Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the current issue of the Stars and Stripes, the oldest national veterans newspaper in this land, tells the whole story. The lead headline is ``Veterans Await Congressional Move on Frozen Iraqi Assets.'' It is referring to the need for a congressional move on the Helms amendment, an amendment that would bar completely the right of every gulf war veteran to assert their claim against the frozen assets of Saddam Hussein. That amendment is wrong, and this morning this House has an opportunity to approve a motion to approve it on a record vote, to go down clearly on the side of the veterans of this country, who have defended this country, and respond to this issue. And yet even this very morning in the morning newspapers, the author of the Helms amendment still insists on a position that would deny 1 red cent, veterans would not get 1 red cent, from Saddam Hussein if his position prevailed. Let us approve the motion and send a message across the hall to Senator Helms that we will stand up for veterans.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San Antonio, TX, Mr. Rodriguez, a member of the Committee on National Security, one of our new Hispanic Members who ably represents many Hispanic veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice. And I might note, Mr. Speaker, that our Hispanic population has contributed more congressional honor winners than any other group in this country.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes and 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the men and women of our Armed Forces gave America their best in the gulf war against Saddam Hussein, and now these brave veterans deserve nothing less than our best from this Congress. Unfortunately, many of our Desert Shield and Desert Storm veterans will never be able to forget their experience, because they have the lingering effects of illness and disability: fatigue, muscle and joint pain, severe headaches, and other limitations as a result of their defense of our national interests. They call it Persian Gulf syndrome from being exposed to biological and chemical weapons. About 3,000 of our Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans have filed claims concerning the illnesses against frozen Iraqi Government assets. Following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, the United States Government froze $1.3 billion of Iraqi assets in this country. This motion is to assure that our veterans are not forgotten with reference to those claims. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council resolved that Iraq is liable, under international law, for the injury that it caused to foreign nationals as a result of its unlawful invasion of Kuwait. The claims of our veterans were clearly contemplated by this internationally approved resolution. Accordingly, in 1994, when the Democrats were in control of this House, legislation was approved by an overwhelming majority under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] that established an Iraqi claims fund and gave first preference, as we should, to the claims of our veterans. This House went on record as saying, we give our priority to those who sacrificed their life and limb for the future of our Nation. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on this bill. This year, 1997, the Senate has acted. The Senate version of the State Department or foreign authorization bill, which is now pending in conference committee, would place these same Desert Shield and Desert Storm veterans out in the storm without one red cent being recoverable from the frozen assets of Saddam Hussein. This injustice is imposed on our veterans by subordinating their claims to the separate commercial claims that existed before the war ever took place and they made their sacrifices, claims that those who did business with Saddam Hussein like the seven largest tobacco companies, and undoubtedly among those enterprises that were doing business with Saddam Hussein were some of those who provided the very materials that were used in the war against our veterans. Who would like to go on record supporting a provision which turns out to benefit corporations at the expense of our soldiers? But that is exactly what the Senate provision would do. It puts our veterans in last place with no practical way to access the frozen assets of the Iraqis. Fortunately, the House has not yet acceded to this outrageous demand. Additionally, I would note that this is not only a veterans' issue, it is a taxpayer issue. Why is it that the American taxpayer should be placed in last place behind the claims of the tobacco companies? But the same Helms amendment that does damage to veterans also subordinates the rights of the American taxpayer to reclaim money owed to the United States Government by the Iraqis. This was first reported in a front-page story in USA Today entitled, ``Helms Bill Favors Tobacco Firms Over Vets,'' referring to the authorization bill in conference, and recognizing that across the Hall in this Capitol building, it is apparently possible for one person and one person alone to deny a hearing to block individually the appointment of an Ambassador to Mexico. But please, Members of the House, do not allow one individual to block 3,000 vets from asserting their claims against the Iraqi Government. Amazingly, I say to my colleagues, this morning's AP, this very morning, reports the author of the Helms amendment continuing, continuing this morning to defend his total bar to our veterans and American taxpayers against these Iraqi assets. My motion would quite simply instruct our House conferees, who are meeting even today, to not accede to the demands of the tobacco companies and the other commercial claims and put those ahead of veterans. As the National Gulf War Resource Center has told this House, the Helms amendment, if passed, would amount to a grotesque injustice against gulf war veterans. Let us not have that injustice.