Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, if the spirit of bipartisanship that we have heard much about over the course of the last few days is to be any more meaningful than ``I'll smile at you if you'll smile at me,'' then I think that a place to start with true bipartisanship is to allow the people, Republican and Democrat alike, who want to do something about the increasingly corrupting influence of money and politics at all levels of our Federal elections, to give them an opportunity to come forward and craft a bipartisan solution to this tremendous problem. Thoughts of bipartisanship and of campaign finance reform are hardly new to this institution. Indeed, in 1995 in New Hampshire, in the summer, in front of a senior citizens' group, we had many smiles from President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich looking at each other, shaking hands, being very bipartisan and collegial and friendly over the concept of campaign finance reform. And what happened after that? Absolutely nothing. It took from that summer until the next summer before we got something in this House called reform week, which ended up being a reform hour, which denied to us an opportunity to consider the bipartisan Clean Congress Act, a measure that by its very name had broad bipartisan support and was designed to do something about the influence of money in our campaigns. I believe the American people want us to address this problem. And so this afternoon, in the course of this particular bill, it is appropriate to talk about two things: priorities and paper. When it comes to paper, I would maintain that the type of paperwork reduction that the American people are most concerned about at this time, when they are hearing about the Lincoln bedroom, when they are hearing about Republicans down at Palm Beach meeting with people that gave $100,000 in soft money to the Republican Party, the kind of paper that we ought to be concerned about reducing is the kind that says pay to the order of, pay to the order of whichever candidate or political committee or whatever is involved. We ought to be concerned about reducing that. The only reason that we did not get a chance to address that issue in the last Congress and were cut off from a bipartisan opportunity to consider this national scandal, the only reason is because instead of paperwork reduction, our Speaker has been very candid in saying that he favors paperwork expansion. He does not think there is enough paper in the political process. He thinks we need more paper, we need more checks, we need to spend even more special interest money than is being expended at the current time in our political system. I believe we need to be concerned about real paperwork reduction, and that is to reduce the influence of special interest money in our campaigns. Hundreds of millions of dollars of so-called soft money that gets outside of the course of the current campaign financing laws, as deficient as they are, are being expended by both parties. There is no one perfect solution to this problem, there is no one perfect Democratic or Republican solution. Rather, we ought to have the opportunity on the floor of this House to come together and offer our different ideas, to not be restricted to an hour, as we were 2 years ago, and denied the opportunity to consider the only bipartisan proposal that was advanced at that time. We ought to be able to come together, reason together, and work out a solution to this most critical paperwork problem. As my colleagues know, it is not for want of time that we have not considered this issue. We spent a week here last week whereby all we did was commend the Nicaraguans and Guatemalans, and I know that was a hard load for some, but I believe we can take on the harder jobs. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, at this mellow time of interest in bipartisanship and collegiality, I have to say that, frankly, this is a weird resolution. Some might call it a back to the future resolution. Do my colleagues remember the movie about going back to the future? Well, this is going back all the way to the days of the Government shutdowns of 1995. Those who liked those shutdowns will remember those good old days. It only cost the American taxpayer $1.5 billion for the kind of stunts that occurred in this House during 1995. President Clinton in 1995 came forward and submitted a budget. It was scored by OMB. Our Republican colleagues, as they have said today, came forward and they said, ``We want it scored. We want it scored by CBO, and we are going to shut the Government down until it is.'' I think some of them wanted to shut the Government down until it was scored by HBO. But they delayed and they shut the Government down in order to get the kind of budget that they wanted. Well, those costly Government shutdowns were not simply the product of extremism. They were the product of this Congress messing around on resolutions like the one we have before us today, instead of getting down to the hard work of trying to get a budget agreement. The Committee on the Budget did not comply with the law and get the budget resolution heard and adopted on time. The appropriations committees did not approve the appropriation bills. They did not approve more than about half of them before it was time for the Government to be shut down. So we got caught in a trap that was very expensive for the American taxpayer. Today we are headed down the same path. History is repeating itself. The Republican Congress has done practically nothing for the last 2 months, and today, instead of working to try to achieve a budget agreement, they are basically saying: We have not done our job, but, Mr. President, you have completed your job and we want you to do it again. When it comes to the budget, the porridge is always too hot; and, if the President submitted another budget, it would be too cold. It is never just right for these folks. Anyone who has ever bought a car or a house knows there is offer and counteroffer. What they need to do is to shut down these kinds of silly resolutions instead of shutting down the government and get to work negotiating a balanced budget.