Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. If there is a family out there, maybe both parents having to try to work just to make ends meet and at the same time trying to create a good family environment for their kids. If they work for someone that does not provide health insurance, this bill, this wreckonciliation bill, says to them, you have to go forward with no health insurance, but it says to a giant multinational corporation, can we cut your taxes a little bit more?

Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed, when we talked about getting a balanced budget agreement that has true balance, I always thought the idea was that there would be shared sacrifice, shared burden, but it would appear that those at the top of the economic ladder now get to share, and those that are trying to climb up, they just get the burden. Does it appear that way to the gentleman?

Mr. DOGGETT. Really, is not the measure what one would properly call a wreckonciliation bill, in that it wrecks the balanced budget agreement?

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, for those of us who are truly committed to achieving a balanced budget that will remain balanced, this first effort to implement the balanced budget agreement represents a true setback. They call this bill that we have under consideration today the reconciliation bill. Really, it is the wreckonciliation because it wrecks this budget agreement, and the first area in which it wrecks the budget agreement is by not having an adequate enforcement provision. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new about promising a balanced budget in Washington. It is the guarantee of a balanced budget that really has some meaning, and around here a promise never seems to be a guarantee. We do not need more promises of a balanced budget, we need a guarantee, and we need it in this proposal. Rather than wrecking the budget agreement, we ought to be guaranteeing a truly balanced budget. What does this reconciliation bill say to the young American family that is out there struggling to make ends meet? Well, if we listen to the Republicans here in Washington, it says to that young American family, when you reach age 65, do not count on having any health protection because your Medicare coverage will not be there. We are going to escalate the age to 67 before you ever get Medicare coverage. What does it say to the children of that working American family, not people on welfare, but where perhaps both parents are struggling to climb up that economic ladder? It says no health insurance. Surely this must be the only modern industrialized country in the world where we have 10 million children who have no health insurance, and no hope from this reconciliation bill that it is going to get any better, from zero to age 67. No guarantee, is the goal of this Republican Congress for health insurance coverage. It is time not to wreck the budget agreement, deny enforcement provisions, and deny the guarantee of health insurance that so many people need in their youngest age and in the oldest age. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, watching the sun rise over this Capitol each morning is a truly beautiful sight. The white marble on this building shines radiantly in the morning, and yet I think the same is also true with the birth of many Federal programs. There is usually great joy at the sunrise of a new Federal law to meet a genuine need across the country. But sometimes an initiative fails to fulfill its promise. Sometimes a new Federal program has unintended consequences either through misinterpretation by the courts or misapplication by the bureaucracy. Somewhere between the Potomac and the Rio Grande, some Federal efforts that began as a bright shining idea get so misdirected that many Americans get only a bad sunburn. Well, Congress we know is great at creating Federal programs because we have hundreds of them to prove it. But too often after creating a program to address some real need, Congress subsequently fails to conduct proper oversight of its handiwork. It has been said that the nearest thing to immortality in this world is a government bureau, and certainly that is true of too many of the programs that were created in the sunrise in this particular institution. We find the sun coming up on these programs, but seldom seeming to go down. In my home State of Texas, we found a solution for too much government sun. We forced periodic review of each new governmental initiative through a systematic sunset process. This procedure is authorized by the Texas Sunset Act, which I authored as a Texas State Senator. Through that process we have completed over 200 sunset reviews, performance audits of various State agencies. We have repealed statutes, we have consolidated and abolished governmental agencies, and the Texas Treasury is about $600 million the better for it. In Texas, we believe that a thorough bottom-to-top review of each of these new laws and programs is healthy. It is good for the programs, it is good for those that are administrating the programs, but most importantly, it is good for the people that have to foot the bill, the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I have found that when it comes to solving problems here in Washington, we could do with a little more Texas thinking of this type. So today I am introducing a bill that will bring this proven Texas concept to the Halls of Congress. In my judgment, the Congress has an affirmative duty to oversee every program that it creates to ensure accountability, to ensure that over time the program is being retained only if it is necessary and only if it is being run in an efficient way that protects the taxpayer. The Sunset Act of 1997, which I am introducing here today, would fulfill this duty by requiring Congress to review and reauthorize most programs at least once during every decade, if not sooner. There are Federal programs that are not being reviewed today that have not been formally reauthorized for many years. This is not any way to conduct the Nation's business, for it undoubtedly results in the outright waste of resources that could be better used to reduce the deficit and address our real needs in education, the environment, and health care. Mr. Speaker, I advanced this sunset concept, I really advanced it during the recent budget debate, in an effort to ensure that this bipartisan agreement achieves its promise and is not just more wishful thinking. Unfortunately, those who control this House rejected the idea of a sunset guarantee to assure that today's political promises actually achieve some reality. The Sunset Act of 1997 that I am introducing today is another way of accomplishing responsible government that addresses real needs within the restraint of a budget that is balanced and stays balanced. I urge my colleagues to approve the Sunset Act of 1997 as a way to bring about needed oversight to this government and assure that unnecessary programs are terminated and that all parts of our government are operated with true accountability and efficiency.