Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT. It does that. This is a question of whether you go even further than that bad old amendment that we passed back then.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to attempts to cut Medicare for our Nation's seniors, our Republican colleagues are trying to perform one huge magical illusion. I like magic tricks just about as much as the next person, but I prefer to see them in the circus, not here on the floor of Congress. Let us take a look at what is up the sleeves of the Gingrichites. They want to cut Medicare to 37 million seniors by about $900 each year. This painful cut is for the very men and women who we have been celebrating on this 50th anniversary of our victory in Europe, people that we here applauded, who fought for this country abroad, or who worked for it here at home. Yet, at this very time we find in the Committee on the Budget scheduled for tomorrow here in the House the Gingrichites' proposal to cut the Medicare benefits that are so critical to these senior citizens. I would say that David Copperfield should beware, because with the kind of magic being performed here and the kind of illusion here, this is an act that is ready for the Las Vegas strip.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Gingrichites took a poll, and now they are scurrying here, there, and everywhere searching for a way to dress up their plan to slash Medicare. The Gingrichites are understandably scared silly that the American public recognizes that what they have in mind is a raid of $305 billion from the Medicare trust fund to fund last month's $345 billion tax break for the privileged few. This week the Gingrichites say, well, Medicare is in such bad financial shape that it needs surgery to survive. Well, I ask, ``Why didn't they think about that last month when they were standing on this floor and they approved a contract tax bill that pulled out $56 billion from the Medicare trust fund?'' That is right, $56 billion from the same fund they now complain is going broke, and, having bled the trust fund, now they intend to start whacking off the benefits for America's seniors. The Gingrichites do not plan to salvage Medicare; they plan to savage it, and I think the American people are smart enough to recognize savagery when they see it, to know the difference between savagery and salvation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, in this case, of course, no one in the House was informed that this special deal had been put in for Mr. Murdoch. So how could that right have been exercised?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, do I understand the ruling then that the objection about the interference with the prerogatives of the House has to be made contemporaneously with the action complained of? Is that the ruling of the Chair?

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on the path to approve the Deficit Explosion Act last night, otherwise known as the campaign tax cut bill, the Gingrichites hit a roadblock. How they dealt with that roadblock was significant implications for the future of this Congress and this country. You will recall that on day one a rule was approved here requiring a three-fifths' vote for a tax hike. In all the talk of capital gains tax reduction yesterday, overlooked was the fact that the capital gains taxes were actually raised from 14 percent to 19 percent for many small companies in this country. How was that dealt with when it came time to apply the three-fifths' vote requirement? It was dodged, it was hedged. Instead they turned to the captive consultants of the Joint Tax Committee, who told us that we did not need a three-fifths vote because the basis for this conclusion relates generally to the fact that this provision would be inoperative as it relates to current law after the enactment of the pending legislation. Meaningless gobbledygook. If you strike a provision in one place and add another, it is not a tax increase? Well, taxpayer protection bit the dust last night.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, would it not be great if the Pollyannas and the supply-side ideologues were correct that the road ahead for America is paved with candy? I like candy as much as the next guy. I like tax cuts. They want to give a $500 tax credit per child? Why not $5,000 per child? Because somebody has got to pay for it, and we went down the candy road with them once before. It was sweet for the politicians that promised all the tax breaks. It was very sweet for the privileged few in this country. But it turned out to be a toll road. And guess who had to pay the toll? Our children, to the tune of trillions of dollars of national debt because of this supply-side nonsense. Now we have got a Federal deficit as far as the eye can see in the $200-billion-a-year range. The only way we are ever going to deal with it is by making tough choices, and tax cuts are not tough choices. They are the oldest gimmick in the book. In fact, as Ross Perot has said, they are a way for politicians to buy your votes, using your own money. In this case it is our children's money, and it is wrong.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying how many thousands there are that would benefit from the tax credit in my district; 85 percent of them would still benefit from it if for the 105 Members on the Republican side who signed the letter saying that we ought to change that tax cut had had the courage to stand by their convictions, but we do not have that choice today. We only have the choice presented of extending a tax break to those in the $200,000 range, and this bill, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] said, really is about borrowing from all the children in our district in order to pay for this politically motivated tax cut. It is not the American Dream Restoration Act. Its real title is ``Stealing Our Children's Future Act.'' This bill makes the deficit greater in the year 2000 than if we did not do anything. Put another way, if this Congress would just shut the doors and go home, we would be a lot better off as far as the deficit is concerned. The American people know that this deficit reduction program is not satisfied in this bill, that in fact what we have is a deficit- mushrooming bill, and, when they have been asked, whether it is in the field hearings of the Budget Committee around the country or in the polls like the one the Wall Street Journal recently conducted, well over half of them have said, ``Use the money to pay off the debt.'' Less than a fourth have spoken up in favor of tax reduction. There has been plenty of talk today about the misuse of statistics. Well, let us take the Republican numbers. They tell us that this tax cut will only cost a mere $189 billion over 5 years. Well, if we had that $189 billion, we would have that much less deficit, but of course it is not $189 billion. It is $630 billion over the next 10 years that we are going to be adding to this deficit, and the claim that it is being paid for is as frivolous as this letter that has been circulated by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. Surely there is great competition in this Congress for the silliest Dear Colleague letter, but this one that suggests we will pay for it with $100 billion by eliminating duplication and waste of $24 billion is right up at the top. There is not any line item in the budget for eliminating duplication and waste. It includes things like eliminating the school-to-work program.