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Texas and from across America in honoring Frank Tejeda. I served with Frank in the Texas Legislature and here in Congress, and I knew him to be a very tough advocate for the people of south Texas. He was a tireless worker for positive change both in the Texas Legislature and here on the floor of Congress. Frank was a person that inspired others by his example. I think that surely his name is synonymous with courage and with commitment to his community. I believe, as I reflected over his legislative career, which was extensive, that the last piece of legislation that Frank worked with us on in the Texas delegation was quite ironically the naming of a post office in Elmendorf in his district. He named it on behalf of a veteran. Frank believed in service to our country. He demonstrated that as a true American hero, fighting on the battlefield, sustaining wounds on behalf of this country and the freedom of this country in his service in Southeast Asia. And all of us who participated in the service Monday at San Leo's Catholic Church on the south side of San Antonio saw firsthand that Frank practiced what he preached when we had a chance to meet and visit with the members of his family, to see what strong family bonds and commitment his family had. I think it was an inspiring moment for all of us who had an opportunity to participate in that service honoring Frank. The people that will be working in this postal facility there in the south side, the postal workers, the letter carriers, know that Frank was here in respect to their service to their community. Each day as they go to work there, they will remember Frank Tejeda as a person who stood up for Government workers, whether they were at Kelly Air Force Base or whether they were working in neighborhood postal facilities. More importantly, the people who go there for service will remember Frank Tejeda as a true servant of his south side community, someone who grew up knowing all of the disadvantage of a community but who enjoyed the advantage of strong family ties and made it through the marines and then came back having had the alternative of many other careers with the distinguished degrees that he had earned at some of the Nation's top colleges but who went right back to the south side and worked on behalf of his community. We saw lining the streets, a large church unable, filled to capacity, unable to accommodate all of the many hundreds of people who wanted to be there to honor Congressman Tejeda. I would say that the Members of Congress and the people of America who had the good fortune to deal with Congressman Tejeda will remain inspired by the courage and the dignity that he demonstrated to the very end, that he inspires all of us. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. By both the Republicans and Democrat members of the ----

Mr. DOGGETT. Consideration of the Gingrich ethics complaint requested----

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is this the vote to accept the independent counsel's recommendations for the orderly----

Mr. DOGGETT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today our Republican colleagues have told us and told America that Newt Gingrich represents the most ethical person that they could find to lead this House of Representatives, and now by this rules resolution they also tell America how little confidence they have in their judgment. Once again the Republican leadership, through this rules package, is trying to pervert the ethics process, to afford special treatment to Speaker Gingrich that he does not deserve. He once said on the floor of this House that the Speaker should be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct. Today we move in the opposite direction with this rules package, because he is going to be assured a lesser standard of conduct that would not be available to any ordinary American citizen anywhere in this country. What is happening? The investigative subcommittee, Republicans and Democrats alike, and the special counsel, who was finally appointed after month upon month of delay, come forward and say, ``We can't do our job fairly and thoroughly if we are rushed into doing all this before January 21. Please give us the time to do our job fairly.'' And the Republican leadership, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] standing right here, says no, we are not going to give you the time to do your job the way the American people would want that job done and the way any American prosecutor would want to have the opportunity to do that job. I would say this rules package, just like the misconduct of Speaker Gingrich itself, is a discredit, a dishonor, and a disgrace to this House and it should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, why is Speaker Gingrich still smiling over his ice bucket? It is true, he has collected many an ice bucket, and even though he has had all that ice to try to put that ethics report in deep freeze, he has not been successful. It is sizzling through. Like any time when the ice begins to melt, it turns into dirty slush. What we find in this Congress is one Member after another who is still carrying around the slush, or the water, the water boys for Newt on one issue after another, as they have done through this entire Congress. After all, it was Newt's water boys who carried pails like those I see Members carrying around Congress today who carried the water to shut down the Government and cost the taxpayers $1.5 billion. It was Newt's water boys who wanted to cut student loans by over $20 billion. It was Newt's water boys who turned over the writing of our water laws and our other environmental laws to the polluters, to sit right here in this Capitol and write those laws. Newt's water boys are still going, but not for much longer.