Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, during the first dreadful year of the Republican takeover of this Congress, zealots right here in this House insisted on shutting down the government of the United States of America, causing considerable disruption and attracting a rather considerable and well-justified indignation and public outrage on the part of the American people. I believe that America needs to know that this same brand of zealotry has again shut down a large part of our American government. During the month of January, the Congress of the United States did not approve one single bill. This Congress indeed failed to even consider or debate here in the House a single piece of legislation; not improvements on the quality of public education, not a consumer bill of rights to help those who have been mismanaged by managed care in this country, not reform of our campaign finance system that is at the heart of so much wrong in what happens in this Congress. Not anything was done in this Congress. Indeed, the leadership of this House has announced within the last few days that it plans to put campaign finance reform on the back burner, the same method that was used to strangle reform in 1998 and the years before under Republican control of this Congress. While most Americans are out there working at least an 8-hour day, this House of Representatives worked on this floor during the month of January an 8-hour month. That is right, the House met here in session to work on the problems of the American people about the same amount of time in the entire month as the ordinary American worked in one single day. Keep in mind that this inaction on the part of the Congress follows the year of 1998, a year which has been hailed by historians as perhaps the most unproductive and irresponsible of any year in the history of the Congress in the post World War II era. This is a Congress that, for the first time in 30 years of having a Budget Act, was not even able to agree on a Federal budget resolution because of an internal struggle in the Republican caucus here in the House between the far right and the not-so-right. After failing to gain approval of a variety of schemes, this was a Republican House whose major accomplishment in 1998 was the passage of something called the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. That was the one that weighed in here at 40 pounds, almost broke the table up here at the front of the Congress, and which was presented in such a fashion that few if any Members knew what was in it until weeks later, as the reporters began to discover all the pork that was laden in this allegedly conservative bill. Undoubtedly some Americans are going to be pleased to hear that this Congress is shut down and not doing anything, instead of approving that kind of nonsense. No doubt there will be some on the fringes who really believe the government should do nothing that will be very pleased that their dreams have been realized and that this House is largely doing nothing. February, well, it does not look noticeably better. Under the best of circumstances, this House may convene for a few hours on about 10 days to approve a few largely uncontested bills. Today, for example, we will pass the first piece of legislation in this Congress. It is a measure that we are approving, reapproving today, in the very same words that we approved unanimously last year. For some reason the Senate never got around to considering it. Tomorrow we will replace one stopgap measure approved last fall with another stopgap measure to carry us forward just a few more months until the House finally gets down to work to develop a meaningful bipartisan long-term solution to the transportation problem. I would say that even if we gave Ken Starr another $50 million or so to waste, I do not even believe he could find anything notable that this House has done in the opening weeks of 1999 to help the ordinary American citizen. Most of the folks that I represent down in central Texas would prefer to see their Representatives in this House, the people's House, tending to the Nation's business. The President has outlined what I think are a number of very important budget priorities throughout December and January. I believe they demand our attention and debate. He has emphasized the importance of conserving the surplus, letting it build up. I believe we should do that. I believe it is time to stop the shutdown of this House and get back to the Nation's business.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on this first day of this new Congress, we must recommit ourselves to saving Social Security first. By adopting our Democratic rule, the House can stand both for Social Security and against fiscal insecurity. A few months ago, our Republican colleagues on this very floor attempted to fund election-year tax breaks out of the surplus generated by the Social Security Trust Fund. Their ill-advised proposal, which was ultimately not approved, would have used payroll taxes paid for by all Americans to fund tax breaks for a few Americans. That was wrong, and in 1999, by the adoption of this rule, we can prevent the compounding of that wrong. Those of us who have struggled to achieve a balanced Federal budget know that our job is not complete. For this year, we would have no balance in the Federal budget were it not for the surplus generated by the payroll taxes in Social Security. Indeed, this year, we would have a $51 billion deficit without those Social Security revenues. Our proposed Democratic rule would say that if one wants tax cuts, and I, for one, would like to see some tax cuts, pay for that lost revenue by closing tax loopholes and ending preferential treatment for the few special interests. But do not finance even more preferential tax treatment for the few by taking from the payroll taxes that are paid by the many, and which workers see go out of their paycheck every time they get a paycheck. And certainly, do not pay for tax breaks this year, or new spending, for that matter, by irresponsibly adding to the national debt. To our Republican friends we say, do not make Social Security more insecure, and do not undermine the progress that we have been making on Federal deficit control that is so very important to our country's unprecedented economic vitality. This Congress has convened under a cloud of uncertainty, created by the insistence that we proceed with a prolonged impeachment trial, no matter what the cost to the country. Let us at least in this first policy vote of 1999 in the House say that we will save Social Security first by adopting a Democratic pay-as-you-go rule that we are advancing today. Swearing in of Member-Elect