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object. It has been delayed long enough and we need the full 30 minutes as provided for in our rules.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], a leading member of our Committee on National Security, a strong defender of our national defense, and someone who has indicated deep personal and professional commitment to our service men and women.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther], an advocate for veterans.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, has the motion been reduced to writing?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, if it is illegal, prosecute it, but do not hide behind it as the Republicans have been doing throughout this session. Indeed, our Republican colleagues came into this Congress in 1995 promising revolutionary change, and they have given us nothing but the most modest and cosmetic touchover of the way business as usual is conducted in this body. If they had any real interest in revolutionary change in the way this Congress operates, campaign finance would have been considered in January 1995. Instead, we have had nothing but delays. And this year, having failed to reform the system in time for the last election, they are hiding behind any abuses that occurred, Democrat or Republican, in the last election, to defeat reform this time. Even as our colleagues down the hall in the other body debate genuine campaign finance reform, they continue to refuse to schedule 1 minute for real debate, for presentation of bipartisan proposals on the floor of this House.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, America should never forget the contribution of the men and women of our Armed Forces in the gulf war. Unfortunately many of the families of our veterans of that gulf war can never forget it because the lingering consequences of illness and disability continue to afflict many of those who participated in our Nation's defense in that gulf war. Indeed, those classified as having so-called gulf war syndrome, who were exposed to toxins, exposed to poison substances, and who continue to experience a wide variety of very serious symptoms as a result of their service for our country in the gulf war. In all, some 3,000 Desert Storm veterans have filed claims concerning their illnesses against frozen assets of the Iraqi Government. It was following the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990, that the United States froze $1.3 billion of Iraqi assets in this country. Those veterans should get the priority with reference to any claims that they might have against those assets. I have up for the consideration of this House later today a motion regarding these matters. Before reviewing the text of that motion, let me cover very briefly the history of this matter. In 1991, the U.N. Security Council declared in a resolution that ``Iraq * * * is liable under international law for any direct loss, damage, or injury to foreign governments, nationals, and corporations as a result of Iraq's unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait.'' I think the type of claim that our gulf war veterans have is the very type of claim contemplated by that international resolution. Accordingly, in 1994, when the Democrats were in charge of this House, legislation was passed through this House by an overwhelming majority, under the leadership then of the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the honorable gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Lee Hamilton, that established an Iraq Claims Fund. I would quote from that bill in saying ``before deciding any other claim against the Government of Iraq, the United States Commission shall, to the extent practical, decide all pending noncommercial claims of members of the United States armed forces.'' This body went on record in giving a priority to those who put their life and limb at risk for the future of our Nation. Unfortunately, quite a different turn has occurred in this Congress in this session. Legislation has been approved and is pending in conference committee at present that would place these same gulf war veterans in a position where they would never be allowed to recover one red cent against the Government of Iraq. And why is that? Because the separate commercial claims that existed before this war ever occurred of the seven largest tobacco companies and of other commercial enterprises have been elevated over our veterans. Our veterans have been left in last place with no real right to make a recovery against these frozen Iraqi assets. This all took place at the behest of Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who inserted it into the State Department authorization that is pending in conference committee. Fortunately, this House has not yet acceded to his demands. I would say that while he may be able to block an Ambassador to Mexico, he ought not to be able to block the claims of these 3,000 people who served with valor our country. My motion would instruct our conferees, here in the House, to the State Department bill to not accede to the demands of those who would place the tobacco companies and the other commercial claims ahead of our veterans, who deserve to be heard first and foremost for what they have done for this country. I would draw the attention of the House to communications from the National Gulf War Resource Center which concludes in a letter to this House by saying, ``Senator Helms' legislation, if passed, would amount to a grotesque injustice against gulf war veterans poisoned by chemical warfare agents and other toxins during the gulf war. We ask you to consider the interests of gulf war veterans when voting on this legislation.'' That is what I will be asking my colleagues to do later today as we take up and consider this motion: Put the gulf war veterans first because they put our country first.