Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman who has often utilized that freedom of speech to provide some of the more interesting special orders here, and perhaps as we carry on this reservation with some discussion about the implications of doing this, you can get some indication from your leadership whether both sides will have that opportunity.

Mr. DOGGETT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. In that regard then, if I am no longer able to do my reservation and I make objection at this time, will the gentleman be able to make his unanimous consent request again later in the day?

Mr. DOGGETT. No; I am not withdrawing. I am going to make an objection, if that is the case. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DOGGETT. He has never given me that key, but I invite your doing that, because I think there are going to be some other people that want to be heard on my reservation, and I cannot yield the floor on this point, but I think we will be here long enough to give you time to get some answer.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. DOGGETT. It is the second time this week, although Mr. Dornan may not know it.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. DOGGETT. You are going to inquire about that?

Mr. DOGGETT. That is what I am concerned about, through he is an amicable fellow and a fellow Texan, I do not know what he means by that. He may mean never.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, let me inquire, do I understand this is a unanimous-consent request where you are asking everyone in good faith, in goodwill, to permit you to take up this measure to continue a statute that is about to expire; is that right?

Mr. DOGGETT. The gentleman from Maryland, just before you arose, was asking for the same type of good faith and goodwill with regard to the standard procedure in this body when we recess, giving other Members an opportunity to get up on special orders and have their say with reference to what is occurring here. I am wondering if we could have any more guidance as to whether, when we complete this measure, we will have that opportunity, if we showed good faith and goodwill with reference to this unanimous consent request, if there will be an opportunity for Members on both sides of the aisle to have their say this afternoon about some of the things that are occurring here, or whether we are to be muzzled.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is an ad in Roll Call offering the million dollars for anyone who can demonstrate the Republicans are cutting Medicare, and I suggest there are almost 200 Democrats here who are entitled to share in that million dollars. But I would like to respond to the last speaker on this whole issue of ethics, because of course that $1 million pales by comparison to the $4.5 million that was at stake with reference to the Speaker's book deal. All this talk of partisanship, look at the nonpartisan conclusion of the House Ethics Committee, that the book deal was so bad we need a new rule with regard to books and royalties. What is the response of the Republican leadership? Speaker Gingrich says we need to delay it. The chairman of the House Committee on Rules says the Ethics Committee, Republican and Democrats, and I quote, ``ought to be horse whipped'' if they think he is obligated to accept a new proposal to limit book royalties. I would suggest there is bipartisan support for ethics but opine that it apply to the Speaker, also.

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, those who saw the scheduling colloquy a few minutes ago absorbed another very peculiar development here in the House. You see, at 2 in the afternoon, at 3 o'clock perhaps, a little bit in the middle of the workday for most American families, the House quit for the day. We are now at a point in our debate where we can debate some of the issues, but the official proceedings, here in the middle of the workday the House concluded its proceedings. This is at a time when we near a Government shutdown, two of the conference reports on appropriations bills have not even been presented to this House, and according to the scheduling colloquy, it appears that one of them, one of the two, is a possibility for tomorrow, on the shutdown day, and the other one we got no indication of whatsoever. The even more peculiar thing about this hurry-up-and-wait schedule that exists here in the Congress was the portion of the scheduling colloquy that related to the subject of ethics. It was only about a week ago that not just any bill but a measure concerning a rule on book royalties was referred not by just a Democrat, or not just by a Republican, but by the unanimous vote of an equally divided committee, half Republicans and half Democrats, the House Ethics Committee asked for a unanimous rule, or asked for a rule unanimously, I might say, to be in effect by the end of this year concerning book royalties. It was sent over to the Committee on Rules. Members will recall that they took this action in a letter dated December 6, upbraiding and reprimanding the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] in regard to books and in regard to repeated ethical violations here in the House. After finding three clear violations of the rules of conduct of the House, they said in addition, with regard to the book ``To Renew America,'' the one published through Mr. Murdoch's company, they said that Concerning the publication of your book ``To Renew America,'' while the amount involved greatly exceeds the financial bounds of any book contract contemplated at the time the current rules were drafted, the committee strongly questions the appropriateness of what could be described as an attempt by you to capitalize on your office with reference to this book. They go on to say that, at a minimum, what the Speaker has done creates the impression, and this is their words, this bipartisan committee, ``* * * of exploiting one's office for personal gain.'' They say the conduct was basically at such a level that to be sure no other Member