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Government shutdown artists are at it again. Americans watched with disgust as this House Republican leadership shut down the Government and frittered away one and a half billion dollars of taxpayers' hard-earned money. Well now, this same crowd is in control, and they propose to shut down flood relief moneys to families desperate for assistance throughout the American Midwest. Even though the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense say that our troops in Bosnia cannot rotate out in order and cannot come home after placing their lives at risk for our security, they would shut down those funds. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people can see that this same shutdown fervor for partisan political advantage is wrong and they can recognize when they look at North Dakota that it is not the only disaster area in this country. One of those disasters is occurring right here, when the needs of the American people are forgotten in the race for partisan political advantage.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation that we are considering this afternoon is indeed very important. Anyone who has ever been at sea and seen a school of dolphin leap into the air knows that this mammal is something that is very precious, another gift of God to this world. And as beautiful as that sight is, as seeing a dolphin leap through the air, what a contrast it is to see the ugly side of politics as candidates and elected officials leap through one hoop after another in the search for campaign dollars in a campaign system that each year requires hundreds of millions of dollars in order to have a chance to see how this Congress and how this democracy will run. Unless we find a better way to deal with the netting of elected officials that is occurring from special interests across this country, then the fishy smell will pervade more than just this Chamber, it will pervade this country. The American people know how critical it is to reform our campaign finance system. They have spoken out again and again expressing their concern not just about one party, but both, and the way our democracy is threatened by special interest money, and yet again and again we have come to this floor and asked to be heard on this issue. It is not a question of a lack of time or a lack of interest in this body; it is, rather, a lack of commitment on the part of the leadership to bring this issue to the floor. And it is easy to understand why. Speaker Gingrich has said again and again that he thinks there is not enough money in the political system. He wants even more money flowing into this system. And we heard him say only last week, at a gathering of contributors who gave as much as a quarter of a million dollars apiece to the Republican Party, that whatever they have donated, worked for, or given to avoid that alternative; that is, not having Republicans in power, is a tiny token of what it has saved them. It is this quid pro quo system that has to be changed. We do not claim to have a monopoly on the solutions. The Blue Dogs have a solution. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] has come forward with a solution. There are many alternatives that can be considered. But why not allow the time on this floor for a full and open debate on the need to reform our campaign finance system? What can be more fundamental than the way this democracy works, than the way our Members of Congress and all of our Federal officials are financed? This is vote No. 5 today for reform. Let us make it a positive vote.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I share the commitment of many here today to achieve a balanced budget, but it is not just enough to balance the budget for a nanosecond. It is a question of whether or not we have a plan that will balance the budget and keep it balanced. Over the last few weeks, and certainly I know that will be true throughout the rest of today, there is a lot of backslapping. There is a debate about who is the greatest statesman for putting this agreement together. A lot of popping of champagne corks; I believe I am going to hold my champagne until the budget is actually in balance, because there is nothing very new about people promising to balance the budget. And as my colleague from Texas just pointed out, one of the problems that we have here today with what has essentially been a budget agreement where until the last few days we did not have any of the blanks filled in and it was based on the theme song from the Caribbean, do not worry, be happy, about this budget, I am happy about having a balanced budget agreement. But I am a little worried about whether the promise of that balanced budget is ever going to be achieved. The best way to achieve it is not in listening to one person extol the great virtues of another but in having a meaningful enforcement mechanism. What the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] just pointed out is that today the Republicans have rejected any kind of effective enforcement mechanism. One was offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] and the so-called blue dog Democrats. Another was offered by myself. It is very simple, one paragraph, a sunset provision, using the sunset approach that we have implemented in Texas to say, we will limit the authorization for any of this new entitlement spending that President Clinton wanted and we will limit the tax reductions that the Republicans and President Clinton wanted also to a 5-year period. If we are balancing the budget, if we are getting the deficit under control, there will be nothing easier than for this Congress to reauthorize them. But to move forward with this budget resolution without an effective enforcement mechanism does not ensure the American people a true balanced budget. It only ensures more talk of a balanced budget that may or may not achieve the eventual objective. This sunset provision was described by Republicans in the committee as prudent, as reasonable, and it ought to be adopted today.