Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4348, the transportation conference report. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Doggett moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to recede from disagreement with the provisions contained in section 100201 of the Senate amendment (relating to stop tax haven abuse--authorizing special measures against foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions, and others that significantly impede United States tax enforcement).

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join my colleague from North Dakota in our truly bipartisan effort on behalf of H.R. 4282, the International Child Support Recovery Improvement Act. He has made an excellent statement regarding the need for this legislation. International borders should never be barriers to children receiving the financial support that their parents are obligated to provide, nor should a parent be able to avoid their responsibility by just leaving the country. That's why the United States has previously adopted reciprocal agreements with a number of other nations to collect child support from deadbeat parents who do not live in the same country as their children. But these agreements don't cover many nations, and the procedures sometimes vary from nation to nation. A more comprehensive approach is to enter into a broad convention, another type of treaty, to ensure the international collection of child support. In 2010, the Senate ratified the Hague Convention for the International Recovery of Child Support. Today's bill simply implements the treaty and provides that our child support collection across America fully complies with our treaty obligations. This will assure that more children living in the United States obtain the necessary financial support from a parent living in another country, and it will also protect taxpayers who ought not have to be responsible for covering the expenses when a parent is obligated to do so. Exemplifying the need for today's bill is the plea of a mother from Houston, who wrote to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement: Please help me collect child support from my daughter's father in Venezuela. We were married years ago in the United States. It took a long time to finalize the divorce, as he was out of the country. Finally, the divorce went through, which at the time was a relief. But 3 to 4 years later, my daughter is 12 and teenage expenses are kicking in. Regardless of the divorce requirements, he states Venezuela is unable to conduct business with the U.S., and he's unable to send money on his own. Our bill would provide relief to her and many other families. Child support touches the lives of nearly one in four children across America, securing financial support for almost 18 million children-- including a million and a half children in Texas--and it's played an important role in keeping children out of poverty. Without its support, roughly half a million children would have fallen into poverty in 2010. This bill recognizes the general premise that both parents are responsible for their children. It would respond to another Texas mother who wrote the same office: My ex-husband has been working for an international company for nearly 6 years. His income the first year was $100,000. To date, after taxes, he's clearing over $8,000 monthly. Per our court order, I'm only receiving $260 a month, which is now currently on hold. So therefore I'm not receiving any funds from my child support at all. Please help me. I'm making less money since I switched from the night shift to days to be home with my two children. I keep making necessary sacrifices, but I have no one to help me. That's the kind of individual, the kind of children that would be assisted by this legislation. Passing the act would access financial support from a noncustodial parent living abroad. As with other effective child support initiatives, taxpayers will benefit by not being saddled with the cost of supporting children whose parents should be doing so. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill will result in some modest net savings to the child support program. Child support advocates, as Mr. Berg indicated, along with the American Bar Association, the Conference of State Court Administrators, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the National Center for State Courts have all endorsed this legislation. It is truly a bipartisan effort that improves the well-being of many children by ensuring that their parents abroad continue to fulfill their obligations here at home in the United States to their children. I urge approval of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Well-known as ``Military City,'' San Antonio has accomplished a traumatic but successful conversion of Kelly and Brooks Air Force Bases. Now the Pentagon is recommending that we have another round of closures. Let's first guarantee that we apply the same rigorous base review standards to military facilities outside the United States as would apply inside the United States. Today, I offer an amendment acceptable to the committee, similar to the approach recommended by Senators Tester and Hutchison that requires the Department of Defense to thoroughly examine the potential benefits and savings realized by closing outdated or excess overseas military bases. Both the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office say that maintaining these facilities overseas is far more expensive than our stateside operations. So while many of the 585 military bases that we have around the world may be necessary, let's ensure that the Department thoroughly scrutinizes each of them and verifies that each is essential to our national defense. This was not done adequately in the last round. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and ensure that the Pentagon carefully considers the cost of these overseas installations.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Instead of focusing on discriminating against some in our community, we should be focused on ensuring that all victims of violence everywhere receive the care and services they need. Let's move forward in that struggle, not take another giant Republican step backward.

