Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged motion at the desk.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, it is correct that this particular provision was tucked in under a title of the balanced budget amendment, the balanced budget agreement, somewhere around page 300 or 400, under the misleading title of Technical Amendments to Assist the Small Business Protection Act. And the small business that was protected here was the tobacco industry. I have been on this floor on a number of occasions prior to this morning asking that the removal of this $50 billion tax giveaway be scheduled on the same day that we have reform of the soft money provisions in campaign finance, because I do not think it is a coincidence that the No. 1 soft money contributor to the Republican Party is Philip Morris, the No. 2 contributor is R.J. Reynolds. And I do not think it is a coincidence that this morning if we conducted a political paternity test, we could not find anyone willing to take the test. This provision did not appear in this bill through divine intervention. It occurred because of the involvement and the corruption of our political system. Not one minute, not one second was devoted on the floor of this House or the U.S. Senate to debate this provision. It was wrong. It is the very kind of thing that the people of America are caused to be most cynical about this institution. So I am pleased that we are taking the leadership to remove it, but we ought to get at not only the symptom, the $50 billion tax break. It is a symptom of the corruption of this system. We ought to get at the source and the cause, and that is the interference and corruption, not only by the American tobacco industry, but by others. Every American ends up paying through tax breaks just like this that get stuck into this legislation because the soft money political system is corrupt and it is wrong. And until Speaker Gingrich comes out here and schedules it for debate, this kind of thing will keep recurring again and again and again, and we will be forced to come to the floor to undo it whenever we find out about the fact that we are facing $50 billion tax breaks.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in solidarity with several thousand students at the University of Texas who yesterday were on the main mall there in front of the tower at the University of Texas to express their concerns about the need for diversity in education throughout the University of Texas system and, in particular, to express their concerns about some very unfortunate comments that were made in the previous week by a member of the University of Texas faculty. Indeed, to call them unfortunate is quite charitable. Because it appeared to me that masquerading under some form of pseudo- intellectualism, these comments demeaned African-American and Hispanic- American students, their families, and many hard-working Texan taxpayers that finance the University of Texas system and have every reason to be concerned when those who are attending the University of Texas, those who are teaching at the University of Texas, do not reflect the rich diversity of our State. I know, from my own experience as a lifelong Texan, that the comments that were made by that professor are quite contrary to reality. Some of the hardest working people that I see, some of the people that I see in the central Texas area most concerned with educational advancement and contributing to our community, are people that were unfortunately and unwisely and unfairly attacked during the last week by the comments of that University of Texas professor. Putting those comments behind us must be done in the context of moving forward at the university to try to assure most diversity. An all-white university is not going to be a university that gives its students, white, brown, black, yellow, or any other color, a sense of what it is to participate in a diverse society and to compete economically in the global marketplace that involves tremendous diversity. So, for the future of all of us, without regard to race or ethnicity, we need a university educational system across this country that assures that every American has an opportunity to participate, and that puts behind us the racist days of the past and looks forward to working together to provide that educational opportunity for our citizens. Mr. Speaker, I also wish this afternoon to address a second issue that came up on the floor today and a very closely related issue that needs to come up in the future. Today we had a very interesting matter come up. In fact, it consumed only about 10 minutes of time. And that 10 minutes, without prior announcement, dealt with a little matter of a $50 billion tax break that was stuck into page 300-and-some-odd of the balanced budget agreement to give a $50 billion tax break that was never discussed for 1 second on the floor of this Congress, in either the House or the Senate, to the major tobacco companies of this country. I think it no coincidence that those same tobacco companies that got a $50 billion tax break at the expense of the rest of the American taxpayers, that they just happened to be very involved in the political process. In fact, as I looked over the figures, the No. 1 and the No. 2 corporate contributors were tobacco companies in soft money to the Republican Party this year. Though certainly not anywhere near as much as to the Republicans, they gave an ample amount of soft money to the Democratic Party as well. It seems to me that what makes Americans cynical about the way this Congress works is to see that kind of thing happen, where hundreds of thousands of dollars, in fact I think the tobacco companies in the first 6 months of this year gave about $2 million in soft money to political parties, and then in month 7, not coincidentally in month 7, they get a $50 billion tax break. What was particularly strange about this situation is that while no one would claim the parentage, the paternity, for this tax break, that today suddenly by unanimous consent it is now gone, and I think it tells us a lot about where we are headed as we consider this tobacco settlement that has been proposed, as we consider other issues that concern the tobacco industry. We need to have them exposed in the full light of day rather than handled in the back room. The second thing it tells us is that we have a very, very strong need for full and complete campaign finance reform. Many of us have been out here day in and day out since we came back in September saying, give us campaign finance reform now. Only Monday in Georgia, Speaker Gingrich was again saying he was opposed to doing that. It will only be by the demand of the American people that we get that changed.