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is true the circus is in town, but not really the roar of the lion that we hear today. The significant thing is a certain mooing sound that is under way. You see, I do not believe we will ever get the budget in balance without a true bipartisan effort. I thought we were headed in that direction because I have a letter here that was signed by 105 Republican Members who said that they recognized there was a need for more money for deficit reduction and they could change their tax proposal and apply it to only 85 percent of the families in this country and provide an addition $12 billion to $14 billion in deficit reduction. That represented a half step, and it is sure a lot better than the lockstep we have seen most of this session of Congress. But somewhere along the way that all changed. We are not going to have a chance to vote on that proposal of 105 Republican Members because somewhere along the way the Speaker said ``no,'' and I do not know what it is that is so persuasive about him, but sometimes I get the feeling that, when these Members are around him, they are so cowed, I can almost hear them moo.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is a circus outside, but the real show is here with the rings on the inside. In ring No. 1, the incredible fire acts. You remember last week when we approved--some of us did not approve of it--burning your citizenship card in order to save billions of dollars if you are a billionaire and move offshore. Well, they performed very well. Apparently, if you have got enough money, patriotism does not matter anymore. In ring 2, the amazing vanishing act. Yes, 18 of the 19 special deals vanished right out of the conference report, but one is still there; that is the one deal for Rupert Murdoch. You remember Rupert of book deal fame, Rupert Murdoch. The Daily News reports that the Republicans in the conference committee dropped their opposition to the tax break after learning Murdoch was the beneficiary and after consulting with Mr. Gingrich. If Mr. Gingrich wants to do something about the Murdoch book deal, now is the time to do it with a concurrent resolution pulling it back before we get to ring 3 of the circus today, the amazing contortionists who are going to explain how to balance the Federal budget by reducing the amount of Federal revenues. Who needs a circus outside when we have a circus on the inside?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. A further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the chair.

Mr. DOGGETT. If I understand the previous ruling of the Chair in response to my parliamentary inquiry, it was that this is a Speaker's guideline. It is not a rule; it is a guideline that the Speaker has himself applied to the rules. Is that correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last ruling of the Chair that the gentleman would not be permitted to present his concurrent resolution concerning the tax benefits accorded to Mr. Murdoch, what was the basis for the Chair's ruling? Is it that the majority has not consented to the presentation of this resolution?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we have checked with the ranking members of each of those committees and subcommittees, and they have agreed to that. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on the first day of Congress I joined the call for openness in this Congress, and frankly, we have not made very much progress. During closed-door Senate-House negotiations last week, Republican legislators bestowed a multi-million-dollar tax break on Rupert Murdoch, yes, Rupert Murdoch. You have heard of him before. He is the same foreign plutocrat who came here to the Capitol to meet with Speaker Gingrich just after the election. Yes, Rupert Murdoch, he is the one with the $4.5 million book deal. And in this supposedly open House from this podium or any other, did we hear one word about Rupert Murdoch being the only beneficiary of this piece of legislation that was just announced as enrolled this morning? Not a word was uttered. There were 19 business deals affected by this piece of special legislation worked out in secret. Eighteen of them failed to make the mark. But 18 of them were not owned by Rupert Murdoch. His was the only measure in the entire country to get this special break, and it did not happen without the blessing of his good buddy, Newt Gingrich.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what a precious heritage we have as Americans. Each day people from around the world are willing to be crammed into the cargo holds of cargo ships, to crawl through sewers, to swim across the Rio Grande River, all to share in a little piece of the American dream. And most of the people I know swell with pride at the thought of being an American citizen, while many, many more want to join us. And yet there are those who head the other direction, a pivileged few who, after consulting with their accountants and consulting with their financial planners and consulting with their tax lawyers, decide that it is better to put cash over country. That is what this debate is all about. Every opportunity throughout this Congress, a pattern has emerged. The Gingrichites want to put those at the top of the economic ladder in first place and to keep them there. Last week they did not mind coming along and cutting out school lunch. But this week they say, for the billionaires, do not touch the caviar, even if we have to renounce our American citizenship in order to keep it. This pattern of protection of the plutocrats is what the Contract on America is all about. You will remember they had a line-item veto that they even printed in TV Guide. And it covered not only spending but it covered tax loopholes. But as soon as the special interests started whining about the tax loopholes, they snipped that part out of TV Guide and out of the contract and went on and passed the other part. They have had repeated opportunities on this floor to channel the savings from welfare reform, from rescissions into deficit reduction. But, no, they have got to finance a tax cut for those at the top of the economic ladder. Today we stand here with them, once again, putting billionaires first, even billionaires who renounce their citizenship. Meanwhile, there are Members of this House who are lining up to protect this flag. They say we need to go back and rewrite our Constitution, it is so important to protect our flag. I say to those Members, is it not a form of flag desecration when people burn their American citizenship and burn the American taxpayer at the same time? Class warfare they tell us? I do not think people who defile this flag by rejecting their American citizenship have any class at all.