Mr. DOGGETT. For so many, this Violence Against Women Act vote is literally a matter of life and death. One immigrant was abused by her husband, who was a special agent for the Homeland Security Department. He threatened her that she would be deported and separated from her daughter. She sought help anyway at the excellent San Antonio Family Violence Prevention Services, through which she was provided a special visa allowing her to remain here safely. Another woman in Austin found death. So fearful of being deported, she was eventually killed in broad daylight in front of her two little children. We have a 2-year backlog for this visa. It is a visa that could help many. It is a visa that was approved almost unanimously in a previous Congress. Instead of focusing on a victim's visa status, we should be focused on the fight against domestic violence.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, normally when we think of reconciliation, we think of a coming together, of finding common ground. This is not such a reconciliation. Rather, this is a bill that provides more tax breaks to the few and more pain to the many. It is, in fact, a wreck, as in a train- or auto-wreck--``wreckonciliation.'' There is legitimate concern that we must address our budget difficulties to avoid a long-term budget wreck, but I am concerned about the wreck that this legislation under consideration today poses to the lives of so many Americans. It is a wreck for educational opportunity. The failure of this Budget Committee to address the needs of our youngest Americans with Head Start and early learning, the failure to extend the More Education tuition tax credit that I authored for more opportunity at the Alamo Colleges, at Texas State and institutions across this country. It is a wreck for our most vulnerable neighbors, the Texas seniors, who rely on one hot meal a day from Meals on Wheels. Their director says it will be ``devastating'' to eliminate the Social Services Block Grant, a wreck for those seniors. It is a wreck for those who are relying on food security, like the 74-year-old who gave me this paper plate at the food bank in San Antonio: ``My Social Security check doesn't give me enough to buy any groceries, just my rent and utilities. Without the food bank, I would starve.'' Those are the kinds of people for whom this bill is a wreck right now. We had a President once who realized the need for shared sacrifice. He had almost half of his budget from new revenue. What he said was that ``closing off special interest loopholes'' was just ``a matter of simple fairness.'' His name was Ronald Reagan. I think we might follow that example.

Mr. DOGGETT. We would contrast that example with those Republican Presidential candidates who said they wouldn't support $1 of additional revenue for $10 of spending cuts to get our budget in balance. This is a ``wreckonciliation'' bill that asks nothing of Mr. Exxon, that asks nothing more of hedge fund managers, but asks those who are most vulnerable in our society to share more pain. I think we must reject this reconciliation bill which is a wreck for so many American families.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. It will be a boon to highly paid professionals, private equity firms, hedge fund managers, and professional sports teams. I think they've received enough economic benefit in the past with the Bush tax cuts. We ought to be focusing our support for small businesses not on those who are already at the top and should be contributing a little to the shared sacrifice necessary to get our national debt under control and meet basic human needs.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. You know, the Republicans are always so much better in the names they give these bills than what's in them. I think in considering this one we have to look at what it is and what it is not. It is not an economic recovery measure. A nonpartisan analysis has shown that the economic benefits are considered to be so small as to be incalculable. It is not helpful to sole proprietors, who do not benefit at all from this bill. It is not a way to reduce the deficit or the national debt. Indeed, this is a measure that will add $46 billion to the national deficit. We were told only yesterday that because of a pressing national debt, we can no longer provide one source of federal funding for hot meals for seniors through the Meals on Wheels program in Texas, that we could not afford to provide Federal resources that are necessary there on child abuse or on keeping a child with disability at home, or helping seniors maintain their independence, that there just aren't the resources to do that. But today we are told there is $46 billion we can add to the debt for a nice-sounding bill. What is this bill? It is another failed Republican retread. It is a measure that will help those at the top rather than those who are really struggling to get to the top. I'm concerned about the icehouse on the west side of San Antonio, about the beauty shop in Lockhart, about the auto repair shop in San Marcos. But those are not the places that will receive the principal benefits of this measure. Indeed, 125,000 millionaires in this country will get more in tax benefits out of this than many of the owners of those businesses earn during an entire year, in fact, more than the median income throughout San Antonio, Austin, and central and south Texas. What this measure is is a boon.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. And as for our seniors, we suggested that getting a certificate to go fish for insurance is no substitute for Medicare. This is about values, about dignity for those in retirement, and opportunity for our young people. This Republican budget is not a Path to Prosperity. It's an expressway of retread ideas, an expressway to mediocrity.

