Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, when I have always heard the term ``peer review'' before this bill, I guess as a former judge I have always thought about a jury of one's peers, a jury of one's equals. Well, what kind of scientific equals, what type of scientific peers are included under the bill without the Brown substitute? Well, it is just about like the jury that we see right now in the O.J. Simpson trial. If we took O.J.'s lawyers and put them on the jury, we would have the kind of peer review that is proposed under this piece of legislation. Because it mandates those who have an economic interest in the matter, that they be the jury. And that is just one of many provisions that is wrong with this bill. It is not about good science, it is about good lobbying, it is about good vested interests, it is about ensuring that we do not protect the public health and safety unless we turn it over to the people that created the problem and the threat and the danger to the people of this country in the first place.

Mr. DOGGETT. Really, I think it is confession time. I think that we need to confess on this side of the aisle that an error has been made, that really the distinguished Member from California has committed a grave sin with this substitute. The sin, of course, of moderation. The sin of reasonableness. The sin of balance. The sin of gentlemanliness in trying to fashion good public policy. There was a time in this House when the idea of balance, when the idea of reason, when the idea of trying to reach some agreement between conflicting interests, when that was of value. But no longer. Because we have had the Gingrich revolution, and revolutionaries do not have time for working out the differences between conflicts in public policy. Revolutionaries fixes. And that is what we have before us tonight. Not an attempt to get through risk true risk-benefit analysis. Rather, an attempt to put the risk as far as public health and safety, to put all that risk on the backs of the American working families and to take all the benefits and give the benefits to the special vested interests who want the authority to do whatever they please without any oversight from public authorities. That is the problem with this risk-benefit. Some might say it is balanced, but the only balance is to balance that burden on the backs of families across this country. And I think that is an imbalance. The problem with this whole risk-benefit assessment is that it is the American people who are being assessed with all the risk of threats to their health and safety under this piece of legislation, and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has erred, has sinned, because what he suggested is that we need to reason together and work out reasoned, balanced public policy. But that is out the door now. Now we have to have a revolution. At least there are some Republicans who speak up against this. In fact, I think the most effective and specific comment on this piece of legislation that we are debating tonight has come not from the Democratic side of the aisle, but has come from the Republican side, in fact on the other side of the Capitol, when the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, a Republican Member, Senator Chafee, has described this very piece of legislation as ``a prescription for gridlock.'' Because what is at stake here is not risk-benefit analysis, but a piece of legislation time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with the ink barely dry on the one bill that we passed making Members live under the same laws as everyone else, the Speaker yesterday continued to promote a bill creating a special rule that would make those who bring ethics charges against him or any Member pay his lawyer's fees and the Ethics Committee's costs when no disciplinary action results. The Speaker claims this rule would not intimidate citizens interested in cleaning up Government. I disagree. It would definitely tend to intimidate. No citizen, and certainly no Member of this House, should be intimidated when the issue is ethics in Government and putting that in first place. As a former justice of the Texas Supreme Court, as a chair of its ethics task force, I know some with valid ethics complaints would be discouraged, would think twice before blowing the whistle on anyone under the threat of having to pay a Member's lawyer fees with that hanging over their head. Many will not blow the whistle at all, making the American people the real loser. Mr. Speaker, this is not living under the same laws as everyone else. It is just plain wrong.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in 50 days this Congress has passed only one bill that has been signed into law by the President. That measure quite rightfully demands that the Members of this Congress observe the same laws that apply to everyone else. The American people rightfully expect that Members will shoulder the same responsibilities as ordinary citizens and meet the same standards of behavior as ordinary citizens. But what a difference a few weeks can make. I am deeply concerned to learn that a Member of this House who stands accused of serious ethical transgressions, indeed a cloud of alleged improprieties that threaten public confidence in this House, that Member has actually threatened to shield himself by introducing legislation to require his accuser to pay both his legal fees and the expenses of the Ethics Committee that is investigating him. Mr. Speaker, does obtaining special legislation to immunize one's self sound like what an ordinary citizen does? No, it does not. But that is indeed what the Speaker of the House has threatened to do. I suggest that not intimidation, but more speech is the way to deal with this problem.