building a consensus that produced a bipartisan bill approved unanimously by the legislature. If he provided such good leadership, why do we not follow that leadership in Texas instead of as your bill does, preempting, overriding and disregarding that action?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I have supported this bankruptcy legislation in the past. I believe that it is important to exercise personal responsibility. There have been some abuses of the system. While the bill was not perfect and needed further perfection, I thought it was generally in the right direction. I am troubled about the bill, however, in its form today, because while most of the focus has been on individuals who did not engage in personal responsibility, there have also been instances in this country of corporate citizens who did not demonstrate any sense of responsibility. Indeed, since the consideration of this bill in the last session, I was particularly troubled by the problem of Dorothy Doyle. I do not know Dorothy but I have read some of her plight. I know that she is not the only one who suffered from this situation. Dorothy is an 87-year-old widow, a retired Pentagon secretary, who required about $240 a day in nursing care because of her physical condition. Fortunately for her, her younger sister decided that there was a solution to her problems and that together they would purchase a continuing care living arrangement, and they did that. They moved into the Park Regency Retirement Center out in Scottsdale, Arizona, and they invested a substantial amount of their life savings and received, in turn, a lifetime guarantee. Within 9 months of paying their entrance fees, they were faced with a meeting in the dining room at the Park Regency where the owner declared that he had lost a lot of money in his offshore investments and that he was filing for bankruptcy. Well, Dorothy and her sister Creta, like a number of other seniors who have invested their lifetime savings in these facilities, of which there are some 2,700 across the country, found themselves in a situation where they had no good remedy. They had advanced this money as an interest-free loan to get into the facility, their life's savings, and they were unsecured creditors. So to address the plight of Dorothy and Creta and other seniors across the country, I advanced an amendment that simply says, let us treat them as priority creditors. Let us recognize that if someone has invested their life's savings in an effort to try to get the health care and the nursing care that they need in our society, that they deserve some protection also. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules decided to not make that amendment in order. Apparently responsibility does not apply to everyone, does not apply to such irresponsible corporate citizens. I would urge a vote against the rule.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) for yielding this time to me, and of course I join in support of this measure that is before the House now. But we find ourselves in the curious situation this afternoon that this is one of the rare occasions, perhaps the first since I have been a Member of this body, that the House has moved faster than we have been told on the schedule instead of slower, and so we have actually this afternoon proceeded with the approval of a piece of legislation in which I am most interested that will rename our Federal Building in Austin, Texas, for Congressman J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle, my predecessor. And so I come with shortened remarks, hoping not to say anything that would cause us to reconsider this legislation which I am most appreciative to my colleague from New Jersey and our colleague from West Virginia for their prompt approval in the committee. Mr. Speaker, basically we had two choices. We could either try to paint that Federal building pickle green, or we could simply put a plaque up dedicating it as the J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle Federal Building, and so the House chose the more practical approach of putting his name on the building. This is actually legislation that this House approved in the last session of Congress last year. Unfortunately, the Senate, which moves a little slower sometimes, they usually get an hour to speak when we get a minute, did not get this piece of legislation passed last session, and we are hoping that they will react to it as speedily as the House has considered it this afternoon. Let me just say a few words, and there are several of my colleagues from the Texas delegation and beyond north Texas, I believe New York State, that may want to offer comments in support of this legislation. Jake Pickle served central Texas for some 31 years. I first came to know him as a high school senior at Austin High School where I was in class with his daughter, Peggy, and he was elected the year that I was a senior at Austin High School. He has really been the only Congressman who has ever served our district during the time that I was growing up and living there in central Texas, and he along with his great wife Beryl have served our community with the greatest distinction. This is certainly not the first and probably not the last monument to his service. The Pickle Research Campus at the University of Texas is where much of the development that produced the success that we have had in central Texas with high technology had its origin through public-private partnerships beginning right there at the University of Texas. During his tenure here in Congress that was a real priority of Congressman Pickle, and it is most appropriate that it should bear his name. And most recently, just within the past month, I have been participating in the many dedication ceremonies at the new Austin- Bergstrom International Airport. We have managed to dedicate just about everything in that airport except for some of the luggage carousels and the storage closets, but in particular and first in our dedications, we dedicated one of the new runways to Congressman Pickle because even after his service here in the House, he continued to work on our Airport Advisory Committee to ensure that this airport was completed and that it had an all-weather runway that would meet the needs of our community not only for hauling passengers around the world, but hauling the cargo that is so very important to our technology industries there in central Texas. So it is now that ``onward through the fog'' in central Texas is more than a bumper sticker at Oat Willie's. It is the center, the indication, that the Pickle runway along with the LBJ runway at that new airport are available to serve our community, whatever the conditions. I have to say that I will feel just a little better going home, and perhaps some of my Democratic colleagues will want to join me, knowing that when one lands there in Austin they either get the LBJ runway or the J.J. Jake Pickle runway, and when they pull up to the terminal they come into the Barbara Jordan terminal. So that is a pretty good place for those of us on this side of the aisle or either side of the aisle to call home, to come in and see the capital city of the great State of Texas. Congressman Pickle was a distinguished veteran, distinguished former Student Body President of the University of Texas at Austin. I do not know what it is in the water up at Big Spring, but he is well into his eighties now, and he and I know a number of his classmates gathered there in Austin awhile back. They seemed to have something good going on up there because he remains a very vigorous force in our community. Here in the Congress, he is remembered as one of the few Members from the south who had the courage to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for the Voting Rights Act; and he still is proud, and justly so, of the call that he received from President Johnson at 2:00 a.m. in the morning after that vote to commend him for his courage. There are many tall tales that he has about the work on the Great Society there in the Federal building that we are naming in his honor with President Johnson, where the President had an apartment and an office that remains in generally the condition that it was in when he left the presidency. I am confident that at least a few of those tales are true, because there was much good accomplished by these two good friends and partners working together not only for central Texas but for our entire country. Of course, Congressman Pickle's service on the Committee on Ways and Means, where he played a major role in addressing both Social Security and preserving and continuing it, and Medicare addressed issues that we face once again in Congress, but we are able to deal with them now because of the good work that he contributed over the years. Jake Pickle never turned down the chance to help a neighbor, and that is perhaps his greatest legacy, not just what he accomplished in this room but his accessibility and his willingness to be available when people had problems in our community with various aspects of the Federal bureaucracy. So naming our Federal building in Austin after Congressman Pickle is the most appropriate symbol of our admiration, our respect and our appreciation for his true public service, and I am hopeful that the Senate will move quickly on this legislation this year and speedily approve it.