Mr. DOGGETT. This budget is based on the false belief that if we ask those who have the least in America to take a little less and we ask those who have the most to thicken their cushion just a little bit, that everybody will be a winner and America will grow. No matter how many times that mythology fails--most recently with the Bush-Cheney tax cuts that didn't grow the economy effectively but did grow the deficit to record levels. No matter how many times it fails, they insist on having a little more of it. Our contrasting view on tax policy was demonstrated in the committee consideration of this bill. I suggested that we extend the higher education tax credit that I authored so that a mechanic and a nurse with a young person who's gotten their high school diploma in San Antonio, Texas, can walk over to St. Philip's or San Antonio College and have their tuition, up to $2,500--which will cover tuition and textbooks there--that they get that right off their taxes, a tax cut. They rejected that tax cut because they said it would be better if we gave a tax break to billionaires and those at the top of the economic ladder, and eventually that mechanic and that nurse and that young person would see the benefit. I don't think they do. I think they'd like to be able to choose for themselves with a higher education tax credit opportunity for the future. And the little brother and the little sister there, or in Lockhart or in San Marcos, that want an opportunity to be prepared for school with Head Start and early education, our budget provides for them. It provides opportunity and hope for them. But Republicans insist that they ought to sacrifice a little bit more. As for our seniors and our veterans, we suggested for veterans that we wanted to provide more job opportunities.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman. Many an American family has been wrecked by soaring health care costs. We know it's been a leading cause of personal bankruptcy. We know that spiraling health care costs have been a leading cause of credit card debt, and now Republicans have continued their sustained effort to wreck the Affordable Care Act. As we have been witnessing at the same time that this debate is going on within the Budget Committee, on which I also serve, the Republican plan to end the guaranteed benefits of Medicare, they think that our seniors pay too little, so they offer a voucher plan that would result in our seniors having to pay much more for their health care. They would tell the senior or the individual with disabilities, Go out and fish for insurance with this voucher. But they won't find any fish biting, though they will continue to be bitten with rising health care costs. That's why President Lyndon Johnson created Medicare in the first place, because private insurance companies weren't interested in covering the old and the infirm. Today's approach is the same approach that Republicans took last year when they had their signature accomplishment. Right in the first month of their takeover of this Congress, they came out here with this page- and-a-half bill that I call the ``12 platitudes.'' They repealed what they said they didn't like, and they came forward with 12 lines of what they said they would replace the Affordable Care Act with. But all we've gotten since then are bills that began after they did the total repeal--repealing individual sections, like school health care clinics, like this proposal dealing with the question of health care costs. We know they don't like it. We know they don't like President Obama and anything that he is for. They tell us everything that is wrong with the Affordable Care Act, but they sure can't come up with a better idea that they have the courage to bring to a vote in the Ways and Means Committee or bring to a vote on the floor of this House. It's all about what they're against, but they haven't brought any of the 12 platitudes that they approved last year into a legislative form to deal with this issue of spiraling cost for our government and families or to deal with any other aspect in the Affordable Care Act. Now, I have to say, quite frankly, that I wish the Affordable Care Act were as good as they think it is bad. It's not. It is a compromise of a compromise--it has many inadequacies--but compared to the Republican alternative of doing nothing and compared to the broken health care system that has wrecked so many American families who are faced with a health care crisis, this approach is far superior. This board's opponents tell us that Congress should be able to make all these decisions. Well, I've served on the Ways and Means Committee and on the Health Subcommittee previously for a number of years. I wish it could be so, and I think we could play a more constructive role. But, frankly, the history is that Congress hasn't done a very good job of controlling costs. When we have taken steps to control costs, as we did with the $500 billion in cost control that we put into the Affordable Care Act that increases the solvency, extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years, all we've gotten is attack and criticism from them for the steps that we took that did limit cost. So I don't view this aspect of the Affordable Care Act as necessarily the best way to do it or the only way to do it. But when all they offer us is nothing except vouchering Medicare for our seniors and similar, I think we should stick with the reform that we have until a better alternative is presented, and that alternative is not being presented tonight. Republicans don't have a plan to make the hard decisions to lower health care costs. They just want our seniors, individuals with disabilities, and families across America to pay more so that they can preserve all these tax breaks for the wealthiest and most economically successful people in our society and, for all of those corporations that export jobs abroad, to continue to provide them incentives to do just that. I believe that this bill should be rejected just like their other repeal efforts until they come up and present on the floor a better idea, and I don't think they have one. They just have all the retreads of the Bush-Cheney years. Until then, I say stick with the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. We heard objective testimony that if we extend all of the Bush tax cuts for the next decade, we will have less economic growth in this country, not more economic growth, as their theology maintains. And the testimony we're hearing is not limited to Democratic witnesses. Even the Republican witnesses who have come before our committees in the past have conceded that these Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves. We've seen the result of voodoo economics. We've seen the results of supply side and trickle down. It's time to take a more dynamic approach for the American economy, and that's a jobs bill that will meet the needs of working families across this country instead of playing games with the numbers and trying to show that the impossible is reality.