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I have consulted with the ranking member of the committee, and we will not object to this request. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman]. (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the distinguished gentleman's statement in support of not sunsetting this, it is that the head of the agency involved here does not think the agency should have temporary authorization?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Paperwork Reduction Act. I think it is a good step forward, but I also rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to the distinguished chairman argue against the amendment, I heard not one argument that was any different than that that comes from any government bureaucrat in his commitment or her commitment to the permanence of the Government agency. There are some of us who think that just because a government bureaucrat thinks that a bureau should go on forever, that that is not reason enough. It ought to be considered when this agency comes up for sunset review to determine whether it should continue. Just the fact that it is sunsetted does not mean that it is automatically abolished if it can make a good case for its continuation. It makes sense that when we have these new Government initiatives, whether they are good initiatives like this one or not so good initiatives, that we set up a process as the gentlewoman would do through her amendment to automatically review every one of these programs. There are unintended consequences of the best-intentioned government program. It is just the nature of life that events change, that consequences that were never anticipated occur, and sunset is a way to ensure that we address these matters. There are a couple of ways that we can handle this. The approach advanced, which is the traditional approach of this Congress against sunset, is that, ``Well, we'll put the burden on the people that are against a new government program to come in and convince us to abolish it.'' Under sunset under the approach advocated by the gentlewoman, the approach shifts the burden where it should be. The burden to keep Government going forever ought to be on the people that want the Government, not the people that want less Government. Under the sunset amendment that is advanced here today, we would shift the burden to where it rightfully belongs. Sunset will build into the process a scheduled time at which the Congress will review this program and determine if it sounds as good then after we have seen it in practice as it sounds today. If the Government initiative fails, we will not be stuck with it forever, regardless of whichever bureaucrat is in charge of the agency thinks it is a good idea at that time or not. Sunset will compel this Congress to automatically review this program or it will expire. I find it not a little bit ironic, Mr. Chairman, that the only sunset initiatives that have been advanced in this Congress have been rejected by those who are today celebrating that they have a contract for a less burdensome, less intrusive, and more limited Government. What on this 50th day of the Congress could be more consistent with that than the whole approach of sunset, that government bureaus ought not to last forever, that these new initiatives, no matter how well-intentioned, ought not to last forever and that we ought to put a fixed life after which they will be reviewed. We think of Government on this side of the aisle as not being in permanent terms but being limited and that is what the sunset process is all about. That is what this amendment will accomplish. I am all for reducing paperwork. Goodness knows, we have plenty of paperwork around here. The only thing that I know that has exceeded the paperwork has been the hyperbole and the rhetoric about all that was being done to get Government under control. Yet this most effective mechanism, the sunset mechanism, which we can now place on this Paperwork Reduction Act, would be the best way to apply it not only here but to set a precedent today in applying it to this act that every time we have new Government initiatives, every time we have new Government regulations, they will not go on forever, we will review them, we will concentrate on the laws we pass, not just on passing more laws. I urge a vote for the Paperwork Reduction Act but to improve it with the Maloney amendment. I congratulate the gentlewoman on the excellent work that she has done on this amendment.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I was just curious as to whether the gentleman had ever met a head of an agency or Government bureau anywhere that did not think it should be permanent.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, the Gingrich-ites who run this place have been calling at every opportunity for a balanced budget. Today they are celebrating the 50th day of their contract, and they are talking about a balanced budget. But, you know, more than any media event they pull off around the country today, what happens on this bill and this Obey substitute will tell the American people whether there is any meaning to that contract, because at this first opportunity with a bill to do something about the budget deficit, how much do we cut under this proposal? Not one penny. In fact, we add to the budget deficit. They say they are paying for this bill? I say let us stop paying for our defense by borrowing more money. Instead of a balanced budget, what this Congress is doing is digging in the same old deficit hole, and the Gingrich-ites tell us what we need are more shovels, not to stop digging in that same hole. The Obey substitute provides what amounts to a line-item veto to assure a commitment to a pay-as-you-go finance, and it is essential it be adopted.