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, at this time of year communities all over America are organizing their fall coat drives to help the less fortunate. Well, as my colleagues might imagine, here in the Gingrich Congress it takes a little different twist. Speaker Gingrich, instead of organizing a coat drive, has organized a giant ice bucket drive, and I brought my ice bucket along. He is asking Members to turn in their ice buckets. Now why do my colleagues imagine that speaker Gingrich needs so much ice? Mr. Speaker, the reason is clear. There is an ethics report here in this Congress that is sizzling, it is hot. He needs as much ice as he can dump on that report to keep it in the deep freeze until after the election. We say to the Speaker, we wish him well in his ice bucket gathering, but there is not enough ice in this Congress to keep in deep freeze the report of your ethical misconduct. We call on the Speaker and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to release the report on the tax violations, on the misconduct. Stop pouring ice on it, Mr. Speaker. Do something constructive in these waning days. Unfreeze the report.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Certainly it is no wonder the Speaker Gingrich chose to elevate another anti-education proposal in these waning hours, precious hours, and to say he will place this above all the other issues that face the American working families today. For, indeed, this has been the most consistently anti-education House in memory. We have replaced decades, if not centuries, of a bipartisan commitment to Federal aid to education with extremism, with a hatchet that goes after one program after another. This is the same crowd that in the last 2 years has attempted to cut almost $20 million from Federal student loans. It is the same crowd, this Gingrich Congress, that tried to raise the cost of going to college by $5,000. It is the same crowd that said to thousands of American citizens that we will give their children a wrong start, not a Head Start. And whether it was Head Start or college or anything in between, they went after every title in the education code, whether it was safe-and-drug-free schools bilingual education or any other provision. So when we have a Congress that is that extreme and that anti- education, how can it be a wonder to anyone that they would want to cut off educational opportunities to the newest arrivals, because they have had little use for education for Americans who have been here for generations. Basically, this new crowd, this Gingrich Congress, its position is that we should terminate the entire Federal commitment to education. They just plan to do it one program at a time. This is just part of the overall scheme. As for the specific children that the Speaker wants to deny education to today, the plan is simple enough. When the kids get old enough and they have gotten above the pre-Head Start level and the Head Start level, when they get old enough to join a gang, the program being advanced here today is to give them an education, all right, give them a education in the street, education of the gang, of drugs and of crime. That is why, instead of learning their ABCs, they will learn how to break into your house or car. That is why every major law enforcement organization nationwide, almost, has come out against this provision. Of course this nonsensical approach is antieducation, and it is not going to work in the interest of our law enforcement officers. The supporters of this measure continue to insist that ignorance is cheaper than education. When we look back over this Congress, we look at the $1.5 billion wasted on costly government shutdowns. The legacy of destruction and ignorance in this Congress is great indeed when we look back over the costly government shutdowns. When we look at all the education programs this Congress has tried to wreck under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich, I think we can certainly say that the cost to the American people of ignorance has been dear indeed.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this debate has nothing to do with murdering babies; it has everything to do with murdering the truth. It is a deplorable and cynical move that the sponsors of this measure engage in to exploit the very deeply held and genuine religious convictions of millions of Americans. If anyone, no matter how religious and how committed on this issue, really believes the opening statement of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] that there are thousands of babies across this country that are being stabbed to death moments before they are born into this world, then I would say to all these antichoice Republican militants, ``The blood is on your hands this year, gentlemen, because you sat here after President Clinton wisely vetoed your bill on April 10.'' They sat here at the scene of these alleged scissors murders. They sat here through April; they sat here through May; they sat here through June; they sat here through July; they sat here through August doing little or nothing as these supposed thousands of murders took place. They sat here until election eve because they were not concerned about these procedures; you were concerned about gaining political advantage with the millions of Americans who are genuinely concerned about the question of abortion. And, of course, my colleagues and their Republican antichoice militants, they have a broader pledge. Their pledge is to end every abortion, even when it results from rape, even when it results from incest. By golly, in Texas they even went a little further. They said even when a teenage father who will not marry the mother objects, there is not going to be any abortion. And this is the first step, not the last step, in addressing that agenda that mandates motherhood, whether the mother wants to or not. This same crowd will then come to this Congress and begin talking about scissor murders which are not occurring in America today; this same crowd will be here then telling the American people what kind of birth control, if any, they can use. Today is the first time that American women, facing a troubling health decision, are told: Do not ask your doctor; ask your Congressman. We are not going to follow that troubled path. It is time to stop meddling in the personal lives, in the most personal decision that American people face, that American women face.