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. Anyone who followed the debate over these matters in the last Congress knows that this House took a very short detour from our traditional and long-term path of bipartisan support for research and development and particularly for the work of the National Science Foundation. It was a path that the New York Times said would actually cripple American science. Fortunately, we have a new day and we are now back on the path of a bipartisan commitment to research and development. While we have a few differences over certain specifics of this bill and of other legislation that is being considered today, on the whole, we have agreement; and it is a testament to the work of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], and to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], their leadership, that we have come together once again to pursue support for science and for research and development from the Federal level. This National Science Foundation bill represents a slight increase over what we did in the Congress last year and over what President Clinton has requested. It would appear that we have found some consensus on just how vital funding for scientific research is, its importance in fostering scientific discovery and jobs that that discovery will produce. Our worldwide leadership in science and technology is a source of great pride and satisfaction for millions of Americans but, more importantly, it is a source of future jobs for millions of our young Americans who will be entering the job market in future years. Now we can talk about ways that this Congress can improve the lives of Americans; and there is little that we cannot accomplish through realistic investments in science and technology to produce those high- skill, high-wage, high-tech jobs in the future. The area that I represent in and around Austin, TX is a good example. The investment made through the National Science Foundation through related programs of Federal investment in research and technology has provided the engine for economic growth, has attracted considerable private investment, and has provided us the kind of economic problems that the rest of the country would like to have, that being that we need, we have a shortage actually of many individuals in the high- skilled area to fill jobs that are being created each month by our high-tech industries. Clearly, our Nation is in a fight on the economic front around the world; and if we are to remain competitive and if we are to be able to produce the kind of jobs that we need for our population, it will be through the kind of investment that we are making today in this National Science Foundation bill and in other bills to place America first when it comes to research, when it comes to science and technology.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that no price can be placed on honesty, not $3, not $300,000. After 3 months of carefully calculating every angle, of exploring fully the political calculus of every other alternative, the Speaker has reluctantly decided to do what law violators do in America every day: pay the fine for an offense on which a guilty plea was entered and a conviction found. This decision, though belated, should be accepted by this House on both sides of the aisle, accepted but not applauded, not applauded any more than we would applaud the decision of a major polluter who had injured the public health and welfare through its pollution and then paid a fine for the conviction. For pollution is what has occurred here, lies and deception that threaten the very fabric of our democracy. Nor does this payment remove other offenses that are still pending, some over 18 months. There is nothing noble about the payment of the fine. There is something very ignoble about the conduct that produced it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object.

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

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] be allowed to proceed in order.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, with each passing day of this Congress more and more Americans are realizing that this Gingrich House is doing less and less to address the real concerns of their everyday lives. The millions of American families who are out there struggling and cannot get health insurance for their children know that this Congress is offering no answer. The millions of Americans who are out there struggling to find the resources as the cost of going to college escalates, who need some assistance, some support, a tax break for them to help them get their kids the educational opportunity they need, they know this Gingrich Congress is not doing anything for them. Why is that? Why is it that this Congress meets occasionally for a few hours to discuss suspension bills? Well, my colleagues, the problem is not the suspension bills but the desire of the leadership of this Gingrich Congress to suspend reality. They would suspend the reality of what it is like out there to try to struggle to make ends meet and to hope that the government would be on their side instead of dealing with some of the issues that this Congress has on occasion in its part-time sessions talked about, congratulating the Nicaraguans instead of being concerned with congratulating and supporting all those Americans who are out there trying to struggle up the economic ladder. Why does this happen? Why is this Congress so aimless that people on both sides of the aisle recognize it is accomplishing very little? Well, clearly one of the reasons is that we have largely been leaderless throughout this House since day one. But there is another explanation, and that is the influence of money and politics on this Congress, and it affects everyone in this House. When we have to