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, our democracy has flourished throughout history because imperfect human beings have come together here to resolve differences about how our nation should proceed, recognizing that no individual, no political party has a monopoly on truth. How tragic it is that we gather this week with so much talent and so much creative energy and so many problems that the American people face and are diverted to such unworthy purpose. The real division that troubles me today is not the division that will go along strictly party lines about how we will vote, but the division that strikes through the heart and the spirit of America. What we need to be doing is coming together, recognizing that today we have a clear choice to punish individual wrongdoing--that we could come together and censure and disapprove that wrongdoing--but we do not have to censure and punish America. In this new year, we will have a great choice--of coming together to resolve the real problems of our country or continuing to destroy individual lives. I hope we will make the right choice.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and an attorney, I have seen firsthand the corrosive effect on the justice system of lying. Lying under oath is just as wrong when it is committed by your allies as when committed by your adversaries. I agree that no Republican made this President lie, just as no Democrat influenced Newt Gingrich. When the House reconvened after the August recess, after the President's testimony to the grand jury and his statement to the Nation, I was the first Member of this House on either side of the aisle to come to this floor and condemn the President's lying and ask that he be promptly punished. Then, as today, this Republican leadership had a choice: It could either bring us together in a collective condemnation of this conduct, or it could split us apart. Unfortunately, on the eve of an election, it took the latter course, and, in an unsuccessful effort, it tried to exploit this situation to its maximum political advantage. It arrogantly rejected Democratic suggestions for how to conduct this inquiry, and it delayed for weeks getting the inquiry underway. When it finally convened, this same committee that comes today and tells us that this is the most important decision of this House, short of declaring war, failed to meet its burden of proof by calling one single witness who had firsthand knowledge of the facts involved. Instead, it relied almost exclusively on a fellow named Ken Starr, who is obsessed with getting Bill Clinton, no matter what the cost, in either wasted taxpayer dollars or in violated civil liberties and rights of privacy. So, I find myself today I think like many Americans, disgusted with the whole situation. I find a situation that is so shameful, a situation so shameful that neither Republican Speaker, either Mr. Gingrich or Mr. Livingston, will even preside over this proceeding today. A new year that begins in this country with all three branches of our government embroiled in the first Senate trial in 130 years will not be a prosperous and productive new year for our people. The poison of division that infects this House today spreads throughout the American population. It is a poison that invades our body politic and thwarts our ability to come together as a Nation to resolve our problems. Do not rip our Nation asunder. Bring us together. Punish the President with a punishment that fits the offense. Do not punish the American people by prolonging this dreadful episode. Censure and move on.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in communities all over America, we are trying to support public education, involve parents, improve the quality of education, support professional educators. This Congress has not done its share. Indeed, when this Congress goes home, if we let it go without supporting public education and the Members of Congress wave bye-bye out at the airport, they will be recognizing about the only accomplishment of this Congress, which is the renaming of the airport here in Washington. The reason nothing has been done is that the priorities greatly differ between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans want to abolish the Department of Education. Republicans want to take money away from public schools and give those monies, those public monies to elite academies. We believe the time is now to stand for this Congress doing something positively to support local communities who want to improve the quality of public education. That is what this budget battle is all about. Let us stand firmly for public schools and stand firmly against a do- nothing Congress that has nothing at this point to point to as an accomplishment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I was, indeed, Mr. Speaker. We will soon have enough for kind of a quorum here of the Texas State Senate, as we gather here not on the banks of the Colorado but on the banks of the Potomac, to honor someone whose effects on Americans has stretched across this great Nation. It is certainly fitting that we would gather here to do that on what is called Special Orders, because I know even in my short time here in Congress, I have seen Congressman Gonzalez come and make use of special orders to convey a message, perhaps to a few Members assembled at the moment here in the House, but to convey a message all across America to alert the country to some particular problem on which we needed additional focus, and to remind the Members of their duty to the ordinary people of this country who have made it the greatest land in the world. I think that it is undoubted that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez) is leaving an indelible mark, not only on this institution, the United States House of Representatives, but on