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, each day that this Congress has been in action, and not very complete action since we began in September, there have been Members of this House who have come to the floor and have raised the issue of campaign finance, because we realize that unless the House acts within the next month on the issue of campaign finance, that there may be more headlines of people complaining about campaign finance but absolutely nothing will be done to remedy the problems before the 1998 elections. The time for action is now. As I was home in Austin, TX, this weekend visiting with people, I was reminded again of how much Americans are concerned with the way that their government is operating and with the fact that the cost of these campaigns just seems to go up geometrically with each election. And I came across a book down there in Austin that would suggest that even our children can understand what is at stake with reference to this race for campaign dollars. It is called ``The Money Tree'' by Sarah Stewart. It is a book about gardening really, a woman named Ms. McGillicuddy who is quite a gardener, and one day a strange new tree begins to form in her garden. She is not really sure what it is. But before she knows it, it is doing something that maybe all of us have dreamed about at one time or another. The leaves are coming out as long, green hundred- dollar bills. At first she is pretty happy about the idea that she has got a money tree growing in her yard. She continues to cultivate it, along with doing her other work. But soon she finds that she has many new friends, and it seems like everyone in the area is coming to look at the money tree and to borrow a ladder and interfere with all of her normal work as a gardener, a housekeeper, and someone who takes care of the animals and does other things in her area. She cannot get any of her ordinary work done because people are over there trying to grab those hundred- dollar bills off her money tree. Finally, after a long time, she decides that maybe she is better off without the money tree, and she chops it down and converts it into firewood. This is a story our children might understand, and a story that people who observe their Congress might also understand. We have Members of Congress and any serious candidate for Congress out trying to find the money tree just about every day of the year, every year, year in, year out. Some of those who have experience with gardening and cultivating on a larger scale, like the tobacco companies in this country, seem to have mastered the money tree and its influence over Members of Congress pretty well. They are the top soft money contributors of dollars that are largely unregulated and uncontrolled and which have a truly corrupting influence on the operation of this Congress. That is why many of us are coming out day in, day out now and saying, put a ban on soft money, cut down the soft money tree, as Ms. McGillicuddy did, and make this Congress a place that more folks can be proud of instead of simply cynical about. Indeed, members of the freshman class, our newest Members of this Congress, under the able leadership of the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen], but including both Republicans and Democrats, have come together with a proposal to ban soft money and to make certain other modest reforms in our system. Yet their proposal, though it has been discussed briefly on this floor, has never come forward for full debate because Speaker Gingrich refuses to schedule any proposal on campaign finance at a time that it might really make a difference for the next election. To understand why he will not schedule this proposal, one need only look at his comments over time. A few months after he had shaken hands with President Clinton and promised bipartisan campaign finance reform, he had this to say in a committee of this Congress: ``One of the greatest myths of modern politics is that campaigns are too expensive. The political process, in fact, is underfunded; it is not overfunded.'' I think the people that are out there tending to their families, tending to their gardens across America, and looking at this Congress with periodic interruptions for 30-second TV spots do not share the Speaker's enthusiasm for spending more and more money on our elections. They want honest, bipartisan reform. We call on Speaker Gingrich again this morning to give us that by scheduling campaign finance reform and a ban on soft money immediately.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday one body in this Congress voted to repeal the $50 billion tax break bestowed on the tobacco industry by this Gingrich-led House. Now this House must do the same and do it immediately. Some may view it as a mere coincidence that the No. 1 contributor in this country of corrupting soft money to the Republican Party is Philip Morris Tobacco. The No. 2 contributor of corrupting soft money in this country to the Republican Party is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. Together they gave about $1 million in soft money to the Republican Party in the first 6 months of this year, and in month 7 their industry received a $50 billion tax break, a tax break buried under the title ``Small Business Job Protection'' in the balanced budget tax agreement. Speaker Gingrich, schedule votes on both the ban on soft money and the repeal of this $50 billion tax break for the tobacco industry on the same day. Eliminating two such evils at once would not be a coincidence in this special interest Congress, it would be a miracle.