raise hundreds of thousands, indeed, hundreds of millions of dollars in each congressional election, Members of Congress begin devoting more time to raising money than tending to the Nation's business, and that begins to even affect the donors. Indeed, as my colleague from Michigan pointed out, the Washington Times reported last week, ``Donors tell Republicans they are fed up. Tax cuts to talks as chiefs gather.'' The basic outline of the story was if we do not get our crown jewel, our big tax breaks, we are not going to be giving any more money. That is the kind of influence that I am talking about that distorts the priorities of this Congress, that allows folks to attempt to suspend reality rather than to deal with the real problems of the American people. Of course, it is not just that this Congress has been doing very little over the last few months; it is when it does act, it does the wrong thing a good bit of the time, and one of those examples is the issue of campaign finance reform. How amusing it would be were it not so serious to hear my colleague from California and my colleague from Ohio tell the American people they want reform, they just do not want to rush into it. Well, what do my colleagues think we have been doing around here for the last three or four months, rushing to do anything? Rushing to get out of here occasionally to go home after a day and a half of work dealing with measures that have very little to do with the real needs of American families. We proposed on day one of this Congress that we address the issue of campaign finance reform, not in a rush but in a thoughtful and considered manner, and that effort on day one was voted down on a party-line vote. So we came back a couple months later, not in a rush or a panic, but realizing that there are real problems that ought to be addressed in a bipartisan fashion and we were again voted down. We came back a third time and were again voted down on the issue of whether or not we would have the very type of thoughtful debate that the gentleman from Ohio says we need to have. Today we are here for a fourth time, and for the fourth time some Members of this Congress will have an opportunity to reject reform. The question is not whether we are going to point fingers at one party or another, but whether we will come together, not looking at somebody else's house down Pennsylvania Avenue alone. That needs to be looked at, and my friends on the other side can look at it to their heart's content. But look right here in Congress and what is happening in this Congress, when donors tell Republicans they are fed up, if we do not get our tax breaks we are not going to be contributing to these congressional campaigns. This issue needs to be addressed by this Congress and addressed today.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as an advocate of the Welfare To Work initiative last year, I come forward to propose a sequel this year: Washington To Work. How about it? How about this House getting to work the way they said they wanted the welfare folks to go to work last year. Mr. Speaker, the work ethic seems to be in full blown retreat here in Washington. I spent some time preparing this comprehensive list of all of the accomplishments of this Gingrich Congress. Here they are, and there is room for a little more on this blank chart, because there are millions of children who have no health insurance; there are millions of young people who want the chance to pursue a college education. There are those of us who want the budget balanced with true balance, who want to reform the campaign finance system, and yet in this leaderless, aimless Gingrich House, this is the comprehensive list of accomplishments. It is time to apply the same work ethic to this House that our Republican colleagues and some of us on the Democratic side sought to apply to the welfare system last year.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this Congress I was 1 of more than 100 Members of this House to ask that action occur during the first 100 days of this Congress on the issue of campaign finance reform. Well, that period will expire next week. And what has happened during those first 100 days on the issue of campaign finance reform? The same thing that has happened on the hopes of reform for more health insurance for children across this country, the same thing that has happened with regard to the aspirations and needs of young people across this country to get access to a college education. What has happened on campaign finance reform during the first 100 days of this Congress is zero, zip, nada. Not a thing has occurred on that or most of the other important issues that face America today. Now, my distinguished colleague from California [Mr. Dreier], says they have another approach. When it comes to campaign finance, they do not want to legislate right now, they want to investigate. Well, I agree that some investigations are in order. The only problem with Mr. Dreier's approach is, they want to investigate everybody except this House. They want to look at somebody else's house down the street. They do not want to look here at the issues of the peddling of campaign finance checks that have occurred on this floor and issues that have arisen in connection with the raising of hundreds of millions of dollars in funding this Congress, of special interest money that dominates the elections in this Congress on both sides of the aisle. No; they want to investigate someone else, get indignant, get upset, make some speeches, but not do a thing about it. This rule sets priorities, and I would say our veterans, who will have 435 votes in favor of their bill in a few minutes, have as big a stake as anybody else in seeing this system cleaned up. It is time for this Congress to act. We waited in the last Gingrich Congress 1\1/2\ years out of that 2 years before we ever even got a chance to vote on the issue of campaign finance reform. That is why we are going to keep raising this issue day after day, because we cannot wait another 1\1/2\ years for action, and at that time it was some convoluted position that even the Republicans could not support. It is time for action and action by voting down this rule.