our entire country. Some would point, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) has done, in providing leadership here tonight for this special order, to his triumphs in banking and housing. Others remember him as a champion of open government, and our friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Barney Frank), refers to his demystifying, if that can be done, of the Federal Reserve Bank more than anybody in history. It is still a little bit of a mystery, but he has made some good headway on it. All of us know that Henry B. Is a man of extraordinary principle, unparalleled courage, and of dogged determination. Some would probably say if it is dogged determination, it is bullheaded determination. But he was in there, willing to do what was right, no matter whether there was anybody else willing to stand with him or not. In 1994, in recognition of his courage, the prestigious Profile in Courage award was presented to Congressman Gonzalez as a shining example of public service that was epitomized in the book ``Profiles in Courage,'' that the late President Kennedy authored, described as one ``. . . whose abiding loyalty to their Nation triumphed over all personal and political considerations, who showed the real meaning of courage, and a real faith in democracy.'' I think that is a good summary of the career of Congressman Gonzalez. It expresses our feelings, I know, from Texas about him. He received this award for initiating a series of spectacular hearings on the savings and loan crisis, and writing sweeping legislation to try to clean up the chaos and reform this industry. He was also honored by this award for his courageous investigation into the sale of U.S. arms to Iraq by top officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations. It took courage to stand and do that when many others were trying to brush the lies and the conspiracy aside, and he did that, and all of America is the beneficiary. As one previous recipient of the Profiles in Courage award remarked, ``For the scientist, the moment is the Nobel; for the journalist, it is the Pulitzer; the actor, the Oscar; but for those in government, it is the Kennedy, and it is with that high award that Congressman Gonzalez has received special recognition. When placed in the context of his total public service career, beginning with his successful campaign as a college student to bring public housing to San Antonio, it is almost impossible to determine which accomplishment is the most significant. But knowing him as we do from Texas, I think we have to agree that one accomplishment that we have not yet discussed tonight ranks very high in a very special way. That is that he was able to balance his service to other people's families and other children around this country with being a good father and having a family of some eight children. What can be more fitting than the legacy of Henry B. Gonzalez, that as he departs Washington, one of his sons will be coming to join us in this body. Charlie Gonzalez I knew as a Member of the Texas judiciary during my service on the Supreme Court, and prior to that time. I know that he has been a teacher, a legal aid worker, and a district judge, and that, like his father, he is passionate about public service. I salute Congressman Gonzalez for the role that he has played, not only as a public servant but as a father and a family leader who lived the values that he has preached and recognized from this forum and across the country. When we look back on his career, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) has done in reminding us of what Texas was like in the 1950s, and how very tough it was to go as the first Mexican-American into what was an all-male and all-Anglo Texas Senate, and in one of the times of that Senate which is not one in which we can see any particular pride, when there were some people there who were unwilling to accept opportunity for all of our citizens, who were insistent on passing a set of laws to oppose the whole concept that the Supreme Court had advanced of equality of opportunity in our school system, that Congressman Gonzalez stood and would not let that tide of bigotry overwhelm him and overwhelm the people of Texas, but he stood as one force for the people, for equality, for equal opportunity. As we reflect on his historic role in Texas and in this entire country, I think it is important to remember that he never forgot that while he pulled himself up by his bootstraps, that there were many other people out there who had no boots. He has fought for those people, he has fought for America. He is a man with the courage of his convictions to do what is right, and Texas will lose not only the dean of our delegation with his departure from Washington, but we will lose someone who has set the very highest standards for integrity, for determination, and for making government work for all of us. ``I do not know where we will be without Henry B.,'' is I am sure something that is being said in many parts of Texas. But we know that he will provide, by his example of leadership, a model that we will follow and emulate in the years ahead. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for his leadership in doing this tonight, because I think it is really historic to record the accomplishments and the contributions of our colleague, Henry B. Gonzalez. I consider it one of my greatest honors here in Congress to serve with a man of his caliber and character.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, the focus of this House has been almost entirely on what the President did wrong and next to none on how Americans across this country have themselves been wronged in a variety of ways. One of those that I hear the most from Texas concerns the whole problem of health care and access to health care, the fact that too many people find themselves subject to health care providers who are gagged, they do not have a choice with regard to their health plan, that they are being harmed in some cases by the decisions that a clerk someplace, not a health care professional, not themselves, but a clerk somewhere who might get a bonus by denying them health care makes. I would say that, in the waning days of this Congress, which has done so little to right the wrongs of the American people, that the President ought to say to the Congress, you cannot go home until you right the wrongs that have been done to the American people with reference to health care. Let us see some meaningful reform of the way these managed care organizations work, the way they interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. Let us see something done to help the problems that the ordinary American family faces. Let us not go home until the job is completed. I hope the President will speak out on this issue.