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, let me begin by commending our colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], for the remarks that he just made. I think that he made some very good points about the need for us to address this whole issue of soft money, and I fully support the initiative that he and our colleague, the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Tom Allen, and other freshmen Members, against considerable resistance, have maintained in offering the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act. Madam Speaker, indeed, I was the Member who stood here on the floor last Friday and asked Speaker Gingrich personally when he was in the Chair to grant us consent to take up and consider that bill last week. It seemed to me appropriate that we should be considering campaign finance reform on the same day that our colleagues across the hall in the United States Senate were considering that issue last Friday, but instead, we were denied that opportunity. It seems to me that the kind of bipartisanship that the gentleman from Arkansas has just demonstrated in working, both Democrats and Republicans together, to address this issue is the very kind of bipartisanship that has existed in the Senate, with the leadership of Senator McCain joining with Senator Feingold to propose realistic ways in which we can address this problem of the money chase that affects people of all political philosophies in both parties, devoting in many cases more time to finding the funds to maintain themselves in office or to achieve office than to attend to the public's business. So I would say, first, I come tonight to agree with my Republican colleague, and I will say secondly that I agree with comments that many of our Republican colleagues have made on this floor recently concerning the need to enforce existing campaign finance laws. I read with alarm the reports in the New York Times and otherwise about three campaign aides to the Teamster chief making guilty pleas about illegal money and reelection of the Teamsters tied to a scheme including Democrats. There are already three people that have pled guilty. I want to see that fully and thoroughly investigated, fully and thoroughly prosecuted, along with any other violation by anyone on either side of the political aisle, the political philosophy, of our existing laws. The problem that brings us here tonight, because we are not an enforcement body of existing laws, is not those existing laws and such violations as may or may not have occurred. To me the problem is that what is legal is not right. What is legal under existing campaign finance laws is the ability of special interests to pour in millions and millions of dollars that influences what happens in this Congress every day and every evening. What is legal is not right, by the view of the American people, who watch their Congress coming increasingly under the control of special interests who can afford to dump more and more money, soft money, to soften up the political process. What I find indeed amazing were the comments this weekend of colleagues, both Speaker Gingrich here in the House and various Members of the other body, saying that they had a solution to the problem of campaign finance reform. What is their solution? They do not think we have enough money in the system. They think that all of the existing reforms in terms of campaign finance limitation, they want to have campaign finance reform by repealing the existing laws and by allowing anyone to pay whatever it costs to buy whatever it is they need in the political process. I do not believe that people who have studied our system, the ordinary person who is out there working, trying to make ends meet, that they begin to believe the nonsense of those who perhaps have spent too much time focused on how to raise the money for the next campaign instead of how to make ends meet out in the real world; that anyone out there with good sense, looking at this system, thinks that we can make it better if we allow the big boys to pour in even more money than they are funneling into the system already; money that distorts the legislative priorities, that results in a tobacco company being able to come in here and give more soft money to the Republican Party than any other special interest in the first 6 months of this year, and then come along in month 7 and they get a $50 billion tax break tucked into page 300-and something of the balanced budget bill; to have another contributor who was an individual family contributor who contributed about $1 million in the spring of this year, and then come along in month 7, and they got a pretty good tax break buried in that balanced budget bill, also. That is the way this system has worked, and that is what is wrong with the system. Too much time is focused on fund-raising and not enough time on good public policy. We can change that by bringing campaign finance system reform to this floor for full and open debate.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XXVIII, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on the bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and to ensure that the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] proceeds in a manner consistent with United States interests, to strengthen relations between the United States and Russia, to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress with respect to certain arms control agreements, and for other purposes, and the form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Doggett moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 1757, be instructed to reject section 1601 of the Senate amendment which provides for payment of all private claims against the Iraqi Government before those of U.S. veterans and the U.S. Government (i.e., U.S. taxpayers).

