Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman will yield, I do approach this whole issue from a little different perspective from some of my colleagues who have been here for a longer time, coming here new, having at the beginning of this year just finished up a 6-year period on the Texas Supreme Court, chairing its Ethics Task Force, wanting to be sure that this process is fair to the Speaker or to anyone else who might be accused in this body of ethical lapse, ethical wrongdoing. I have not participated in any of the earlier letters or the press conferences, because it had been my hope that this ethics process, which is set up to be a nonpartisan and I think has been nonpartisan in the past, would operate, would provide due process. Yet almost from the outset, the response to the complaints that have been filed there from the Speaker has been one of attempting, instead of really providing a reasonable defense, has been one of attacking the accuser, even to the point of intimidation, of saying well, we will pass legislation here that would require anyone who complains about ethics to pay the attorney's fees of the person against whom the complaint is made. That seems to me to be the kind of special legislation that serves to intimidate, rather than to clarify and to ensure that this House meets the highest ethical standards that I think this Nation has a right to demand. Then, leaving and entrusting this responsibility to the Committee on Ethics, we were first told they were just too busy, because they had their contract on America and they did not have time to look at the contract with Rupert Murdoch; that there was not time enough to pass the contract and consider that other contract, that $4.5 million book deal that was looming out there. They did not have time to consider that. So we waited through the 100 days for the contract to be passed, and justice was really delayed. Then the congressional recess came along. Well, we are taking a little vacation. We do not have time to look at these very serious ethical charges against the Speaker over the book deal because of the fact that we are on recess. So justice was again delayed. Now apparently justice is going to be delayed through another congressional recess with the chair of the committee saying that it will be sometime after Memorial Day, and I would inquire of the gentlewoman, apparently there is some discussion in the Washington Post that there is a deadlock and the goal may be justice delayed, justice denied by never giving us an answer on these very serious charges that we wanted the Speaker to have due process. But process is due now to respond to these charges, is it not?

Mr. DOGGETT. I wanted to inquire of the gentlewoman about that.

Mr. DOGGETT. Is it true there are more telecommunication lobbyists here than there are Members?

Mr. DOGGETT. Is not one of those key issues in the telecommunications bill, which I believe is being marked up, perhaps, even as we speak for consideration there in the Committee on Commerce, one of the real issues about those foreign shoes that are there, about whether or not the media of America are going to be owned, foreign ownership, by people like Rupert Murdoch?

Mr. DOGGETT. On the same day that the letter is filed that we are now, apparently, going to be denied an opportunity to talk about with one committee of this House, another committee of this House is there marking up a telecommunications bill, deciding whether Rupert Murdoch and other foreign interests can come in and can take over the media outlets which report what it is we can and cannot say on the floor of this House. That is one very big interest, in addition to the great tax break that he got, that the gentleman from Australia has at stake here. In between signing book deals, there is the matter of a few tens of millions here, and then I guess with the telecommunications, we are not talking about tens of millions or hundreds of millions, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars that are at stake. That is why all these hundreds of lobbyists are around here, is that not correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. I would ask the gentlewoman, there may be some people, and I am sure that was a concern with this letter, who view themselves as little more than a butler for the super-rich, the kind of people who go around with a tray saying, ``Here, Jeeves,'' or ``Here, whoever it might be,'' and for whom $4.5 million is little more than a good tip. When you have something at stake, and the gentlewoman mentioned the Public Broadcasting System, the only really quality children's programming in this country, and yet there are people right there in the well of the House who stood up and attacked it as socialist television, who criticized the Big Bird lobby, and yet are there not some of those super-rich from other parts of the world who if they can take over the Public Broadcasting System and can run it as a giant commercial enterprise instead of a truly publicly supported television system like we have in Texas and a public radio network, a national radio network that is public that all the people have a chance to participate in without commercial enterprise, should that happen, would $4.5 million for a book deal not be little more than a good tip?

Mr. DOGGETT. I suspect that that is rather true. I know the gentlewoman shares my commitment to a truly free enterprise system. But that free enterprise system relying on private capital, relying on the hard work of millions of American families who have made this the greatest country in the world, that can be perverted when people get special favors here and they say they are for free enterprise and against socialism, but they do not really want free enterprise. They are willing to pay out substantial amounts of money to those who would peddle influence in the most sacred institution of this country, who would pay out millions of dollars because they have billions and trillions at stake. That is the kind of thing that motivates a letter to say, let's not delay justice. The American people demand justice. They demand justice even if it involves a person who says he is the [[Page H5603]] third most important person in this entire country. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. DOGGETT. May I inquire of the gentlewoman, since I am new to this body, concerning the way these matters have been handled in this House before? This is not the first Speaker against whom charges have been made, nor is it the first Member of this House against whom charges have been made. When those kind of events have happened in the past, might you inform the House today and the American people about how the House has assured that there would not be a biased investigation? The Speaker charges bias, he says these are all politically motivated charges. Can you tell us what the best way is to get at those charges and determine whether they are blessed or whether they represent a selling of public office?