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the real question here today is not whether to begin an inquiry, but whether it will ever end. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate. It is really Rabbit Trail Gate that I am concerned about. We do not need Ken Starr squared in this chamber. The only way to force this Congress to get back to the real concerns of American families, like tax reform and Social Security reform, is to bring this matter to a prompt conclusion. As a former Supreme Court Justice, I will not defend the indefensible, but, by golly, there is a way to punish the lying without punishing the American people, who have clearly had enough of this and then some. I believe that the standard that we apply should be no higher and no lower than we would apply to ourselves and that we have applied to the Speaker of the House in this very chamber. The Democratic amendment assures that that will happen. Without it, there is no assurance of a bipartisan pursuit of justice, of fairness, and an ultimate answer to the American people on this issue, and then getting back to business on their issues.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chairman, as the New York Times has rightly editorialized, ``Since sweeping into Washington in 1995, the Contract- With-America Republicans have tried every legislative trick in the book to undermine the Nation's environmental laws.'' The particular trick that elicited that assessment was the Gingrich scheme to tack on some 50 anti-environmental riders, a scheme to tack them into the appropriations bills that is still holding up appropriations bills in this Congress. It is a practice that was appropriately described as our Republican friends ``mugging the environment.'' Well, today we have something a little different. In this omnibus parks bill, we have another legislative trick. In fact, I guess in eager anticipation of Halloween, we have both trick and treat in this bill. The only problem is that the tricks are all in there for the taxpayer, and the treats are there for those who want to exploit the environment and particularly to exploit publicly-owned resources. Madam Chairman, this bill is a trick because it takes dozens of anti- environmental bills, stirs them all together in a big old legislative cauldron, including a few Democratic proposals that are good, which are sprinkled in there to give this measure a nice touch, as was just described by the honorable chair of our Committee on Resources. This whole mess of a parks bill, seems to have everything in that cauldron but ``eye of Newt.'' And if one looks real closely, one will see not only the eye, but the hand of Newt, the same hand that was out there trying to mug the environment in the appropriations bills. What does this bill do? Well, it is appropriately called an omnibus bill because it has near omnibus opposition. It has brought together those deeply concerned with protecting our national resources, with protecting our air and our water, protecting our environment; it has brought them together with groups that are aware that we ought not to waste our taxpayer resources. If the taxpayers have paid for these resources, if these are public resources, they ought not to be quickly given away to those that wish to exploit them. So we find both environmental groups and Taxpayers for Common Sense coming together to oppose in an omnibus way this omnibus, awful bill. What all does the bill do? What is its theme? In short, where there are national forests, clear-cut them. Where there are pristine wetlands, build on them. Where there is a public reservoir, give it away to someone. This bill is a Frankenstein's monster of bad ideas. It contains loopholes, exemptions, corporate welfare. The Republicans, with the exception of a few, who have had the courage to stand up here today and oppose it, the Gingrich leadership has sewn all this mess together, and they hope to shock it back to life, just prior to Halloween, here on the House floor. It should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the wrong that is proposed here tonight has nothing to do with the price of care in an economic sense. It is not going to raise the cost of health care to anyone. In fact, the Republican Congressional Budget Office has already pointed out that any cost change is negligible. The price is not economics; it is the political price that the Republican conferees were unwilling to pay to say no to the extremists who demand interference in reproductive health care, and yes to this House and to the United States Senate which said, by an overwhelming majority, that it is wrong to discriminate against women across this country and say to them that they can get some prescriptions, but not others. Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the health plans available to Federal workers do not provide all forms of contraception, and some women are unable to use certain forms of contraception. While our women Members like the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) have provided dynamic leadership on this issue, I am here to say that this is an important issue not just to women, but to men, to families all across this country; that the Federal Government ought to be a model employer, ought to set the example, and it ought not to be discriminating against women in saying they cannot get access to something that is so very important to their health care. I would say that this very debate, the first night the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) successfully put this amendment on to assure access to health care for women across this country was truly a defining moment. When Republican men stood on this floor and began to interfere and say, well, an IUD, I think that is abortifacient, the pill, well, maybe it is, they did not seem to have confidence that women understood what they were doing with their own bodies when health care was involved. They needed some Congressman to come in and tell them what kinds of contraception were appropriate and what kinds were not. This is a radical decision this conference committee has made. It is wrong. We need to reject it, and say that the women of America are intelligent enough to make their own decision on this matter, and do not need any Republican help from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Newt Gingrich) or anyone else.