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the substitute amendment is acceptable.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this has been a bipartisan effort. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], one of the coauthors, is not here today to speak. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], my distinguished Republican colleague and another leader in this effort. (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.).

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. And, Mr. Chairman, I will have 15 minutes in support of the substitute amendment. And who will have 15 minutes in opposition to that amendment?

Mr. DOGGETT. The substitute amendment is before us as having been adopted.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is really now or never. Either this Congress acts now to remedy at least some of the shortcomings of the 1996 campaigns and the way that they are financed, or we can kiss good- bye to any hope of reform in time to affect the 1998 elections. Many Americans have been concerned about practices and events that occurred in both of the political parties during the 1996 elections. But the time is today to decide, are we going to do anything about it, or just talk about it a little bit more? Fortunately, the determination of Democrats in the U.S. Senate is leading to action today. As I speak here, in the Senate a specific proposal to change the way campaigns operate is being debated fully, and I am sure it will be discussed over the next several days there. After considerable obstruction by Republicans and the leadership and probably more obstruction to come, there is at least a debate going on there, according to agreed terms. But here in the House of Representatives, where this proposal must also be approved, we read in this morning's paper, ``Gingrich asserts campaign bill, alive in Senate, is dead in house.'' Indeed, we find ourselves in a situation where, back in 1995, that same Speaker Gingrich shook hands with President Clinton and said he wanted to achieve bipartisan campaign finance reform. That is essentially the last we heard of it. The smile had hardly faded before the interest in reforming campaigns, which could have been in place for the 1996 elections, was forgotten. Nothing happened until the eve of the elections, when a contrived proposal was brought here on a very short notice for 1 hour, and even many of our Republican colleagues rejected it, because it was not reform. Rather, it was the kind of proposal that was condemned by every good government group that had worked to reform our campaign and election laws in the past. I prefer the kind of comprehensive reform that Mr. McCain, a Republican, and Mr. Feingold, a Democrat, are urging over in the Senate. But whatever the approach that we might take to reform this system, and there may be many good ideas, there have been many proposals advanced, the question is, Will we have a firm day now in terms of debate that provide for full and fair discussion of the proposals? I must say that this same story from this morning's paper is not very encouraging in that regard. It does point out, as for the House, Republican leaders have been publicly silent, until this week, on the idea of bringing up the campaign finance bill, even as Democrats agitated daily for a vote on this issue. We have had to file motions to adjourn, to approve the Journal, to count the votes, to do these various things, because under our rules, we have no other mechanism to adjourn the special interests that want to dominate this House and that have influenced legislation with the $50 billion tax break for tobacco companies and so many other ways this year. You give the most soft money in the first 6 months, and in the seventh month you get a $50 billion tax break that all the rest of us have to pay for. That is wrong. But it is not just a matter of talking about it up here and talking about it in the Senate. We have got to do something about it. And the ``something'' is comprehensive reform that is scheduled now. But if we read on in this morning's paper, what we learn is that the kind of reform that the Speaker says might come up sometime this fall, and fall has already begun, is not reform, but it would allow unlimited personal contributions. He wants to solve the problem of big money influence on this body that is crippling the operation of our Congress; he wants to solve the big money problem by making it bigger. Let the big boys give what they are giving now, and let them give any amount they want to do to influence the priorities of this Congress. That is not reform, it is repealing the only reforms that we have been able to get on the books thus far. We need a real reform, not a repeal of the existing law, little as it is, to try to control the way the system has operated, and that real reform could come as early as next week. I am pleased that this same story reports that our leader, the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Gephardt], has written to Speaker Gingrich and he has said, ``Until we receive your commitment to follow through on rhetorical offerings,'' and that is all we have had, ``we shall not treat these overtures as serious,'' and certainly they should not be, ``and we will continue our efforts to force action to daily floor proceedings.'' That is precisely what will occur on this floor on next Monday, and it is precisely what will occur in the future. Until we get fair play in this House, until the American people have a chance to see specific proposals out here, we will have other procedural votes to get the American people the reform that they deserve.