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. Speaker, in view of the Speaker's failure to schedule campaign finance reform, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if there is even a single violation of the existing laws, be it Democrat or Republican, prosecute it fully, but do not hide behind the latest tabloid news to thwart campaign finance reform. To any American who wonders why we need that reform, thumb through the bipartisan budget agreement and come across title XVI, entitled Technical Amendments Related to the Small Business Job Protection Act and Other Legislation. Under that title turn to page 322 and learn that one of those small businesses that just got protection was $50 billion for the tobacco industry. Anyone who thinks that is unrelated to campaign contributions is probably sitting at home waiting for the tooth fairy to arrive. Ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the tobacco industry is the leading soft money contributor in this country demonstrates the need along with this provision to reform our campaign finance laws in time for the 1998 elections. But Speaker Gingrich, one of the beneficiaries of the current system, refuses to schedule it for debate. That is why we will have yet another motion to adjourn because of the refusal to deal with this issue.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have some additional reading material for the gentleman from Georgia and for all of his colleagues. This is it. You can read this page and you can get the full story of what the Republican Party has done in order to accomplish reform of our campaign finance system right here. It is one big blank. To get up and suggest that there can be a bipartisan discussion of this matter, as the gentleman just disclosed, is truly outrageous, because we have been denied any opportunity, either the Republicans, many of whom as individuals have come forward with constructive ideas on this, or the Democratic colleagues that I have, have been denied any opportunity to come to this floor and debate legislative proposals to try to improve this system in time for 1998. We have as I count it 13 days left in this month to pass any reform to address the problems that the gentleman just referred to and all of the other corrupting influences on congressional elections in this Nation. Yet the Speaker of the House refuses to schedule an opportunity for full debate on legislative proposals so that they can go through the morning newspaper instead of providing real reform in time for the 1998 elections.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this month provides us the last hope to accomplish any meaningful change in the way that the 1998 congressional elections are conducted. Now Speaker Gingrich has made clear that he opposes any meaningful change in the way Federal elections operate. Indeed, the only change that the Gingrich Republicans seem to favor is to have not less but more campaign spending, more campaign ads, and more campaign fund- raising. Speaker Gingrich has set forth a narrow-minded agenda for this month that excludes even the opportunity to debate the many proposals that have been advanced by both Republicans and Democrats to change campaign financing. I believe we need a strong ban on soft money, but whatever the approach that is taken, we need a debate this month, and we are here today to say specifically to Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership, Whether you schedule a debate on campaign reform this month or not, we are going to have one. We will have vote after vote; we will engage in extraordinary tactics to assure debate on real reform because of your extraordinary refusal to permit that reform.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today Speaker Gingrich seeks our approval of a resolution on a subject that this Republican Congress has quite obviously developed considerable expertise in. That subject is ignorance. Normally ignorance is demonstrated here in this House in ignoring the needs of the ordinary hard-working American family. Today that ignorance is demonstrated in a much more obvious way. We know that an agreement was put together in the dead of night and presented to a committee, that copies of the bill are not even out here, that no one has seen this bill. Perhaps that is a bit of an overstatement. We have seen the bill. This is it. If Members have a photographic memory, perhaps they can see it right now. It is about a foot high. It weighs several pounds. It has what the Washington Post and the Washington Times, two papers of very differing views, both describe as significant increases in spending, in social spending. In fact, this bill represents billions, if not trillions, of dollars in spending that the American taxpayer will be asked to finance. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the Members on the Republican side who are speaking in favor of this martial law rule do not have the slightest idea what is in most of this several pounds, and that indeed few Members of this Congress, if any, know what is in that bill in terms of spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money. No, the ignorance resolution they ask us to approve this morning is based on that fundamental principle that got us into some of this mess in the first place; that is, that we should vote first and read later. I am for the principle of a balanced budget, just do not confuse me with the details. I do not want to take the pep out of their pep rally, but those of us who tried to get a meaningful enforcement provision on this budget, both in the Committee on the Budget and on the floor of this Congress, do not want a budget that is balanced for a millisecond. We do not want to approve hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending without knowing what it is going to do and without actually reading the bill. Who knows what provisions for special interests are buried in these pounds of new spending? We need the opportunity, not just for this House but for the American people, to have an opportunity to see what is in this bill, to understand it. If it is that great, it can stand the test of time, not a matter of a few minutes.