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in Central Texas, international trade has meant more good, high-paying jobs, not fewer. I personally believe that we gain from more international commerce, by building bridges, not erecting barriers. To do that, the President does need reasonable authority to expand international commerce. But the vote that we are having today is not about more international commerce, it is about more domestic politics. Mr. Speaker, is it not ludicrous, indeed bizarre, that the same House Republicans that on Monday were releasing a videotape and complaining about an abuse of power by this President have waited all the way to Friday to say that we must have a vote today about giving that same person more power? This is not about more power for President Clinton, really. It is about more votes for Newt Gingrich, and that is the last thing that America needs. We do need a bipartisan coalition for trade in this country. It ought to be trade that recognizes that some of the concerns that have been advanced about working conditions, about environmental concerns are very real, and there is a way to address those at the same time that we seek more international commerce. But today is not the day to do that. What we have here is not really a vote about fast track, perhaps fast track in name only. This is really only a sidetrack. It is wrong, and this measure ought to be voted down.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, so much has been said in recent days about truth and about trust. How ironic it is that at a time the Nation is focused on truth and trust with one person, that the Republican leadership here in the House should choose that week to come in and challenge the Social Security trust fund, the very week the videotapes are released. It is no coincidence that they choose this time to violate the trust that millions of working Americans have placed in the Social Security trust fund. With an election year gimmick, they propose to take monies that we were able to develop through the balanced budget agreement and use those monies for other purposes than for strengthening Social Security so that it will be there for future generations. Mr. Speaker, remember how hard it was to get a balanced budget agreement? Initially, the Republicans wanted to take money from Medicare, millions of dollars from Medicare to fund tax breaks. We were able to overcome that, and we will also overcome this challenge to Social Security.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with the national news media focused on ``all Monica all the time,'' any attempt here in Washington to address some of the real problems American families are facing is disdainfully disregarded as a mere diversion. This week we actually have a diversion underway, a very real diversion. It is the diversion of Social Security trust funds to pay for Republican electioneering. With the Nation distracted, our Republican friends are seizing the moment to seize Social Security trust funds in order to provide election eve tax breaks. When will they learn that the Social Security trust fund is not a slush fund? Let us keep the faith with the people that paid into the trust fund their payroll taxes and are paying in today, and apply any surplus that is finally generated after almost 30 years to save Social Security first. Let us act to protect those who have paid into this trust fund, and avoid a Republican campaign ploy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) indicate that the Republicans are not interested in shutting down the government again as they did in 1995. Certainly, if by voting for this resolution we can discourage them from doing that again, that would be important to the country. It seems these days that the ``all news'' channels and the semi- pseudo-news channels are preoccupied with a new format of ``All Monica, All the Time,'' and I do not suppose that there is any way to get them to refocus on anything else like this mess. But I think it is worth noting the mess that we are in and how we got here. I serve on the Committee on the Budget and the way this process is supposed to work is that the Committee on the Budget is supposed to produce a timely budget resolution which this House is to adopt and the Senate is to adopt. That budget provides the format around which our Committee on Appropriations can approve the 13 appropriation bills and avoid a government shutdown. Mr. Speaker, there is only one problem. For the first time I guess in the history of the Budget Act, certainly in recent memory, there is no budget. Now, that is the Republican leadership. It is not a matter, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations indicated, of trying to cast blame everywhere. Blame does not belong everywhere. It just belongs one place. Right up here with the Republican leadership. They are leading. They have the majority and they claim and profess to be very concerned with fiscal responsibility, and yet we have come through this year and they cannot even produce a budget. It is, indeed, rather amusing to hear some of these commentators ask whether or not the government will slow down because of all the revelations and scandals that they are focusing on. If this House slows down any more, it will be going backwards. This is the House that could not produce a budget, that has produced exactly 1 of the 13 appropriation bills over there on the President's desk. The people that are asking, well, can the President do his job? Well, the President cannot sign appropriation bills that are not on his desk. And right now, 2 weeks before the government is to conclude this