of this House ever does this again, we need a rule on the books, the same kind of rule that would have been on the books had there been any real commitment to true ethical reform in this House on the first day back on January 4, 1995, because that is when it could have been adopted and when it should have been adopted. But even after waiting almost a year, they say unanimously on a bipartisan basis, ``Such a perception'' regarding this book, and again I quote them, ``is especially troubling when it pertains to the office of the Speaker of the House, a constitutional office regarding the highest standards of ethical conduct, and so the committee has drafted an amendment to the House rules to treat income from book royalties as part of outside earned income subject to the annual limit of House rule 47. The committee will propose this resolution to take effect January 1, 1996.'' Mr. Speaker, when asked about that today, the majority leader said, ``I will not prejudge the committee process. Anybody can go file a bill. Maybe the Committee on Rules will get to it and maybe it will not.'' He knows full well from reading the morning papers that the chairman of the Committee on Rules has said, and I quote, that he is ``unalterably opposed to even the concept that you would want to limit book royalties''; that is to say, unalterably opposed to doing what a unanimous Ethics Committee recommended because of the scandal associated with the Speaker's book contract with Rupert Murdoch. So apparently we are going to approach this week, we are going to approach next week, we are going to approach the end of 1995, and have no real ethics reform. Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, this is not the result of the action of one chair of one committee. The Speaker could bring this rule change to the floor right now. It need not wait until the sun sets, if it ever does here in Washington today. No, indeed. We could be moving forward on the issue of ethics, but in this House, whether it is lobby reform or gift ban or campaign finance reform, the slogan seems to be ``Just say no or just say Newt.'' They seem to mean the same thing.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to substitute my name for that of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] during special orders.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, after reading the report of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, it is little wonder that some of its Members drug their feet for 14 months, because it reflects a pattern of ethical abuse. [[Page H 14180]] Charge: Misuse of the House floor for apparently commercial purposes. Finding: Gingrich guilty. Charge: Improper promotion of GOPAC. Finding: Gingrich guilty. Charge: Commingling of political and official resources. Finding: Gingirch guilty. And the Rupert Murdoch book deal, so bad that the committee on a bipartisan basis strongly questions the appropriateness of what some will call capitalizing on your office and says we need even a new rule because of this impression of exploiting one's office for personal gain. Now, all the GOPAC dealings, the tentacles of GOPAC, the tax-free foundations, the book deal, the college course, so bad that they have called in an independent counsel. Not some tax adviser from H&R Block, but an independent prosecutor to get to the bottom of this. Until that is done, an ethical cloud is going to linger over this Congress.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today is an important day for law enforcement across America. Our Republican friends want to raid the crime trust fund and jerk a commitment of 100,000 police officers who will be on our streets, protecting our neighborhoods. It is time to stand up for our cops. And what about law enforcement in our own neighborhood, right here on the floor of Congress? Twice now the American people have been denied the right to know what the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has been doing the last 14 months concerning these serious ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich. Finally, our Republican colleagues seem willing to permit an outside real prosecutor, so long as that prosecutor's hands are tied and bound from doing anything about the serious charges of [[Page H 14028]] illegal GOPAC campaign contributions, about the $250,000 of Newt's support, as they call it, for Speaker Gingrich. As the nonpartisan citizens action group, Common Cause, said yesterday, in calling for the recusal and removal of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct chairman, ``What is at stake is the integrity of the House ethics process.'' It is time to end the coverup and stand up for law enforcement.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we have only one difference about this matter. We just happen to think that cops on the streets of America speak a heck of a lot louder than all these political promises in Washington, and here are some of those police officers. This is their graduation picture in Austin, TX, and they are out patrolling the streets and the neighborhoods of America making Austin and central Texas safer because they are on the street instead of in some political promise. Last year they said it could not be done, but this Congress, the last Congress, the Democratic Congress, had the courage to pass a smart, comprehensive anticrime bill, and it pledged to put 100,000 police officers on the streets and neighborhoods across the country. They said it could not be done. Well, there are already 26,000 new officers on the street. What do they propose as an alternative? They are going to have a comment period for the State bureaucracy, for the Governors of the States of the country to comment on whether or not these local requests for new cops are appropriate. That comment period is longer than it took the city of Austin to get approval to put these new law enforcement officers in cadet academies. That is a substitution of bureaucracy to go along with all the political rhetoric instead of backing up our law enforcement officers. The idea that we will have some block grant program that requires the approval of a State bureaucracy that will not guarantee one single new law enforcement officer to back up these young men and woman who have dedicated their lives to protecting the security and the safety of their neighbors is flat wrong. These young people, according to our police chief, Elizabeth Watson, are out there working to build neighborhood enforcement teams. Instead of roving gangs, we have roving bands of law enforcement officers protecting our neighbors. The idea of a block grant program with no definition, no guarantees, no direction, does not provide the assurance we need for personal security in America today.