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the death subsidy must end. That is why I am a cosponsor of this amendment, because the taxpayer subsidy of the only agricultural product in this entire Nation, indeed in this world, when used precisely as directed by the producer, produces death, produces drug addiction, produces disease. Taxpayers do not want to subsidize that product. If we are ever going to get serious about preventing more of our children from becoming addicted to nicotine, then what we have to do is to break the stranglehold of the tobacco lobby on this Congress. Indeed, they have been successful day after day because they have oiled the machines of government very well. Only 65 of our Nation's 1,600 crops get the type of crop insurance we are talking about. When the watermelon farmers gather this summer at the Luling Watermelon Thump, and in McDade in central Texas, they will not get a dime of taxpayer subsidies. Why should we subsidize tobacco? Indeed, why should we subsidize cyanide or arsenic? That is the better comparison. Taxpayers are wasting $34 million on this subsidy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of rules that people say apply here in Washington that we do not think a lot of down in Texas. The first of these is that in Washington apparently a promise is never a guarantee. We have the promise of a balanced budget, but those who have taken the grandstand the greatest portion of the time to talk about how wonderful this balanced budget agreement is, they are unwilling to give us the guarantee of a balanced budget, and that is why this piece of legislation is necessary. A second rule said to apply here in Washington is that the fact that it did not work the first time does not mean we will not try it again. This is not the first time we have had the promise of a balanced budget. It has happened over and over again. We keep trying the same old thing without having a real guarantee, an enforcement mechanism to be sure we in fact get a balanced budget. There is one gimmick after another in this proposed agreement, as proposed by both sides. If we are to achieve a true balanced budget, it will take an enforcement mechanism like this. I would suggest that there is a third rule that applies here in Washington, that we are seeing worked out here on the floor today. It is that treachery knows no limits. We saw during this balanced budget agreement a Member stand here on the floor, one Republican promising to another that if we would all just vote for this balanced budget agreement that they would in a matter of weeks have an enforcement mechanism here on the floor. They have honored their agreement in word, but certainly not in spirit, because they have come before us today and they have presented a proposal in a way that they are sure it will be defeated. If they had any confidence in the notion that we will really get a balanced budget by 2002, indeed we could really have it next year. If we would effectively enforce this agreement, they would be here cheering us on and working to develop this agreement. Mr. Speaker, I am not for this bill in the form that it is here this morning. I am not sure I am for it as it is proposed to be changed. But I know we have to have an enforcement mechanism, and this is the only way to get it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, thousands of young Americans across this country will get absolutely no relief from this Republican tax bill. No, all they will get is a tax increase. That is right. This bill imposes a new tax on educational opportunity, and it is wrong. Universities across our country often provide incentives to talented graduate students as teaching or research assistants by reducing their tuition at the same time they offer services as teachers and researchers for the future of our higher education system. Currently this assistance is not taxed. But the Republicans propose to tax it, to tax educational opportunity, at the same time they provide one tax break after another for the rich and the famous. Taxing educational opportunities penalizes the very people that we need to be helping. These are young people who are struggling to get by on $12,000 or $15,000, and suddenly they will face a very substantial tax increase. Let us reject the Republican tax hike on educational opportunity.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee on resources and a cosponsor of this amendment, I am pleased that tonight in a single vote this Congress can both protect the taxpayers pocketbook and do something to enhance our precious natural resources. With this bipartisan amendment, we seek to end yet another form of corporate welfare, in this case essentially food stamps for timber companies. The roads that are being constructed at public expense in our national forests are of course too rough for most people to drive a car over, but in many ways they are very similar to the tollways near you. Tolls are charged for these timber roads across our forests. It is just that the taxpayer is the one who has to pay the tolls while corporate timber interests get a free ride at taxpayer expense. As we continue to try to balance the Federal budget, this is exactly the kind of corporate welfare we need to get rid of. I voted last year to end certain types of welfare to individuals, and it is time to apply the same reasoning to corporate interests. Groups as diverse as the Sierra Club and the National Taxpayers Union agree that this is the type of taxpayer financed corporate freebie that we need to eliminate. This amendment does not prevent private logging companies from building roads at their own expense. If a company is allowed to log, they can build whatever roads they need. The only difference would be that the timber companies, the people who benefit from the roads, will pay for it, not the taxpayer. If these roads do not make economic sense for the timber companies, then why in the world should the taxpayers of America be asked to pay for them? We have over 379,000 miles of roads in our national forests, almost 9 times the mileage of the national highway system. If we need to build one more mile, let the logging companies pay for it themselves. This is not a small amount. It is $91 million of waste that ought to be eliminated as we balance the Federal budget.