fiscal year, it has no budget and one of 13 appropriation bills. Credit is due here. These folks had a preconceived notion that the best thing, given the fragile nature of their coalition, was to do as little as possible this year except perhaps occasionally painting Democrats as pagans. They have done a pretty good job of both. They have done a pretty good job of doing nothing. And whenever they tried to do something, such as the appropriations for all of the Health and Human Services in the United States, they could not agree between themselves. So, here we are 2 weeks before the conclusion of this fiscal year and we have yet to have a chance to vote on the floor of this House concerning the appropriations for all of the Health and Human Services operations throughout this whole country. Folks want to focus only on what has happened down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This is a true crisis for the country, that if our Republican friends continue to pursue a policy of doing just next to nothing, as little as they possibly can, and if they continue to tuck into these appropriation bills anti-environmental provisions, as they did with some of the appropriation bills earlier that they could not pass on their own merit, but more dirty water and less clean air is something they can tuck into the fine print of the appropriation bills on the few that they do pass, if they continue to pursue that approach, then simply passing the resolution for which we are going to join in bipartisan support this morning will not get the job done and will not avoid a government shutdown. So, let us get to work, have clean appropriation bills that finance the government, that make up for about 9 months of doing next to nothing, get a budget out here and let us move the country along on the problems that really matter in the lives of families that are struggling to make a go out there across America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this questionable election year resolution. I do so as one who chose personally to never experiment with marijuana, either inhaling or not inhaling, and who shares the professed concerns of the supporters of this resolution that we do nothing to glamourize the recreational use of marijuana. I think that the gentleman from California has just made 2 points that deserve further consideration. One is he suggests that we read the resolution. I have. Not all of the electioneering in the early ``whereas'' clauses, but what this resolution actually does. All that it does is to ask the Attorney General for some data which a phone call or one 32-cent stamp would probably produce. The other thing it does is to place Congress on record in telling the States that they ought not to pass anymore initiatives on this subject. I suggest that is going to be about as meaningful as them getting up and making this list of speeches this afternoon as far as the views of people in the individual States. The gentleman from California also makes an important comparison between marijuana and tobacco. This House has chosen to do absolutely nothing about a much more addictive drug, that being nicotine, that threatens the lives of thousands of our young people each day. This House has chosen, though there have been many statements to the contrary, including by the Speaker, that we have chosen to avoid an opportunity to deal with the very serious public health problem that addicts 3,000 more young people every day to nicotine; it has chosen to avoid that. The only way it has addressed that issue was the unsuccessful attempt last year to pass a $50 billion tax break for the tobacco companies. But on the specific issue of marijuana use for medicinal purposes, it seems to me that the basic difference that we have on this issue is whether to entrust that decision to the scientific community, to the medical community, or repeatedly to turn to Dr. Newt. I think that if someone has a serious cancer, a serious case of glaucoma, one of the other uses for which medicinal use of marijuana has been recommended, I would like them to determine whether they might be saved some serious pain and suffering that no other kind of medication attempts to relieve, not based on my opinion, not based on Dr. Newt's opinion, but based on their doctor and their scientific community as to whether this is an appropriate way to reduce the pain and the suffering that that person has. I note that the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected publications in the medical community in this country, and a number of oncologists in this country seem to believe that this substance has some benefits, and for this Congress to mingle politics into medicine is a mistake. But perhaps it was put best by a Florida woman who successfully uses marijuana to treat glaucoma in her eye who said, ``You cannot outlaw compassion, self preservation, or survival.'' That is what is proposed as we inject here on the eve of the election Dr. Newt in a medical decision. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3109. This measure, introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), establishes the Thomas Cole National Historical Site in the State of New York. Thomas Cole was the founder of the American artistic movement known as the Hudson River school. His beautiful paintings are available for Americans who come to the mall to see some of the fine work of our American painters, and indeed, they are scattered in museums across this country. Students and followers of the Hudson River school included such artists as Frederick Church, Alfred Bierstadt, and Thomas Moran. This school of painting, with its focus on natural landscapes, is closely associated with theconservation movement in this country. The Thomas Cole property, known as Cedar Grove, located in upper New York State, has been designated as a National Historic Landmark. The National Park Service has completed a suitability and feasibility study of the property. The National Park Service testimony in our Committee on Resources on H.R. 3109 recommended affiliated status for the site with the current owner, the Greene County Historical Society, continuing to manage the site. This bill, as reported by our Committee on Resources, reflects the affiliated status recommended by the National Park Service, and as reported, H.R. 3109 is noncontroversial, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. It deals with one of the most beautiful areas in our country. My daughter Cathy has a large photo of this lake hanging in her room in our house in Texas as a memory of pleasant time spent at a church camp on the banks of this lake. This particular piece of legislation is noncontroversial. It was considered in our Committee on Resources. It addresses, as the gentlewoman indicated, the boundaries of the lake. Currently a private landowner is subject to dual jurisdiction by the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. This will resolve that. I appreciate our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for bringing this to the attention of the House.