Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I look forward to it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about taxes. In fact let us talk about the taxes that are going to be raised today in this Newt Gingrich Congress. First of course is the sick tax. To be old or disabled in America is to have the opportunity to pay more and get less health care. It is a tax on being sick to finance a tax break for those who are well, very well, very well off. Then there is Newt Gingrich's new tax on work. That is right. The Americans who earn less than $30,000 will be paying more taxes after today, if Mr. Gingrich has his way. To those who are off welfare, who walk past the drug dealer to get to the bus stop, to go across town to empty the bed pan at the nursing home, to the young mother who is off welfare, who is struggling to get child care, who is going across town to sack up another burger and fries, to those people taxes are going to go up after today. They may call that no new taxes, it is at least Newt's taxes.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, our Republican budget chairman is correct. The pendulum of power has swung. It has swung smack-dab into the faces of American seniors, smack-dab into the faces of students trying to get a full education and into the faces of working Americans who want to claim a share of the American dream. They give us a new sick tax for the old. They raise new barriers to education for the young and more taxes on working Americans. That is why we call this Republican bill wreckonciliation; it is a wreck for working American families. Of course, they spell it different. They leave off the W. They call it reconciliation, like after a divorce. But you know, they are still so divorced from reality in America, the reality of what it is to work hard, to try to make ends meet for a family, the reality of what it is to survive on a Social Security check and rely on America, so divorced from a reality that their spokesman, our Republican colleague from North Carolina, thinks $183,000 is lower middle class.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor to the legislation of the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].

Mr. DOGGETT. I am not only willing to cosponsor it, I am willing to vote for it today, and that is what I am asking for, a vote on her particular proposal, but what she wants is to delay it----

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what is happening here this morning is truly amazing. By this rule, we set the order of debate here in this House, and last night we were given an indication of what the order of debate would be, and again, as recently as a few hours ago this morning we were given an indication of what the order of debate would be in the official Republican whip notice. That order was to consider the legislative branch appropriations bill. With that in mind, the Democratic Caucus met this morning and overwhelmingly voted to support the gift ban legislation, the gift ban rule to be more specific, that the Senate has approved on a bipartisan basis 98 to 0. However, for some reason, bipartisanship in this building stops in the middle of the Capitol rotunda, because instead of dealing with the issue of gifts this morning, we are dealing with another piece of legislation all along. What has happened is, a giant pulled stamp should be put on the legislative appropriations bill. Right after the Democratic Caucus votes for reform, and tries to change business as usual here, deal with this issue of gifts, what happens? The measure is pulled. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that it is appropriate for this body to focus on reforming itself before, not after, it deals with all of these substantive issues. It is particularly ironic, given the fact that the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] has circulated a letter to all of her colleagues in favor of gift ban reform, and yet we have had opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to vote on it, not just to talk about it, not just to issue a press release about it, not just to posture about it, but to vote about it and do something about these gifts, and the Republican majority has continually voted the other way, voted against reform from the first day of this session when a gift ban item came up. Through June, twice, through July, and in October of this year, the last time the legislative branch appropriations were up, the same thing happened, and now today, when we have an opportunity to look in this box and see what gifts people can still be given, the snow is about to fall, I understand, in Colorado, where the gentlewoman from Colorado just spoke. You need a trip to the ski slopes? It is still permitted. You need a little chateaubriand and Cabernet Sauvignon? It is still permitted. Do you need tickets to the World Series or the Super Bowl? It is still permitted to be a gift to Members of this body. The only thing that is preventing that problem being dealt with here as our colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike have dealt with it in the U.S. Senate, is the obstructionism and the objection of Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership. Indeed, the first vote that we took on this issue when every single Republican voted against gift reform was on the first day of this session, where people stood at this very spot and said, let us change business as usual, let us clean up the relationship between legislators and lobbyists, and the response of Speaker Gingrich to that initiative was that ``it was an astonishingly narrow and self-destructive act.'' What a comment by those who claim to be revolutionaries, who say they really want to change the way business operates in this House. It is time to address the issue of gifts, and no amount of press releases and no amount of speeches can make up for the continual delay. At every opportunity immediately after action is called for and a united Democratic Caucus gets behind this issue, the Members of the Republican Party jerk it from the agenda. The American people are not going to stand for continual delay, for continued obstructionism, for continued objection to really changing the way this business of the Congress operates. They want an open House. They want the kind of revolution they were promised but have not gotten from our Republican colleagues. This is a bill about transportation. It deals with railroads. It deals with highways. It deals with airplanes. Whether you fly, you ride the rails, or you take a trip somewhere, this can still occur today under the rules that do not apply in this House. Last year the Democratic Congress, before I ever got here, passed a rule to deal with that, passed it twice, and it was killed by Republicans in the Senate. This year we have asked for action on it again. All we get is it pulled from the agenda so that the legitimate desires of the American people to deal with the issue of real reform in this body, changing business as usual, have been thwarted. If the American people make their voice known that they want real change, not just phony change, we are going to get that change.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be sure that I am clear about what the gentlewoman has said. As I understand, her position is we do not take up gift ban this morning because we will have an announcement of a time at some future time, sometime this year, next year, when the majority leader will tell us that we can take up gift ban.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, under this particular resolution, is the legislative branch appropriation affected by this particular rule, or is it exclusively the Transportation branch?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, since the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] has herself circulated a letter on this gift ban issue, does this resolution and rule permit the offering of gift ban or lobby reform legislation, as the Republican whip notice said we would have an opportunity to consider this morning?