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, over 10 million American children lack health insurance. They lack the ordinary means to gain access to the health care system. Unfortunately, Texas leads the Nation with 46 percent of our children, almost one in two, lacking health insurance. These are the kids that do not see a doctor when they are sick, unless they get so sick they have to be rushed to the hospital emergency room. They are the children of the working parents who are struggling to make ends meet but get no health insurance at their job. Some 5 million of these kids were supposed to be covered by this great Republican budget bill that we have heard ballyhooed here this morning. Well, last week the Congressional Budget Office that this Republican crowd hired reported that they left off a zero in their great plan; they are only going to cover 500,000, not 5 million new kids in America. In politics they say half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, but for those many kids who need health care and health insurance the Gingrich Republicans are only providing a heel.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this week I am introducing the International Tobacco Responsibility Act. To some, this title will itself appear contradictory, for clearly the tobacco lobby has never been known to accept responsibility for the death and disease that its products cause. But now, under the terms of the proposed tobacco settlement, American companies have agreed to impose more meaningful labeling and warning requirements on their products and on their advertisements. Under this settlement's terms, for the first time cigarette packs will carry warnings such as ``Smoking Kills,'' which it obviously does; ``Smoking is Addictive''; and ``Smoking Causes Cancer, Heart Disease and Emphysema.'' Yet while the settlement requires these warnings on tobacco sold here at home, it makes no effort to curb the export of death. As noted in a recent front page article in the New York Times entitled ``Fenced in at Home, Marlboro Man Looks Abroad'': If there is a heaven for beleaguered cigarette manufacturers of the West, it is the developing markets of eastern Europe, Asia and the Middle East, half a world away from . . . assertive regulators. . . . Indeed, in agreeing to settle the lawsuits brought against them here in America, the corporate nicotine dealers made sure that they retained full authority to promote a nicotine fix that hooks kids around the world with their deadly products, and they are doing that just as fast as they can. Since 1990, Philip Morris, for example, has had its sales go up by 4.7 percent here in the United States but abroad, it has grown 80 percent. The world's children, the children are the newest target of Big Tobacco's continued addiction itself to making money at the expense of human lives. Joe Camel and the Marlboro cowboy, they have not gone away; they are just taking a trip overseas where they will appear on a billboard next to someone else's school and on the pages of a youth- oriented magazine in another language. Big Tobacco knows that it can pay any penalties that we impose in America with profits earned at the expense of someone else's children. That is wrong. If America is to call itself a world leader, it must also lead in the battle to save the lives of young children from nicotine addiction, and that leadership means more than just saving lives in my home State of Texas or in Ohio; it means being concerned about the lives of young children in Poland or in Korea. The tragic consequences of nicotine addiction do not know any national boundaries. Tobacco does not discriminate. It kills people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin, and American tobacco companies should have the responsibility to warn smokers everywhere across this world of the ghastly health effects of their products. The International Tobacco Act of 1997 would take three important steps toward addressing this worldwide health menace. First, it would require that American tobacco companies apply the same warning labels to their products sold overseas and their advertisements as they are required to do in the United States. While current United States law requires labels on domestic cigarette packs, it specifically exempts exported cigarettes. This bill would repeal that loophole and require labels on tobacco products produced here or wherever their ultimate destination. Second, the International Tobacco Responsibility Act would prohibit the existing subsidy, yes subsidy, by American taxpayers for promoting overseas tobacco sales. Too often in the past Federal officials in our own Government have been accomplices to exporting death and disease throughout the world. Employees of our Government, paid with our tax money, have promoted tobacco abroad and brought down advertising restrictions in other countries that were designed to prevent addicting children and others overseas from the very way that they have been exploited here at home. Third, the International Tobacco Responsibility Act would call on the United States of America to exercise some moral leadership on this vital issue. If we can achieve an international accord to restrict the trade in ivory to protect elephant herds around the world, surely we can seek accords to restrict the marketing of lethal tobacco products to the world's children. This bill would urge the President to seek, through the United Nations, an international conference to implement measures such as those in the proposed settlement agreement to reduce nicotine consumption worldwide. In Japan, one warning label modestly suggests ``let us carefully observe smoking manners.'' Clearly it would be the ultimate hypocrisy to continue to promote death abroad at the same time we address the needs of our own children here at home. As we move toward consideration of the proposed tobacco settlement, we must not default on our obligation as a world leader. We should seize this unique opportunity to act responsibly ourselves, while seeking concerted international action to limit trafficking in a highly addictive drug that kills more people worldwide than any other.