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This is the Senate companion to a House bill introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard). It was considered in our Committee on Resources, and employs the standard legislative formula that we have used to transfer hatcheries in the past. In fact, it is almost identical to a bill that was passed by the House in the last Congress, but it did not become law. It is without controversy, and I urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, integrity in public service is always of paramount concern. I believed that last year when I addressed on this floor misconduct by Speaker Gingrich, and I believe it this year when I address misconduct by President Clinton. In short, I believe this Congress should take 3 steps and take them immediately. Number 1, it should make clear that all of the Starr report will be public. There is no reason this should be limited to some inner circle here in the Congress and drift out through leaks week after week after week. It should be posted on the Internet and made available to every American citizen. Number 2, this Congress should commit to stay right here until the job is complete. We do not need another year ruined by this whole episode. We need to be back attending to some of the real concerns that affect the American people, and the only way to do that in 1999 is to complete the job now. Number 3, we ought to go ahead and indicate we are prepared to take an appropriate sanction, but we want the evidence first. It is not punishment first and sentence later; it is after a thorough and deliberate consideration of the evidence before us. In short, we should get it now, we should get it all, and we should get it right.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, not because it is bad but because we have an alternative that is significantly better. Our new Members who are here offering this amendment, I believe, have provided essential momentum in the course of this long reform process. Indeed, I do not believe that it is an overstatement to say we might well not be at the point we find ourselves this morning had not we had leadership from our newest Members in this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, coming together, trying to overcome differences and working together to move this process which faced so many roadblocks in the way, to move it forward. I applaud them as I have previously, as I have both Republican and Democratic Members of the freshman class previously on this floor for the role that they have played. I believe they deserve our sincere commendation, but I do not believe that this proposal deserves our vote. None of the proposals, to be very clear, that are offered today by anyone on this floor is perfect. None of them accomplishes all of the reform and cleaning up the campaign mess that I would like to see happen. But I believe that we need to move forward doing as much as we can when we can do it, and the strongest proposal that we have, as even the last speaker candidly conceded, is the Shays-Meehan proposal. That is why I believe we need to continue working together to try to get this approved during this very year. The amount of soft money that is being raised by both political parties is just going off the charts. From 1984 to 1996, the amount of soft money raised by the two political parties from corporations, unions and other interests went up 20 times, twentyfold, from $12 million to $262 million. That issue is dealt with by simply banning soft money. In short, we say today our opponents have used every other tactic to try to block Shays-Meehan in the books. Let us not let the good be used to get in the way of the better. Today let us vote down this amendment and move on to have the most campaign reform we can have. Clean up this special interest money. Approve Shays-Meehan.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and certainly thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) also, and rise in support of H.R. 4342. One of this bill's sections does, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) just noted, incorporate in its entirety a bill that I filed in March, H.R. 3375, to reduce tariffs on imports of synthetic quartz substrates. These substrates are used by DuPont Photomasks based down in central Texas to manufacture photomasks. Now, photomasks are not the kind you wear on Halloween. Rather, they are a very important form that provide the master patterns that are used to transfer circuit images onto silicon wafers to make chips, which are in turn a very vital component of many everyday products from cell phones to medical equipment. For many years now, the central Texas high-tech workers at DuPont Photomasks and other of the companies along the Silicon Trail there in central Texas have produced the building blocks for America's industries into the 21st century. Every day over 300 workers go over to the DuPont plant. They are improving the semiconductor manufacturing process. They are involving the students and faculty at the University of Texas with some important educational opportunities and staying right on the frontier, with their research projects, of the technological frontier that is so important to America's future. Our government should be encouraging and supporting this creative industry and the people who have transformed central Texas into a high- tech center for ingenuity and growth. This tariff reduction is necessary because