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, conveniently omitted from today's discussion of antiterrorism legislation is what occurred on this floor in March of this year, the last time antiterrorism legislation was up for our consideration. At that time, under pressure from special interest lobby groups, a key provision was stripped from the antiterrorism legislation. The bill was ``eviscerated.'' That is not my word. It is the word of the very distinguished, and he is distinguished, Republican chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I want to quote his remarks from that debate on March 13. He said, ``If the Barr amendment passes, we eviscerate the bill. It is a frail representation of what started out as a robust answer to the terrorist menace.'' A few minutes later he said, ``With the Barr amendment, this is not an antiterrorism bill.'' He was right. We have not had an antiterrorism bill this year. We had the opportunity today to join in a bipartisan effort and offer ideas from each side to deal with this national crisis, and it was rejected, denying us the opportunity to contribute our ideas. I think it was rejected because the same high-handedness and extremism that apparently led one Republican Member to say right here on the floor of the House, ``I trust Hamas more than I trust my own Government.'' When you have that kind of attitude, you cannot come together and work out reasonable solutions to fight terrorism. That is the opportunity that has been lost in this Congress. I will vote for this legislation today, but it does not do enough to address this problem. All of us have watched these crime investigators sift through the debris from a bombing, looking for clues in the tiniest spaces and, yet, they are denied today a vital tool.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is incredible, really, to listen to Members come here and talk about this very sensitive subject on which we need bipartisanship, and to have them talk about bipartisanship and inclusion, when what they have done through this rule is to move in the dead of night, after everyone was gone, to pass their version or no version and then to say to the American people, ``We have a monopoly on truth.'' No one else can even offer an amendment. If any American in this body or outside of this body has an idea about how we might deal with terrorism today, they are not open to it, because they have their way or no way. It was that kind of extremism that caused this to be a failed Congress, that led to last year's costly $1.5 billion government shutdowns, waste caused by the zealotry of this Republican leadership. So we find ourselves today coming to the end of what has been the first successful week that this Congress has had in its existence. We do something for working Americans on their health insurance. We give those at the bottom a raise. Through welfare reform we encourage those who are not working to work. Progress made possible because the zealots finally yielded, realizing they could not go home emptyhanded. They needed something to show for the year and a half that they have wasted in this Congress pursuing an extremist agenda. Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that that spirit of bipartisanship did not reach this issue of antiterrorism, as it should have.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a vote is in order. This is not really even a legitimate parliamentary inquiry. I raise a point of order that with a vote already under way, this parliamentary inquiry is out of order and would ask that the Chair proceed with the vote previously ordered.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House 1 minute and for use of this chart.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, America takes justifiable pride in the strength and determination of our Olympic athletes. America respects the strength and determination of the criminal investigators who are seeking to determine who and how these incidences were caused by. But now America has good cause to ask whether this Congress has the strength and determination to deal with terrorists. Chemical markers called taggants could allow investigators of terrorist bombings to trace bomb materials and more quickly identify terrorists. But unfortunately, the same lobby group that stripped this provision from the antiterrorist legislation in the spring is now trying to block antiterrorist legislation again. Their senseless slogan now appears to be, ``bombs don't kill people, people with bombs kill people,'' and those bombers have the right to remain anonymous. Let us not side with these special interest lobbyists to protect the bombers. Enact antiterrorist legislation now.