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman will yield, if the real concern, the real motivation were to get away from politics and really get to the bottom and find out if public office has been sold, whether it was for $4.5 million or whatever the amount involved, whether there had been abuse of public office, whether there had been a violation of the ethics standards that the American people have every right to demand that this body, all the Members of this body, Democrat and Republican alike, [[Page H5599]] abide by, would not the best way to get to the bottom of that be to get someone, not a Member of this body, not owing allegiance to either party, but to get to the bottom of it, just as quickly as possible, and someone, of course, who would have the power not to take little snippets over the press or to take little sound bites over television, snidely attacking one's critics, but rather could put people under oath, ask them to raise their hand, ask them to place a hand on the Bible, and put them under oath, so we can know the truth, so that their veracity can be tested and get to the very bottom of the charges and determine whether they were justified or not.

Mr. DOGGETT. Down in Texas, it is said that, if you do not have the facts on your side on a case, you argue the law. And if you do not have the law on your side either, then you attack the attorney or the complainant on the other side. That seems to be what is occurring here: That lacking the facts to support a position, to defend a position in public, lacking the law, since the ethical standards are set out for all Members in this regard, that instead of relying on the law or the facts, that the Speaker chooses to attack those that complain against him.

Mr. DOGGETT. There are airlines down where I come from that advertise peanuts fares, that you can actually fly around the country for peanuts or you can take somebody else along. But you are going to get a dollar and you can fly to 35 cities around the country.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, it is a very serious matter that we talk about. It is disturbing to not have action, to see justice delayed. But as I look over some of the news reports about this tour, on a lighter note, it sounds like one of these, a concert tour, the notion that Rupert Murdoch and the Speaker together have this joint venture and that this will be the biggest thing since the Eagles went on tour. I know they packed a whole stadium down in Austin, TX. I want to be sure that Austin gets included. I am sure you want Boulder and Denver included on the tour, especially if questions will be permitted so that the people these can ask questions about all this. I do not know whether they will put out T shirts for the Speaker-- Murdoch tour on not, so that everyone can share and know all the sites where this tour is being conducted. But it is a mighty strange thing to right in the middle of what is supposed to be a district work period to have, I guess, some major publishing company of Mr. Murdoch finance this 35-city tour with T shirts and promotions and whatever else might be involved, unless and lest anyone think as well that we lack humor in this or that we lack bipartisanship, I am wondering if the gentlewoman is familiar with today's New York Daily News. Today's New York Daily News quotes Kevin Phillips, a Republican political analyst, who says, ``You have to wonder whether Gingrich is''---- parliamentary inquiries

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Surprised, indeed. Because though there were 19 transactions that were disapproved, when it came back from conference committee, there was one deal that was approved and that one deal was for Mr. Rupert Murdoch. I guess just a coincidence perhaps with what had been going on in the dealings with Mr. Murdoch having been involved in book deals with the Saudis, with book deals with Margaret Thatcher, with book deals with the daughter of Deng Xiaoping in China, just a coincidence that one of the many deals that he would benefit from that are the subject of action in this House and this Congress of the United States at the same time that all of these concerns were raised about a book deal in this House, that he is the only one in the whole country who gets his special deal cut out. Does the gentlewoman remember the debate about that measure here on the floor of the House and the fact that when you say surprise, surprise indeed, because there was never one word mentioned. And again, had it not been for careful journalism, we would never have known it was even in there, because it did not say Rupert Murdoch. It simply changed a date in the bill, tucked away a hidden provision in secret, done in secret, never mentioned on the floor of this House, to benefit Rupert Murdoch and no one else.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if I might make a related parliamentary inquiry, because I referred to it generally earlier, but I would like to be sure that the Speaker is clear about the nature of my inquiry, about the rights of Members on this floor, on March 8, right here, the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, said, and I quote: The fact is Members of the House are allowed to say virtually anything on the House floor, routinely do. It is protected, and has been for 200 years. It is written into the Constitution under the speech and debate clause. My inquiry to the Chair is whether the Speaker's pronouncement controls in the discussion that the gentlewoman from Colorado and I are having, and that others may choose to have about the Speaker, or was the Speaker just mistaken in his constitutional analysis?

Mr. DOGGETT. I think they were just across the hall here in the Rayburn Room, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Chair is aware that the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, until very recently gave daily pronouncements there. This is a transcript, verbatim. I would not misquote the Speaker. I would be glad to provide the Chair, in connection with my parliamentary inquiry, his commitment to freedom of expression, which surely must apply to discussion of his own conduct.