our tariff rates on these substrates imports have placed the DuPont facility and its central Texas workers at a competitive disadvantage compared to Asian photomask manufacturers. There are no manufacturers of these substrates here in the United States, and our current tariff of almost 5 percent adds hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary costs to the DuPont manufacturing process. This bill will remove an unnecessary cost that has hurt our ability to compete on the world market. Together with the other tariff reductions that are contained in this bill, they represent at least a modest but very positive statement about the benefits of expanding international commerce. These are benefits both for the United States economy and the American worker. I believe that our economic future lies in removing more barriers to trade. This is a good step forward. I urge prompt approval of this legislation and the principle that underlies it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I begin by saluting my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), for their tremendous patience. Because as we are seeing with this amendment, we have been offered everything but the kitchen sink as an amendment to this bill. This really has nothing to do with the underlying issue of campaign finance reform. It does have to do with a movement concerning proficiency in English, which I agree is an important part of being an American. But I also know that there are many people that are some of our strongest and best Americans whose first language is, in my community, Spanish or Vietnamese. They are some of our hardest working citizens. They pay taxes, they contribute to our community, and they deserve a right to participate in the electoral process. As I review the specifics of this amendment that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is offering, it allows the ballots to be bilingual, which they certainly should be. It is the voting materials that he says cannot be in another language. My goodness, in our State, we provide instructions, we use bilingual instructions to teach people how to get a driver's license. Why can we not provide the same manner of instruction for those who want to exercise their franchise as Americans? I can tell my colleagues that in the State of Texas, unlike some other parts of the world, language is not dividing us. It is only those who attack other languages and other cultures from their own misunderstanding who divide us. Mr. Chairman, let us come together and support what this bill is all about and not get divided over a question of bilingual information for voters.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would close by simply emphasizing to my colleagues 5 points. First, when we talk about this radioactive waste as being low level, that is good for public relations purposes but not for health purposes. The radioactive waste that will be buried at Sierra Blanca will be deadly to human beings for longer than all recorded human history. It is extraordinarily lethal and makes this debate all the more important. Number two, the Sierra Blanca site was not chosen because of its suitability but solely because of its vulnerability, its political vulnerability, which is playing out here today. It was not the best site for a storage facility. It was the easiest site, because it is a largely poor, Hispanic area. That is one of the reasons that the Texas State conference of the NAACP this year called this ``environmental racism.'' It is one of the reasons that the League of Conservation Voters has spotlighted this as one of the key anti-environmental votes of this Congress. Number three, we do not need this dump. It is great public relations to talk about slowing scientific research or the health isotopes that are vital to the future of our health, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is really at stake in this debate. We have heard much about all the other compacts that have already been approved. What our colleagues have not pointed out is that of those 9 compacts that Congress has approved, not one of them has secured a license agreement, not one. And two of them have actually stopped looking for a site. This leads to the conclusion that if they sought those compacts, but they are not doing anything with them, why should we approve another one in Texas? Indeed, as the most recent report on radioactive waste storage by Dr. F. Gregory Hayden has pointed out, ``There is currently an excess capacity for this type of disposal in the United States without any change to current law or practice.'' That leads to the fourth and very important point, that the safeguards that are in this compact, without the amendments that have been stripped out, are meaningless. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) from Rockwall, is always eloquent, and he has been very candid in this debate. He has said it is not the fellow with the biggest truck that is going to be decisive here. I agree. My concern is it will be determined by the place with the biggest dump. We all know Texas is bigger than most any other place, and we are about to have one heck of a big dump out there in west Texas. It will become the dumping site for all the people from those other places around the country because, as Mr. Hall has quite appropriately noted, and I quote him from this debate today, ``It might reduce the operating cost.'' The economic factors for those special interests, who want a cheaper place to put their radioactive garbage and found a convenient place among the poor people of Sierra Blanca, who now will have no adequate safeguards. To suggest that the compact limits it to 20 percent from out of State is misleading. If we read the fine print, it is 20 percent that could come from Maine and Vermont, but there is no limitation that I see with regard to the rest of the States. Finally, my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has been fair and direct with me. He told me on this floor that he would check with the governor. That is exactly what he did. My final point is that without the blessing of Governor George Bush, we would be limited to three States. Governor Bush said one thing in Texas; he did another in Washington. That is most unfortunate for Texas.