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, one of the many reasons for opposing this conference report is because of the threat that it poses to America's economic security. We have in recent years in this country recognized that research and development is a key to our economic future, that if we are to have good-paying jobs for young Americans, we have to invest and invest appropriately in research and development. This bill, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] just indicated, is not nearly as bad as the one that went to the conference committee, remains a real setback with reference to applied technology and the investment that is going to be necessary to assure that those good jobs are there in the future. Over the last 50 years, Mr. Speaker, American know-how and invention have generated up to half of this country's economic growth. Federal support is crucial in assisting this. Millions of jobs have been created in industries because of wise private and public investments, particularly when there has been private and public partnership in areas like semiconductors and biotechnology. Let us compare what we are doing under this bill with what some of the other countries in the world are doing. In fact, if we are to look specifically at Japan, one of our strongest economic competitors, after this bill is passed, you see that the Japanese are steadily increasing their investment in nondefense research and development, but our investment will go steadily down. It is going in the wrong direction. We do a little investment; they take the ideas and commercialize them, and we end up being the consumers and having a huge trade deficit as a result. What about other countries throughout Asia that are our economic partners at times, but also our strong economic competitors? If you look at Singapore, if you look at South Korea, if you look at Taiwan, even if you look at India, you see that their commitment to expand their research and development is significantly greater than what our Republican colleagues propose to do under this bill. To suggest that the private sector can pick up all of the slack does not comport with history. Indeed, it is quite the contrary. Usually when public investment goes up, private investment goes up as well. When you cut key research and development, as this bill does through the irresponsible abolition of the Advanced Technology Program, you will have less private investment as well as less public investment. The cuts in ATP, in the Environmental Protection Agency's environmental technologies initiative and the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs all represent a significant setback. I think the editorial writers across America have been picking up on the wrong this Congress is doing with reference to our investment for America's future. The Republican Dallas Morning News put it very plainly in an editorial appropriately entitled ``Cutting Seed Corn.'' It said, ``These take-no-prisoners cuts are anything but thoughtful. Proposed budget cuts, while having little effect on the deficit,'' because this is a very small part of our national expenditures, ``while having little effect on the deficit, could main this country's network of scientific institutions.'' The New York Times referred to ``the crippling of American science as an irresponsible gamble and a product of those who have been blinded by ideological fury.'' We ought to have bipartisan support for America's economic security, for providing those good jobs, and instead this conference report whittles away at our future and whittles away at the hope that America can provide the top-paying jobs, the quality jobs, and overcome our trade deficit by cutting our research at the same time our trading partners are increasing theirs. It is a mistake, and this conference report ought to be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, new revelations about the intrigues at GOPAC have just been brought to light in documents filed in Federal court here in Washington. While now-Speaker Gingrich chaired GOPAC, apparently the go in GOPAC meant go beyond the law. GOPAC was little more than a slush fund to subvert the Federal election law. Quoting from those documents: GOPAC routinely and continuously provided what was described as Newt support, expenditures for projects especially for Newt. GOPAC paid political consultants to help Newt think. Helping Newt was described as probably the single highest priority we've got in dollars. The expenditures total for Newt's support a quarter of a million dollars, not one dime of which was reported in accordance with Federal law. Is it any wonder that Speaker Gingrich refuses to act promptly on meaningful reform of our campaign finance laws when he would not even comply with the laws that we have on the books today? The GOPAC scandal is not going to go away. It is a serious violation of our laws. The Ethics Committee cannot duck it and this House cannot dodge it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the question this afternoon is how long our Republican colleagues will be able to hold the lid down on the pressure cooker, the pressure cooker of the desires of the people of this country to see justice, to see the ethical cloud removed from the operations of this Congress. Today, we have seen that it will take a little bit longer, for, for the second