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would like nothing better than to reach out and work with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], with the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith], with other Members of the Republican side of this House and try to develop a genuinely bipartisan approach to this very difficult problem. So long as campaign finance reform is just a matter of how you can do more harm to your opponents than you can do unto yourself, we are not going to get anywhere. That is where we are this morning, because the Republican leadership of this House is so afraid of a bipartisan approach, the Clean Congress Act, they will not even permit a vote on it. They have come this morning, determined to poison the well with their labor baiting, which they could have handled in a separate piece of legislation. But just in case there was any chance this Congress really might get down to the business of reform, they added a little poison, just to be sure that this Congress did not clean itself up. You talked about having a shovel up here to clean up the Congress, but what you really have in mind through this bill is to shovel in just a little more special interest money. One partisan after another gets up to defend this approach. Do not look to the Democrats or to the Republicans on this. Look to every nonpartisan organization that has ever tried to clean up the campaign finance system. You will not find one, not one organization in this country that endorses the kind of sham that we are offered today in this piece of legislation. Whether it is the League of Women Voters, whether it is Common Cause, whether it is the National Council of Churches, they reject this because it is not reform. It leads us down the road to one roadblock after another to block the legitimate concerns of the American people.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, like other Members of this Congress, I have been successful under the current system. I will keep doing the things necessary. If we want to serve in Congress, we have no choice but to be out trying to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I do not like it because I know it is not too much to say that unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume the very essence of our democracy. We are reaching the point wherever every Member of this Congress is going to have to spend more time out raising money than tending to the Nation's business. It is fundamentally a corrupting influence on the operation of this body. What answer does Speaker Gingrich provide? He tells us, contrary to what every authority has said that it is a myth it is not true, it is just one of the greatest myths of modern politics that campaigns are too expensive. The American people do not know what they see on TV. The political process is, in fact, underfunded. It is not overfunded. Well, that idea that we do not have enough special interest money, we do not have enough tobacco money, for example, in this Congress to make it healthy here makes about as much sense as we do not have enough tobacco smoking to make our physical health healthy, which seems to be something else the Dole-Gingrich ticket is a bit confused about. All this, of course, from the same man who pioneered tax-exempt campaign finance through GOPAC. No, we have no opportunity for a bipartisan solution today. You have yet to hear throughout any part of this debate any of the 10 Republicans, 10 Republicans who condemn this proposal as fundamentally flawed, as freezing out ordinary Americans, to stand up and defend it. You have yet to hear one citizen organization that has worked over the years to try to see that we get fundamental campaign finance reform do anything but to condemn the speech of Mr. Gingrich and the proposal before us. This is, as they have said, a sham, a fraud. It is not reform.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, America has asked for real reform of the way this Congress operates, an end to the money chase and more attention to the Nation's business, and a bipartisan effort has been made to accomplish real campaign finance reform, supported by a number of independent citizen watchdog groups. But today, 1 week after Reform Week was canceled by the Gingrich leadership, today we will have phony reform and be denied completely an opportunity to even vote on a bipartisan reform of the way business operates here. And what of the bill that will come before us? Well, 10 Republicans have described that Gingrich bill as fundamentally flawed, more so than the current system, as freezing the average American out of the political process. That is their description of the bill. The independent watchdog groups like Common Cause have been more direct. They refer to this Thomas bill as phony reform that locks in the corrupt status quo, leaves open the floodgates of special interest PAC money and increases the amounts that the wealthy can give. This is not reform, it is a fraud.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is what it has come to. A year and a half is down, and a rout of the revolutionaries. They promised us a revolution in the way this Congress was operated, and today they delivered, defeating the one hope for campaign finance reform. Every citizens group that looked at this independently, not Democratic groups or Republican groups, every citizen group spoke out against this sham reform. Ten Republicans had the courage to condemn this Gingrich bill, and the Speaker, Speaker Gingrich, came right here to the floor of the House to demand that this regressive piece of legislative be approved. The House has rejected it. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to have bipartisan reform, not more of the same old business out of this so-called revolutionary Congress that once again has demonstrated that it is not revolutionary, just revolting.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we have a town down there in Texas called Wink and a number spread out across the State that are so small they could be called Blink because you would blink and miss them. That is the way it is with Reform Week here in this Congress. You blink and you miss it because they just abandoned it. Instead of the reform Congress, this has become the roadblock Congress and so much of the roadblock that they would throw up is to our seniors on Medicare. Because if they are ultimately successful with their plan to erect roadblocks to access to care, as Speaker Newt Gingrich said with pride last year and with shame this year, ``Medicare will wither on the vine.'' You see, it was not just one comment. It was the similar comment of Majority Leader Armey that he views Medicare as an imposition on his freedom and more than the comments is the action. Instead of reforming this Congress and changing business as usual, they concentrate their efforts on weakening and dismantling the Medicare system that is serving so many of our Nation's seniors. Let us reject their Medicare approach and hold them accountable for their outrageous comments.