Mr. DOGGETT. One aspect that we have not discussed thus far in the course of this colloquy about this very serious matter with reference to Mr. Murdoch are the interests that Mr. Murdoch has pending here in Congress and has had pending during this session of the Congress. The gentlewoman will recall that there was a special provision passed here with regard to taxes, with regard to health insurance for the self-employed. And while that bill had a very important and salutary purpose, to try to help those who are self-employed with the cost of health insurance, since this Congress is doing little or nothing about the health needs of American citizens, there was a provision tacked into it to pay for that provision that concerned various deals with minority broadcasters. I am wondering if the gentlewoman recalls that there were 19 business transactions around this country that were encompassed by that provision. And when it went out of this House, the very body that we are speaking in, and over to the Senate, all 19 of those deals were disapproved.

Mr. DOGGETT. In March of this year, Speaker Gingrich announced that under the speech and debate clause applying to this Congress that Members were free to speak on any subject at any time. I am wondering if that pronouncement does not control in a situation that applies to the Speaker as well.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOGGETT. It does seem to be peculiar, Mr. Speaker, because one would hope and one would think that we could rely on the official pronouncements of the Speaker of the House concerning the right of Members, that he says has been protected for 200 years under the U.S. Constitution, to discuss matters, and that those matters ought to apply to him as well as to other people. In compliance with the ruling of the Chair, I would hope that the gentlewoman might discuss with me a little bit this whole question of freedom of expression. I certainly do not want to leave the topic of Mr. Murdoch, because that is clearly not covered by the Chair's rulings. I think that needs to be explored further, given the nature of the letter that has been submitted today. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlewoman, is it not truly vital to this institution that we be able to engage in discussions, in debate and colloquy, about the standards of conduct that people express? I know, I heard many people say last year, before I ever came to this body, they were not content with business as usual, that they wanted real change here; that they wanted constructive change, that they wanted Members of this Congress, certainly the Speaker of the House, to abide by the same ethical standards that they expected of the people that they went to church with and went to temple with, that they should have to meet those standards. If we cannot debate that here on the floor of the House, and we cannot go into the secret committee meeting that the public does not get a chance to observe, how can we really fulfill that responsibility that the American people have said ``Change business as usual''?

Mr. DOGGETT. It is hard to guess. I know some were supposed to need to see their analysts just for having the audacity to make ethical complaints. I do find all this--I am still trying to learn the rules here as a brand new Member, not having been a part of the system that existed. If those are the rules, it seems to me we need, if within these very restrictive rulings it is permissible to do so, to look at those rules, to look at the way the ethics process is done here, and see whether we are really fulfilling our responsibility to the American people to assure the highest ethical standards. I suppose if there is not another opportunity to do that, and we are precluded from doing that here, perhaps in the midst of this tour that is going to take place that we have written about today, this tour that is like a rock star tour to go gallivanting around the country, 35 or 36 different cities in your State I am sure, and in mine, that perhaps we could go out and talk with the American people ourselves during the course of that tour and ask them for their thoughts as to whether they think their elected representatives, Democrat and Republican alike, ought to be able to stand there on the floor of the House, ought to be empowered by the voters across this country to stand here on the floor of the House and at least be able to discuss the ethics of the Speaker of the House, the third most powerful person in the entire country, and who may think he is even more powerful than being No. 3.

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I do not want to call names, but I do think, and I want to comply with the ruling of the Chair, I think it is within the ruling that we do have to go back and take up one name, and that is Mr. Rupert Murdoch. I am not talking about the $4.5 million book deal. I am talking about Mr. Murdoch and his legislative interest here. We have talked about the fact that of all the people in the world, he is the one that got the special hidden tax break, the tax break this House was never told about. He made tens of millions of dollars that were at stake there. That has already happened this year. That is one gift that he has already gotten, with all the influence that he has with the Speaker and other Members of the House, is this special tax break, corporate welfare.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, to add a word or two at this point.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Ways and Means, a Member of this house who has worked long and hard to try to protect our Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Yesterday the U.S. Senate chose to perform heart surgery. Sixty-nine Members, including 23 Republicans in that body, decided to remove from the budget resolution any tax cut for the privileged. That is good news for Americans. We are still not there. We still do not have a reasonable budget resolution, but the fact that that heart surgery occurred over there in the Senate with joint bipartisan participation to add some reason to the budget resolution speaks volumes for Medicare recipients, speaks volumes for young people in this country, certainly speaks to the needs of Tina Henderson and her daughter Erica in my district who stand to lose substantially on student loans and student assistance, if the budget resolution the House passed is ever written into law.