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a dark ethical cloud lingers over this Congress. To safeguard the public trust, to ensure that high ethical standards are maintained, there are times when it is appropriate to appoint an independent counsel. An investigator who is not biased, who is not linked to either party to investigate thoroughly may be essential. That has occurred in this House on a number of occasions, in the matter of Congressman Charles Diggs, in the matter of ABSCAM, regarding Congressman George Hansen, regarding Congressman St Germain, regarding the Page scandal, regarding Speaker Jim Wright, and most recently in 1989 regarding Mr. Gingrich. Why not now? If charges are partisan, if they are unjustified, what better way to demonstrate it than to have an independent counsel verify that? Last year before the election, so many of the Republicans talked to us about the President and Whitewater, why is it that now the election is over all they talk about with reference to Mr. Gingrich is whitewash.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the distinguished Republican Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for his straightforward comment on Saturday that, ``My goal as chairman of the committee is to produce a balanced budget without any tax cut.'' Such candor has been rare from House Republicans who are constructing a budget in a dream world. It is based on the first law of Disney appropriate for Fantasyland that wishing will make it so. We cannot wish away the budget deficit. We cannot wish away and get a balanced budget and provide tax breaks for those who earn $200,000 a year and Indeed, they have cut last week's school lunches, and now we are about to see them attempt to cut on the big brothers and the big sisters of those same children when they cut student loans. Fortunately and finally last week over 100 House Republicans questioned whether providing a tax break for those at the $200,000 level made any sense. It does not. This move represented a half step, but that is better than the kind of lockstep that we have seen of late.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Members of this Congress but the children of America who are being gagged today--the voices of children, the children who need a healthy start, the children who should have smiling faces instead of empty stomachs, the children whose voices I heard 2 weeks ago in Austin, TX, the children who say, ``Cut waste, don't cut kids. Put people to work. Don't pull lunch trays out of the hands of school children,'' as this legislation would do. This ought to be a time for this body to come together to deal with a problem that has been neglected for too long. But extremists dominate this debate. Indeed, to call it a debate is to pick a name that has no appropriateness to what is happening here, because the ideas of all this body are being excluded from the course of this debate. With extremists in control, we do not have any genuine debate. This bill, like others in the contract, cannot withstand debate. It is so extreme, it is so mean-spirited that they cannot afford to have a real debate with bipartisan solutions to these problems. Mr. Speaker, it is the voices of the children that are being gagged today, and America is the loser. distinguished Member of the body, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn]. (Mr. BUNN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, what nonsense. I am surprised at this amendment, surprised because in Texas we know the difference between straight talk and doubled-talk, and by golly, if double-talk would solve the problems of this deficit, it would be gone this past week. I stood here on the floor of the House and had the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules tell me we could not place in order an amendment to be sure that all that money we slashed and burned for summer jobs and for young people in last week's rescission bill could not be used for deficit reduction, said it just could not be done, it just was not proper, but within hours he reversed himself and made it proper. And this House put on a lockbox amendment. And within hours after that we twisted all around again because not two blocks from here, in the Budget Committee, we had the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee saying that lockbox was just a game, it was just a big game. Well, it is not a big game to me because we need to be addressing this problem of deficit reduction. The same thing is happening on this floor today. The bill is clear. It says the money is to be used for deficit reduction, and now we come along with a purportedly technical amendment and now deficit reduction is out. They have mastered the principle of redistribution of the wealth, taking from the poor and giving to the elite, and that is what this is about.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, last month I addressed this House concerning the legislation advanced by Speaker Gingrich that could have the effect of intimidating a citizen who complained about the ethics of the Speaker or any Member of this House. Hopefully the Speaker's ill- advised legislative proposal that would thwart ethics complaints has now been abandoned. But we must be sure that an overall concern for ethics, for maintaining the highest standards of integrity by Members of this body, is not also abandoned. Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot be exempt from the requirement of the appointment of an outside independent counsel with complete powers to investigate Members of this body. I want to applaud the action of Common Cause yesterday with reference to the whole question of an independent counsel, and I paraphrase from that important statement, appointing an outside person of unquestioned integrity with a nonpartisan background will be a critical factor in obtaining a publicly credible result. But, Mr. Speaker, the Member who said it best in 1988 said, ``The trust of the public and the integrity of the House will accept no lower standard than an outside counsel.'' Mr. Speaker, that Member of the House is now Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].