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I came here to serve the families of the people of Austin, TX, not to serve as a contractor for Newt Gingrich. This contract is nothing more than a campaign gimmick, and if it is fully imposed, it will be the people of Austin, TX, and across this country who suffer. The contract rejects community policing and crime prevention programs that work in Texas. It would turn over our health and safety standards to the tobacco companies and the other special interests. And the cost of this contract? At more than $1 trillion, it threatens our financial security. Some of the concepts in the contract are good, but I learned long before going to law school from my parents that you do not listen to the salesperson's hype, you read the fine print, the little bitty words on the back of the contract. And when you do that, you find out that this so-called Contract With America is devastating to middle-class families across this country. This contract goes too far, too fast, too extreme. It can and should be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. It is. I appreciate your agreement. I appreciate your initiative on this. Because the effect, as I understand your amendment now as amended, is by the States or the localities within a State that is certified meeting the other requirements could apply directly to the Attorney General of the United States and indicate that there are exigent circumstances, and heaven knows there are exigent circumstances right now in Illinois, in Austin, TX, and across this country with a large volume of juvenile offenders not being adequately housed.

Mr. DOGGETT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Illinois on his amendment, and I offer this further strengthening amendment, just as he attempts to strengthen the original legislation to strengthen, in our effort, what we are trying to do about the serious problem of juvenile offenders, because the same problem that plagues Illinois plagues in the State of Texas my hometown of Austin, TX. Mr. Chairman, I would much rather prevent a crime with an effective local crime prevention program than to confine a child. I would much rather deter a crime with 100,000 police on our streets added under the crime bill rather than to confine a child. But in truth and fact, whether it is in Illinois or Texas or any other part of this country, there are some young people who do need to be confined and that is what this amendment and this amendment to the amendment is really all about. There are young people out today who are terrorizing our neighborhoods, and the only thing, after all else has failed, that we can do with them is to confine them and to prevent them from causing further destruction of the neighborhood. The legislation that is now before us, as originally presented by the committee, dealt with the problem of adult corrections and adult offenders. It did not address this problem of juvenile offenders. The gentleman from Illinois was thinking very much along the same lines as I was thinking in a similar amendment that I have offered. In lieu of that amendment, I am offering this amendment to the amendment. The amendment on which I had worked also seeking to deal with the problem of juvenile offenders is one that was drafted with the participation and the cosponsorship of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Stupak], a former police officer and State trooper, and the distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], a former prosecutor. All are front line officials in the fight on crime, and whether it is Alabama or Michigan or Illinois, we agree that there is a serious problem with juvenile offenders. What this amendment to the amendment seeks to do, and I understand that it is acceptable to the sponsor, having worked with him and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in this regard, is to provide access for local governments to this same group of funds. Let me tell you why that is so important to those in the State of Texas. We have seen the effect of violence right there in the capital city of the State of Texas. In our community in 1988, there were 307 juveniles that had been certified to the juvenile court four or more times in just a single year. Now, that is a tremendous amount. But by last year, that amount had increased 538 percent, so that we have almost 2,000 juveniles being certified to the juvenile court four or more times. That means too often that the first time they got down there they only got a slap on the wrist, and the same thing happened the second and the third and maybe even the fourth time. They are back out setting an example, a very bad example, for other young people in the community, because we simply have not had the capacity for pretrial detention there at the Gardner-Betts Center in our community. Indeed, last week, we had such a serious problem there was no longer enough capacity in the local facility, the Gardner-Betts facility, and 15 of these people were turned out back on the street again. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that in the State of Texas our county, a growing county, has only 50 beds allocated in the State correctional facility for the entire year. Unfortunately, we have got more than 50 young people that are involved in violent offenses, that are involved in serious property offenses, and rapes and murders and aggravated assaults, and without the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, as we have modified it now to include local governmental units, we would not be addressing that problem at all in this piece of legislation. I will tell the gentleman from Illinois, also, that I have visited, in drafting my own amendment along the same lines, with the officials at the Texas Youth Council who handle statewide, as you have in Illinois, all of our juvenile offenders, and they were quite concerned that this legislation, as originally proposed, did not deal with this problem of juvenile offenders. I think by working together as we have with this amendment and the amendment to the amendment in a bipartisan fashion we have tried to address this problem of the fact that, frankly, there really are some young thugs out there that somehow we missed on prevention and somehow we missed on education. I wish we could have taken care of that problem. Now it is time to see that they no longer continue to do damage within their neighborhoods and threaten the millions of Americans who are hard-working, who are honest, and who are trying to make a go of it without this example of dangerous young offenders.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the chairman.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, can there by any doubt in the America of today that crime, that lawlessness, that violence that is afflicting our families and their homes and their businesses on streets and highways across this country is a No. 1 concern? Indeed at the very moment of this debate, Mr. Speaker, there are honest, hard-working Americans who are out there being subject to violence to their life, to destruction of their property, from those who are lawless, who are the target of this legislation, and yet one would think that, knowing the enormity of this problem, our Republican colleagues, who have a commanding majority, would be here structuring a debate so that we could have an open and free-flowing discussion of the most effective way to fight crime in this country. That is not occurring here. In fact, the underlying agenda of what is occurring here today is not open and free-flowing debate. Rather it is the attempt to split, and to split asunder, the first truly comprehensive smart crime fighting measure that this Congress enacted within less than 9 months. That bill is not presented to us today in whole. It is split into itty-bitty parts. And where do we begin in that debate? Do we begin up front in trying to prevent crime? Do we begin with the law enforcement officers, all of whom, all of the major law enforcement organizations, back this smart crime bill; do we begin with them? No, we begin at the tail end. I can tell my colleagues that this debate is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog, and, as a fellow named Doggett, I am an expert on that subject. I can tell my colleagues, ``When you begin at the tail end of crime instead of dealing with the dog, instead of dealing with the police, and with the crime fighting, and with the crime prevention, you begin at the wrong end.'' So what do we find ourselves doing in this great building at a time that Americans are dying, at a time that Americans are having their property stolen? We are here talking about a bill that everybody agrees on, that there should be restitution. Of course there should be restitution. As a State senator, I sponsored crime victims compensation strengthening amendments to ensure that criminals in our State of Texas did some restitution and did some repayment to victims. But, by golly, do my colleagues know a victim anywhere in this country who would not rather have the crime prevented? Who would not rather have the law enforcement officer there on the beat in the community instead of getting restitution? Our Republican colleagues bring us a bill to fight crime that we agree with, and why do they do it this way, under this great open rule? Well, I will tell my colleagues why. Because somewhere among the splintered bills of this great crime bill that was passed by the last session of Congress, right at the tail end of the presentation is the measure concerning our police, concerning crime prevention. Why is it that the police always have to come in last? Why is it that the crime prevention has to come in last? Because the Republican majority that claims to be against crime has structured a debate that does not allow for a free-flowing discussion of whether we ought to end the commitment to a hundred thousand police on American streets, end the Federal commitment to effective local crime prevention programs, and take all that money that the police would have gotten that have added 25 new police to my hometown in Austin, who are being trained right now, take that money and pour it into concrete, pour it into steel bars, and somehow think we can build prisons fast enough to house all these violent criminals if we do not do a better job of preventing crime in the first place. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that in the course of this debate we recognize that if all that is accomplished out of these splintered bills is to take money away from our policemen, many of whom are here today as I speak covering a press conference defending the crime bill that was passed last week, if we take that money away from our law enforcement officers, that thin blue line that protects American communities, if we take away that commitment and if we destroy a Federal commitment to an effective local crime prevention program, which is exactly what this series of bills does, if we take all that money and we pour it into concrete and we pour it into steel bars and we pour it into boondoggles, Mr. Speaker, there is no way we can build fast enough to replace what we have destroyed. I support this victims restitution bill. I do not know of anyone who does not support it. But, by golly, we need to be on the side of our law enforcement officers. We need to keep adding more law enforcement officers and more prevention and then take care of restitution.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, like most Americans, I support the line-item veto. Too often wasteful spending has slipped into a statute, it has hitched a ride into the statute books, and this is a way to try to prevent it. We need to seize on every tool that we can to oppose wasteful spending. We have the line-item veto in Texas. It has worked up to a point. I think that over the last several sessions Governors, Republican and Democrat alike, have managed to veto through the line item about one-quarter of 1 percent of the 2-year spending budget. Of course, here, the line-item veto usage would be even more limited since only about one-third of all spending actually occurs in the annual appropriations bill. We must be very careful with this type of reform. There is no guarantee that, in fact, a line-item veto will be used as a intended, and that is why we offer this amendment tonight. We believe it would be prudent to sunset this legislation every 5 years and, indeed, we believe it would be prudent to sunset every new initiative of this type every 5 years so that the Congress focused on what it was passing and we had a real sense of accountability. That is why we have proposed sunset provisions for each of these pieces of legislation that are moving through the Congress. In Texas this has been a process that has led to the repeal of statutes, to the abolition of programs, to the savings of significant amounts of money for the State treasury and, of course, for the taxpayer. It can work in Washington also. Mr. Chairman, we know what we hope this reform will accomplish, that a President will be as diligent as the Members who have worked on this legislation to see that wasteful spending is ferreted out and eliminated. But we do not live in an ideal world. It is quite possible that a future President will use the line-item veto for purposes other than those which we intend this evening. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it does not take a great deal of imagination to imagine a future President saying that ``If you will not vote for this spending program, I will veto through the line item an expenditure program that you want for your district.'' Mr. Chairman, this bill in fact could actually give a President a most powerful tool to force members of Congress to vote to increase and toe the line on his spending bill, not just to ferret out waste, but to add spending where it is unnecessary. It is at least arguable that this is the reason why the Founding Fathers, when confronted with the notion of a line item veto, chose to deny it to the President, to the Chief Executive. We ought to think a long hard time about changing this process and this balance of power, this separation of power. One of the ways to do that is by sunsetting the procedure and allowing for this Congress, forcing this Congress, to have to refocus its attention on the whole concept in the next 5 years. You know, the record since the Second World War of Presidents on the question of appropriations is not necessarily a good one. In fact, during that period of time, various Presidents of both parties have requested more appropriations than this Congress has actually voted to spend. Let us suppose, Mr. Chairman, that we had a President of this Nation who could not submit a balanced budget, who came to this Congress session after session after session proposing one unbalanced budget after another, a President who engaged in the strongest rhetoric against an unbalanced budget, who came up with tools to speak about at campaign time, but never could produce a balanced budget. Such a President we have had in this country. He is the very President for whom the members of the majority wish to change the calendar of birthday. But it is arguable that such a President might not do such a fine job with a line-item veto, that if he could not balance his spending, he cannot cut spending of others. It is for this reason that we ought to look to a sunset process to reviewing the whole concept of a line-item veto rather than taking a blind leap of faith that a line-item veto will actually help us cut the deficit rather than seeing it increased. Mr. Chairman, virtually every reform has unintended consequences, but there is a way to do something about it, and having the experience of five full sessions of this congress before we review it is exactly what we can accomplish through sunset. I move adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under that reservation let me say that we have consulted with the ranking members of each of the affected committees, and that following that consultation I think there is no objection. This pattern of consultation with the minority which has occurred here is an