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, while I share the concerns of the last speaker about terrorism, I am amazed by his comments defending Speaker Gingrich and his comments about Medicare and his challenge to my good friend, our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. I wonder if the gentleman has ever listened to Speaker Gringrigh's exact words, because they could not be clearer in what he said, nor in how he interpreted these words himself and his press secretary interpreted these words. Furthermore, the Speaker's determination to let Medicare wither on the vine is consistent with everything he and his Republican colleagues were doing throughout this period of time. Let me refer to his precise words. They were said on October 24, 1995. We have got a chart here with those words on it. He said, the key words, ``But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it.'' So the big debate and the attempt at intimidation of people all over in this country who would have the audacity to hold the Speaker to these words is, well, it referred to some government bureaucracy. Well, he was not talking about downsizing a Federal agency. People were not going to leave a Federal agency. They were going to leave Medicare. But one need not take my interpretation of it today, because only 2 days later, after Speaker Gingrich demonstrated what his gardening ability would be for the seniors of America and for generations who would rely on Medicare, he commented on it himself. The Atlanta Constitution and Journal reported on October 29 of last year that, quote, ``Gingrich said he was referring to the fee-for-service portion of Medicare, which he believes seniors would leave.'' Fee-for-service Medicare, the Medicare system that President Johnson signed into law in 1965. As if that verification from the Speaker himself as to what he meant when he said let Medicare wither on the vine were not enough, his press secretary, Mr. Tony Blankley and some of the only words Mr. Blankley has ever said that I found reason to agree with, told the Los Angeles Times, quote, that ``it,'' the statement that he referred to, referred to fee-for-service Medicare. Blankley said that Gingrich's comments were consistent with Republicans' anticipated belief that most seniors will voluntarily choose to leave this traditional form of Medicare. Indeed, Mr. Blankley is right. The Speaker's position, which he is so desperate to run away from, as are all of his followers who here in this Republican Congress thought merely following the Speaker 90 percent of the time to cut Medicare was a sign of disloyalty, you ought to be there with him every time you get an opportunity to cut Medicare, those folks want to reinterpret his remarks this year. They want to tell television stations they will be intimidated by a crew of the biggest thick carpet lawyers that they can find to sue them if they run the Speaker's own words with him saying let Medicare wither on the vine. This crowd of people were the same ones who cheered last year when the No. 2 Republican, Dick Armey of my own State of Texas, was saying that he though Medicare was an imposition on his freedom, to use his words. He said he would have never voted for Medicare in the first place and would like to see its demise. He also was demonstrating his gardening ability and the desire that Medicare wither on the vine. But it was the very same day that Speaker Gingrich gave this speech, October 24, 1995, that Bob Dole, the other half of the Dole-Gingrich ticket that we have this year, Bob Dole was telling a group on that same day at another part of our country that he was proud, to use his words, proud to have been 1 of 12 people who stood up and voted against Medicare because he did not think it would work in 1965. Yes; some three decades ago and a year, Bob Dole was here in the Congress voting against Medicare because he did not think it would work. I would have to say to his credit, at least he is not trying to run away from his comments the way these Republicans are determined to run away from the comment that they want Medicare to wither on the vine, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] commented a few minutes ago. The are scared to death that the American people are going to understand their determination to destroy the Medicare system as soon as they can pick up a few more votes in this election cycle. Meanwhile, let us distract the American people and everything else, but come 1997, let it wither on the vine.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what a contrast in Speaker Gingrich's gardening abilities. When it comes to Medicare, he says, let it wither on the vine. But when it comes to the special interest money trees here in Washington, he says, water them, fertilize them. Give them lots of fertilizer. Give them tender loving care. He is all green thumbs for special interest campaign money, for, despite his handshake with President Clinton last year and a very pleasant smile in New Hampshire, he did nothing for months on the issue of campaign finance reform so that nothing would occur in this 1996 election. Then when he finally spoke, his view was that the independent organizations who demanded real reform of our election system, they had it all wrong. What America needs is not less campaign spending but more, lots more campaign spending. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the issue of reforming this Congress, he said, we will have a week next year and we will call it reform week. That was last week and now it has been canceled. America needs a new gardener.