Mr. DOGGETT. This bill, like most that come out here from the Republicans, has a great name. It's a Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. It's not a pro-growth budget--big difference--but a Pro-Growth Budgeting Act. And like so many of the pieces of legislation that they offer us, the substance of the bill does exactly the opposite of the title. This would better be named the ``Dig Deeper Now'' legislation, or the ``Mandate Voodoo Economics'' legislation. It attempts to enshrine Republican dogma that even an elementary arithmetic student would have some question about. It's based on the theology that the best way to get more is to do less; that if you have less revenue coming in, you somehow will eventually get more revenue coming in. And it just hasn't worked that way. Their approach is much like the alchemist of old, who, when faced with a problem that he could not convert straw into gold, simply responds, give me more straw. They can't get enough straw in the form of tax cuts to talk about at their political conventions. But when they apply them, we don't need dynamic scoring to know what the effect is. We have history, and that history is not very favorable to this whole concept that somehow less means more. We have the ``dynamic'' Bush tax cuts to look at and what their effect has been. And the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the effect has been they cost $1 trillion, $1 trillion toward the budget deficit that we have, and if we extend the Bush tax cuts for those at the very top, again, it will cost another trillion dollars. That's trillion with a ``t'' in both cases, and it is a big impact in digging us into the hole that we're in, that we're trying to work our way out of with what should be a Pro-Growth Budget Act, a jobs act, instead of something that is a name that bears no resemblance to the substance of the bill. How about the experience with economic growth? What American would not like to have the economic growth of the Clinton years, when the tax rates were actually higher than the experience of the Bush years, where the tax rates may have been lower, but so was the economic growth, almost 4 percent a year under President Clinton, and down to about 2 percent under President Bush from 2001 to 2008. Likewise, with job growth, dynamic job growth under President Clinton, job losses under President Bush. That's the history, the experience that we have with this theory, this ideology that somehow less revenue means more revenue. Only yesterday, in the Budget Committee, we heard the testimony of the Congressional Budget Office, objective testimony, that if we extend----

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I commend the gentleman for his service as our subcommittee chair and on the data issue that will be important in reducing any kind of abuse of public assistance. I now yield 2 minutes to my colleague from the Budget Committee and someone who's very knowledgeable about this, Ms. Moore from Wisconsin.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself 30 seconds to place into the Record a letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures as well as a letter from the American Public Human Services Association and the National Association of State TANF Administrators. The gentleman may be right. He clearly lacks confidence in States' rights in these areas. The letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures points out that there is a financial burden that would be imposed on the States and that ``the States have existing contracts with vendors that may have to be changed at a significant cost to the States.'' Let us hope that does not happen. They come out firmly in opposition to this bill. I do not share that opposition, but I think they raise a legitimate concern about the added cost as well as the lack of confidence of my Republican colleagues in the ability of the States to police their own programs. National Conference of State Legislatures, January 30, 2012. Hon. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), we write in opposition to H.R. 3567, the ``Welfare Integrity for Children and Families Act of 2011,'' which is scheduled for a vote on the Floor under Suspension of the Rules on Wednesday, February 1. States share your concern about the inappropriate use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits; however, NCSL strongly believes that these decisions are appropriately made at the state level. When Welfare Reform was enacted in 1996 (P.L. 104-193), state and federal policymakers agreed to forgo the open-ended entitlement of AFDC for the flexibility afforded in the fixed TANF block grant. In this agreement, policy decision making authority was left up to the states including state legislatures. Mandating states to limit Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) transactions preempts state authority over the TANF block grant and undermines the strong state-federal partnership undertaken in 1996. Additionally, NCSL is concerned about the financial burden this mandate would impose on states, many of whose fiscal situation is still perilous. States have existing contracts with EBT vendors that might