appropriate way of handling this. It will avoid the kind of problems we had the other night. Mr. Speaker, with the understanding that there has been such consultation, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fine argument. However, is it not essentially the same argument of anyone who has ever advanced a new initiative on this floor, when someone has suggested, let us review it? You say if something proves wrong, maybe we can review it in the future, but there is no mechanism within the gentleman's statute to ensure there is compelled review unless we have a sunset process. I am for the gentleman's bill. I am probably for a number of these other bills. However, if we are putting this in on measures we are for as well as those we are against, we will compel review and refocusing of this Congress on the statutes it is passing, rather than just having more and more regulations.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I come from America's Sun Belt, with a strong belief in sunshine for our Government and a commitment to sunset for new Government initiatives, including even the most well- intentioned and appealing reforms, such as that provided us today by the distinguished authors of H.R. No. 5, a measure that I personally support. Too often this Congress has embarked on ventures that were undoubtedly very well motivated by the very best of intentions, and they sounded great when they were presented in this Hall, but somewhere between the beltway and the back roads of America, somewhere between what was happening in this great building and the bureaucracies that implemented that legislation, a great new statutory scheme, beginning as a bright, beamy, sunshiny idea, left many people in America with simply a bad burn. In Texas, when we get too much government sun, we have got a solution. I am not talking about an extra application of coppertone. Rather, Mr. Chairman, we force periodic review of new government initiatives through a systematic sunset process. Government statutes simply should not have a claim to immortality. In Texas, we believe that a periodic top-to-bottom reconsideration of new laws, agencies, and programs is healthy, it is good for the programs, it is good for those administering the programs, but most importantly, it is good for the people that have to pay the bill, the taxpayers. We have found that through a periodic review process, the Texas Sunset Act, which I was the author of in the Texas State Senate, that we have been able to accomplish over 200 sunset reviews. We have repealed statutes, we have consolidated and abolished agencies, and the Texas Treasury is about $500 million the better off for it, which is a good bit of money, even in this town. If a new proposal like the one that is advanced here today is so sound and so beneficial, and it has no harmful side effects, as its supporters have very forcefully advised us to be the case, then this measure can certainly stand in deep benefit from periodic review. Therefore, this amendment, Mr. Chairman, places a 5-year life on this reform. By adopting the amendment today, we can guarantee ourselves a built-in opportunity to fix any unforeseen consequences of this major new reform. Mr. Chairman, in listening to what my State and local officials have had to say very convincingly in support of H.R. 5, I am struck by how often they suggest that we would not have this unfunded mandate problem in the first place if the statutes approved in this Congress had had some limitation on their life. If Congress had had a firm sunset process for new Government initiatives, we would not need an unfunded mandate bill, because we would have been able to review those initiatives and do something about them. Therefore, what I try to accomplish through this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to see that we do not repeat that same old mistake with today's reform proposal. Let us provide for its sunset today, right now, so we will be forced to come back to this Congress, reconsider the road we have taken, thinking that we are taking the right road, but perhaps seeing some diversion down the road as it is implemented, and see that we achieve all that the supporters have told us we can achieve, and avoid the evils that have been advanced by various detractors through the last several days of debate. Mr. Chairman, the bill that we are debating is a complicated measure. It could dramatically alter how the Federal Government operates. I hope in some regards it does change the way the Federal Government operates, and for the better, but it also has the potential for some unanticipated harm. Many Members have raised what seem to me to be legitimate questions about it. By adopting this sunset amendment, we can make sure that we really get what we are being promised in the course of this debate. Let us adopt the amendment, review the reforms, make sure they actually fulfill the author's promises, like this Congress should have done in the first place with unfunded mandates. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue, because I know the gentleman worked hard on this in the committee, and for letting me as a brandnew member here on what is my first amendment participate with the gentleman on this. Having only heard the presentation of amendments and other Government initiatives over C-SPAN myself prior to coming here, is not this call for more Government oversight on programs something that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have demanded again and again and again when there were new initiatives?