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we are of course back here today to discuss another wreckconciliation bill. We are having another big wreck in Congress, even bigger than the one yesterday; and of course it is true that the liberals in Washington are causing this wreck, those who are so liberal with the truth that they defy reality. I would ask the gentleman, in light of some of those who had been so liberal in the truth, if he is aware of a time in American history, in the entire history of this country, when a majority party would come to this floor and ask to adjourn for a week or 10 days and not have passed one single appropriations bill, not one? Is the gentleman aware of any time in American history when that has happened? We are not talking about passing them automatically, but not passing a single bill; but they are leaving, are they not, presenting a present to the limousine crowd in giving them a tax break? I am sure the gentleman from New Jersey, like me, we have nothing against limousines, we have nothing against country clubs. We just think if tax cuts are so good, why not share them with the working families of America and give them a chance to climb up the economic ladder and have a limousine of their own? Is that not correct?

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, one of the many good reasons to oppose this Republican tax bill is the fact that it actually increases taxes on some Americans, a tax on educational opportunity. There are universities all across this country who assist their graduate students who work as teaching assistants, as research assistants, by reducing their tuition and lowering their cost of education. Under the current law, when graduate students get that help, their tuition assistance is not taxable. But under this bill, as proposed by the Republicans, those students who represent our future will face a significant tax increase while at the same time the Republican bill will give many tax breaks to the rich and famous of America. These teaching and research assistants are providing assistance with over 40 percent of the courses at many of our largest universities. They get by on $12,000 to $15,000 a year at the same time they are trying to get an education and help others get an education. At the University of Texas in Austin, we have more of these graduate students than any other college in the country. To Joe and Sheryl Schaefer, this is not just some arcane print in the Tax Code. Rather, these two neuroscientists who represent our future and who also happen to be the parents of a young baby while they maintain a near perfect 4- point average at the University of Texas, they will not get a dime from the child tax credit under this Republican bill. But they will face such a substantial increase in their taxes under this bill that they have told me that one or both of them will have to drop out of graduate school. I have heard the same thing from other graduate students across this country. Hiking taxes on young Americans like this, which the Democratic substitute does not do but the Republican tax bill does do, is a tax on education. It is in the wrong direction. Let us live up to our commitment on education and reject the tax increase.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I voted for this balanced budget agreement.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Budget who has supported this balanced budget agreement, I view this reconciliation bill to implement it as most unfortunate. In fact, I think it should go under the title ``wreckconciliation'' because it really wrecks this balanced budget agreement. It lacks in enforcement provisions. My colleagues will recall that we got a balanced budget agreement only at the last minute with some strange assumptions, a gyration that generated a spare $225 billion, or there would be a hole that big in the balanced budget agreement. Well, yesterday the same thing happened. They were about $11 billion short yesterday; and instead of trimming spending or adjusting the tax breaks, they felt the best thing to do was to speculate on a spectrum auction that will occur over the next 5 years and manipulate the numbers to add $11 billion so that it would work out just right. You see, this agreement is based on many questionable assumptions that we hope will come true. It represents promises. It represents a hope and a prayer. It represents a firm ``maybe''. But it certainly is not a guarantee that we will ever have a balanced budget. And that is why it is so important to have meaningful enforcement provisions, not some day in the future but right here in this agreement. It lacks them; and, therefore, I say it is a wreck of that budget agreement. Well, if it is a wreck for our fiscal health, what about our physical health? For the 10 million American children who have no health insurance, growing by 3,000 children a day, it is truly a wreck because not one of them is guaranteed access to health insurance under this bill. And for Texans, it means almost $1 billion less for Texas hospitals. This is a step backward. It is a step away from this budget agreement. And now is no time to avoid the need for enforcement of the budget agreement and for addressing the real health care concerns of working American families

Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed, for the ordinary young working families, does this reconciliation bill really offer them much of anything?