need to be changed at significant cost to the state if this bill becomes law. States are addressing the issues raised in H.R. 3567. To date, California and Washington have limited the use of EBT cards and addressed the complex implementation process of limiting EBT card usage. Many additional states are looking at similar EBT limitations and other ways to combat fraud and abuse in their current sessions. If you have any questions regarding what states are doing to address the concerns of H.R. 3567 or to discuss the bill, please do not hesitate to contact Sheri Steisel (sheri.steisel@ncsl.org) or Emily Wengrovius (emily.wengrovius@ncsl.org). Sincerely, The Honorable Tom Hansen, South Dakota Senate, Chair NCSL Human Services & Welfare Committee. The Honorable Barbara W. Ballard, Kansas House of Representatives, Chair NCSL Human Services & Welfare Committee.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I'm against fraud. I think everyone here is against it. I'm for what's in this bill. That's why I voted for it back in December, and I'll vote for it next month, too, if that will make for more cooperation here in the House. I think, in a way, this is this election year's ``welfare Cadillac.'' And I was against welfare Cadillacs, if there ever were any of those, too. This year, we have the ``strip club loophole'' that has been defined as a political term to suggest that we have a lot of problems with poor people abusing their benefits. And to the extent that any poor person abuses even a dollar of these benefits and keeps those benefits out of the mouths of hungry children, providing the clothes those kids need to go to school, I'm against that, and I plan to vote against it today. I favor comprehensive legislation against fraud in public assistance. It concerns me when a pharmaceutical company ends up having to settle for $158 million in my home State of Texas because they allegedly lied about drug safety and bribed officials. It concerns me when a pharmaceutical company in the State of Texas has an $84 million Medicaid fraud case brought against it. I think we need to be concerned about fraud in all of its aspects. I'd feel better about this bill, however--because I think repassing it will accomplish practically nothing, I'd feel much better about this legislative effort if there were just an ounce of the concern that is voiced about the very few people who abuse these benefits, if the same level of concern were expressed about the many who are there who are counting on the safety net, as flawed and frayed as it is, who were concerned about them and their families and their struggle to share in the American Dream and were doing something to get that approved. Yes, we approved this piece of legislation as part of a broader extension of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program in December. And why hasn't that become law? It is separate legislation pending in the Senate. It is also part of the broader legislation extending the provisions on unemployment, on payroll tax relief. It ought to become law because we need to be concerned about those families that are playing by the rules as well as the very few who are not playing by the rules. Now, the gentleman has said that in some States action has already been taken--California, notably--to deal with the few who might be cashing their benefits at a casino or a liquor store or whatever. Texas, my home State, was cited as one of those States that has already taken action. I think that's great. There's not anything to keep the States from taking action on this already, if this is a serious problem. Now, some of them have not acted, not because of a lack of concern about fraud but because the mechanics of correcting these electronic benefit cards may actually be more expensive than the cost that is being experienced by the small number of people that might abuse the card. You take Arizona, for example. Governor Brewer has plenty of time to shake her finger in the face of the President of the United States, to support legislation to discriminate against Hispanic families, who have been in that State for longer than she and her family have been in the State. If she thinks this is a serious problem, why doesn't she act at the State level, as Texas and California and some other States have done, to address this problem? I would submit, while I don't object to this legislation in and of itself, that the bigger problem that we face is that the number of poor American families has surged over the last 4 years, up 27 percent. Ten million people are below what is officially agreed on as being the poverty line. And this Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program provides a few of those families a little bit of assistance, to have a chance to turn their lives around until they can find longer term employment to provide for their families. How much money are we talking about that might be abused or wasted at one of these facilities, which might just happen to be the maintenance crew at the casino that use their benefits there. Or it might just happen to be the only store convenient in a poor neighborhood is one that's mostly selling alcoholic beverages, that