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, and with reference to the scheduling, she is not suggesting, I am sure she was here when I queried the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], about this at the conclusion of business last night. She is not suggesting that the additional 3 hours of debate which was scheduled for tonight until the legislative branch appropriations was pulled, that that has anything to do with this gift ban, is she?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague from California, while he may have made some changes that Democrats recommended in the last Congress, when it came to separating the lobby and the legislators, he has done absolutely nothing. The only lobby this group cares about are the Girl Scouts and Catholic charities. They are all worked up about them lobbying. But when it comes to polluters, when it comes to loophole lawyers, they have done nothing but to fill this box to overflowing with gifts for Members of this House. The comments of the gentlewoman from Utah are absolutely amazing. I stood on this floor last night and asked the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] myself about the schedule for today. There was no suggestion that there would not be time today to take up the issue of gifts. Quite the contrary, he indicated we would be debating on into the evening with reference to this issue. The suggestion that we need to have a hearing is an unusual one because the lobby reform bill, if the gentlewoman will go up to the Speaker's dais, she will find it sitting there. It has been sitting there since it passed the Senate, not even a referral from the Speaker of the lobby reform bill. With reference to the gift ban itself, it is true that there was a secret closed-door meeting in front of the Ethics Committee concerning the possibility of a gift ban. They have had weeks and months to act on it, just as this body has had an opportunity to act. The suggestion that we ought to delay again today in order to wait not for action but for another promise from the majority leader that maybe some day, some year, some week, some month we will get around to doing something about this problem of gifts and lobby reform is the only thing crazy that I have heard, with all due respect to the gentleman from California who used that phrase. I suggest that, when the House has had an opportunity to vote on this measure and has been continually thwarted, it is time to give us an opportunity to take up the issue again today. There is no reason, this body will finish its business by mid-afternoon under this new schedule. There is absolutely no way that this Congress cannot reform itself today, if we were permitted to do so.

Mr. DOGGETT. The gentleman is aware that I was the third person in this House to call for a discharge petition on the gift ban last spring, long before the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] bothered to even initiate any action, but if it is such a good idea, why do we not pass her bill today?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Then, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take up and consider that bill at this time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Is the gentleman aware that Speaker Gingrich has kept since July 26 the lobby reform bill that the gentlewoman wants an announcement for us to wait on? It has been sitting there since July 26 and has not even been referred to a committee for any hearing or any appropriate action.

Mr. DOGGETT. She could do it right now by unanimous-consent request.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am asking unanimous consent.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. I have here the Republican whip notice saying here that the first item of business this morning will be the legislative branch appropriations, and the very gift ban and lobby reform the gentleman refers to. Is it true that after the vote of the Democratic Caucus calling for immediate gift ban reform this morning, that that has been pulled from the agenda and we will not have a chance to have a gift ban reform and lobby reform considered today?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I think that does answer the question. There is no reason that they could offer other than to thwart President Clinton.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize this line-item veto is only half of the line-item veto that we were offered in the Contract With America. The portion about giving line-item power to remove tax loopholes, that went out the door anyway, and now the question is whether we get the other half on spending, and I would just yield the rest of my time to anyone on the Republican side that can explain why it took the Speaker from the spring to September 20 to appoint conferees. If there is any explanation other than to thwart President Clinton's use of it, I would love to hear it. Clearly, the only reason was to thwart President Clinton's use of the line-item veto to get at pork barrel. If there is any other reason why the Senate appointed conferees in March and April, the House had to wait to name those five conferees all that time, this would be a good time to explain it.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was a little naive when I came here on the evening of February 6 to speak in favor of this line-item veto initiative. You see, I labored as a new Member under the misimpression that there might be a way for some genuine bipartisan participation to do something about the budget deficit, to provide some new tools to get a handle on this Nation's financing, and to change business as usual in this House. So I, along with other Members on the Democratic side of the aisle, spoke in favor of the Republican initiative on the line-item veto. We have it in Texas. Democrats and Republican Governors alike have used the line-item veto and have used it effectively. I was particularly impressed with the last speaker on the night of February 6 on this issue, the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. This was not a speech like so many, one of these gloating speeches about we won and you are dumb. No; this was a serious speech in favor of the line-item veto in which Speaker Gingrich allowed as how he as a Republican in an act of bipartisanship wanted to be sure that President Clinton, a Democrat, had the line-item veto power in order to get at pork barrel in this budget. What happened after all the speeches were said and done? Well, the Senate on a bipartisan basis proceeded to act, and they passed the measure. By March or April, they had appointed conferees to consider the line-item veto. And what happened at this rostrum? Nothing. Nothing happened. Nothing happened in March, nothing happened in April, nothing happened in May, nothing happened in June, nothing happened in July, nothing happened in August, and nothing happened through most of the month of September because despite the fine speech that was given here, the Speaker did not want to give President Clinton the power to use the line-item veto to cut through this pork that has been put in these appropriations bills. That is not my opinion alone. Various Republican Members of the U.S. Senate have voiced the same concern about the delay that has transpired month after month, that it was all talk and no action. We saw the very same thing happen here this morning. There is a lobby reform bill that the Senate on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats coming together, passed 98 to 0. What happens to it over here? It is still sitting there this afternoon. It has been sitting there for 3 months. The Speaker will not even refer this lobby reform bill to a committee to study it. That is not revolutionary, despite all the proclamations that have been made here about these great revolutionaries reforming the way the budget is handled, reforming the way this House acts, but it is a little revolting that we cannot get bipartisanship to resolve these problems. I salute the gentleman from Florida for coming here and keeping his word. These people may break their word about what they say they are willing to do on line-item veto but at least you are providing us another opportunity to really come to grips with this problem.