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this has been perhaps the most revealing debate of this entire session of Congress. I might say, to use an old phrase, when push comes to shove, we get down to the heart of a critical issue to the American people and we see why it is that our Republican colleagues are so fearful of giving us even 10 minutes to debate this issue on the floor of the U.S. Congress; why they are so hypersensitive when the issue is not influence peddling down the street, but influence peddling right here in this building: Peddling out checks from tobacco companies; having meetings, not just one isolated meeting that has been discussed here. At the committee that I served on last year, they turned over the taxpayer financed computers to the lobbyists to write the legislation, and then they had them sit there and whisper in the ear of the committee counsel how to answer the questions about the legislation that the lobbyists had written. It is that connection between special interest campaign finance and between the writing of legislation to benefit those same special interests that ought to be devoted a week, not an hour, a week, on the floor to debate how to fix it, and they are afraid to do it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is against this background of false peace that today we are asked to focus entirely on alleged wrongdoing at the White House. For myself, I want a thorough and complete investigation of that alleged wrongdoing at the White House. In fact, we can investigate until our heart's content, so long as we apply the same level of scrutiny to this House that we apply to the White House. Indeed, I suggest to all of my colleagues that they remember the injunction that is found in chapter 6 of Luke when it was said, ``How canst thou say to thy brother, `Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye,' when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thy own eye. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye and then shall thy see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.'' The problem today is that there seems to be a little bit more interest in pulling out ``motes'' than in focusing on the ``beams'' that are a little closer to home. Instead of building on the legitimate public concern on what happened on both sides of the political process in the recent election, that election and that public concern is being used to block and prevent any real reform. That is what this investigation is all about. Do not legislate reform, investigate and point fingers at the other side. We need thorough scrutiny, but it needs to be scrutiny aimed at peace and justice. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, true peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice, and until we get justice, there will be tension.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``If you want peace, seek justice. The wisdom of that ancient maxim seems to have been completely lost on the Republican leadership of this House. They want peace, they want smiling Democrats at peace on this floor as accomplices to most any injustice that they want to promote. They wanted peace on the opening day of this Congress when instead of adopting a democratic proposal to ask the committee to come back on April 7 with a proposal to reform the campaign finance system, they rejected that, and indeed that committee will not even begin its work by April 7 on doing something about the money chase. They wanted peace on the opening day of this session when they demanded that their own Members elect the Speaker who was himself a ``pioneer'' in tax free campaign finance. And of course they wanted peace, indeed they want a pat on the back, . . . Yes, this Republican leadership tells us today----

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the Parliamentarian that there can be no reference . . . and so I withdraw that part of my remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaTourette]. Is there objection to the request?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, there has been so much talk about bipartisanship and so much self-congratulation around here that until just now I was of the opinion that momentum was building for a resolution for a joint session of Congress to convene and hear an address from Mr. Rogers. But I suppose that when we get down to substance, that the interest in bipartisanship and fairness is a little weaker than when it is just ``I smile at you and you smile at me. '' I believe that the alleged improprieties at the White House deserve a thorough investigation by this body. I think this should be adequately funded and adequately staffed. But why just the White House and not this House? Has this House been exempt from complaints about the distribution of tobacco money right here on the floor of the House, from complaints about the ``farsighted'' use of tax-exempt money to fund campaign efforts, from one complaint after another? Why is it that we look only to the White House and not to this House with reference to the growing problem of members of any Federal position having to chase money for the increasing cost of campaigns? Well, certainly it is not because it is not a problem. If you turn only to today's Roll Call, one finds a report of one lobbyist with Republican ties who said that Members routinely shake down lobbyists and foreign agents: Are there shakedowns happening? Absolutely. Every minute of every day with very rare exceptions on both sides of the aisle, on both sides of the Capitol dome. It is a disgusting, despicable scene. And so it is. I do not say it is all a Republican problem or all a Democratic problem, but that it is time to look not just at the White House but at this House, and if you vote for this resolution, what you are doing is voting to exempt this House from any investigation concerning financial improprieties in the course of campaigns. Why not look at the whole problem, not just to point fingers but to find solutions? That is what this matter should be about. You would think with so many shakedowns someone would be concerned about shaking up the system and providing the American people a solution. I maintain we need more than Hershey kisses. We need the type of genuine bipartisanship the Senate finally engaged in to investigate all manner of improprieties in any part of the Federal system. Only then will the American people be adequately served.