time, this Congress has refused to even discuss in the light of day whether a committee of this Congress should come forward and tell us what it has been doing for the last 14 months with regard to charges concerning the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Republican colleagues can hold that pressure cooker lid down. They can stand on it. They can sit on it. They can jump up and down on it. But sooner or later, enough people in this country are going to care about the operations of this House and the ethics of this House that they are going to demand a report and demand action. We see the same concern with reference to the broader issue of the way all Members, the Speaker, myself, every Member of this institution, gets to this body with reference to the cost of campaigns. All over this country, people are expressing their concern about the operation of the campaign finance system. I think they are pleased that despite the Speaker, we moved forward and banned gifts from lobbyists to Members of this Congress. They are pleased that despite the Speaker holding at his desk for month, after month, after month, a lobby reform bill, there was finally enough pressure built up that the lid came off that pressure cooker and we passed a lobby reform bill this week, despite his effort. Now, Mr. Speaker, the big issue is campaign finance reform and whether there will be enough public interest to do something about that. The Speaker shook hands with President Clinton back in June in New Hampshire. They smiled at each other, it was a nice moment, and agreed that they would do something about campaign finance reform and what did they do? Well, the Speaker waited from June until November and then he came along and said, ``You know what we need is a commission to study this.'' A stall commission to delay it past the next election. Then the Speaker went on to elaborate in testimony in front of a committee of this House that what we need is not less money in the political process; we need more money. The Speaker said there is less money going into all these campaigns than the equivalent of two antiacid campaigns. I think that is enough to give Americans heartburn, as they think about the future of our political system and the ethics of our system. If they had reason for concern, they certainly have reason for concern today when they look at papers across this country and reports about the improper activities of GOPAC, a committee that--essentially the ``go'' in GOPAC meant it was OK to go beyond the law. In fact, after reading these stories, I now understand why it is that the Speaker thinks we need more money in the political process, that we are not spending enough on campaigns. That is because he has had a little more all along. He has had a little more through an organization called GOPAC that did not bother to comply with the Federal election laws, that according to the documents filed by the Federal Election Commission in Federal court here in Washington, apparently spent a quarter of a million dollars to benefit him in his reelection campaign a few years ago, an election campaign that he just barely made it back to this Congress, a pretty nice sum of additional money, maybe enough to promote antacid in Georgia, but certainly enough to get a person reelected outside and improperly, under our laws. Let me just speak a little bit about those court documents and quote from some of them. The Federal Election Commission told the Federal judge here in Washington: Hiding the identity of large contributors to organizations associated with elected officials and Federal candidates creates the appearance of corruption and makes enforcement of the act's other provisions unnecessarily difficult. This is exactly what GOPAC did. I am quoting the FEC on this. It did it for the avowed purpose of electing a majority of Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives. GOPAC's failure to register and file disclosure reports creates the appearance of corruption, and it is that appearance of corruption that the American people are learning about and eventually, no matter how many people you put on top of that pressure cooker, that lid is going to explode, and the demands of the American people for justice on this matter are going to be realized. I refer again to the documents filed in Federal court here by the Federal Election Commission. It said that, unlike the Republican National Committee and the other two Republican Party committees, where Gingrich's idea might be too controversial, GOPAC could be as bold as it wanted to be, and its only restriction was whether or not its donors wanted to keep donating. The only restriction on this issue is whether the American people will speak up firmly enough to demand we have justice both on the ethics charges against the Speaker and on the need to see that this kind of GOPAC big spending is ended.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we are so close. We are about this close from passing real lobby reform legislation, the length of the pen that the President of the United States can use to sign this into law. We have done it in a very contentious Congress, on a bipartisan basis, with people who said ``Yes, let us have a gift ban, and a strong gift ban,'' and who now, after almost 50 years, five decades, are this close, the length of a pen, to signing this into law and to make it the law of the land that we are reforming this Congress and regulating the lobby. Yes, I am very concerned about the lack of registration of foreign agents. There are some that are not registered. But for every one of them, there are dozens or hundreds of people that are domestic agents that are not registered under our laws today. I am concerned about the loss of jobs to other countries, but I am also concerned about the loss of the public interest from this Capitol building. Let us do what is [[Page H 13743]] right today: Defeat these amendments, place this on the President's desk, sign it into law this year, and then move on to reform our campaign finance laws, on a bipartisan basis also.