they choose to do that. How much might they be abusing? Let me tell you in my home State of Texas the median benefit for a single parent with two children is $244 for an entire month to take care of those two children, 16 percent of the poverty level. I want to be concerned, yes, about a dollar that is wasted. These are hard-earned tax dollars that go into these programs. We need to be concerned about every cent of abuse. But we also need to be concerned about the many who stand to benefit, who stand to have hope taken away if they don't see these benefits extended. My concern about that is not merely academic because of what happened last year, the bipartisan agreement that had extended through many years called the supplemental program, which was really a survival program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in poorer States like Texas. The Republicans chose to discontinue that program even though it had enjoyed bipartisan support and had received support letters from a number of Republican officials in our area. They chose to not continue that, and that has severely weakened the safety net in our State. That's not being continued. Whether they intend to abandon the entire Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or cut it back substantially, it's hard to tell, given the fact that they're going only with the very modest provisions of this bill and not pushing to provide assistance to all of those who need that help. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I couldn't agree with the gentleman more about the importance of preserving, in his words, ``the integrity of this program.'' That means that none of the public funds are wasted or used in an improper way, but it also means that the program's integrity is preserved to deliver the assistance that is needed for the many, many families that are playing by the rules and need a helping hand. And that's the only area we have difference in this regard as far as I personally am concerned. The House has already spoken on this electronic benefits issue. I don't see any harm in the House speaking again this week or next week or next month--I don't see a great deal of gain from repassing it, but why not? But what I do see harm in is if the many, many people that are playing by the rules and need this assistance see their safety net shredded the way these same folks shredded the safety net last year when they did not renew the bipartisan TANF supplemental program that has been so important in poor States with large populations of poor people, like Texas. There are families there, there are State programs there that are harmed by the unjustified refusal to extend that program. At least with what's left in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which we passed here as a freestanding bill in December with this provision in it, let's pass that entire bill. Hopefully, this message says little more than say that the House still feels today the same way that it felt 6 weeks ago. That's fine, but let's get this entire Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program approved and in place so the States and the families that depend upon it will have it there. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Is it just too much to ask that seniors that are struggling in a nursing home after a lifetime of work get a little economic security, that they get a little dignity? Is it too much to bring just a little peace of mind to a family that is burdened with a parent that is suffering from Alzheimer's or some other debilitating condition? Sadly, this does appear to be too much to ask from some here. One year ago, the House Republican majority's first major action, once they gained control of Congress, was to repeal health insurance reform. At the time they did that, they said they were for ``repeal and replace.'' But the only replacement they offered for their repeal was a little flimsy 1\1/2\-page bill that I call ``the 12 platitudes.'' They proved to be only platitudes because during the intervening months, they've done nothing about long-term health care or any other kind of health care for the American people. Today, they continue to deny Americans actual solutions to health care problems, and once again, they have a flimsy 1\1/2\ page bill. They don't have ``repeal and replace,'' they have ``repeal and deny.'' They're in a state of denial that there is a problem with long-term care, and they continue to deny meaningful relief to families that are struggling with health care bills, and particularly, long-term health care bills. There is a 75 percent chance that some American who reaches age 65 will find themselves in need of long-term care. Paying for that care can bankrupt a family and the children of a parent who needs that kind of care. An average cost for nursing home services, for example, of $70,000 can surely and quickly sink a lifetime of savings. The CLASS Act is far from perfect. It needs to be changed. But instead of repealing it, we ought to be focusing on necessary changes. Where is the commitment to doing something about long-term care? There haven't even been hearings on how to resolve this problem.

Mr. DOGGETT. There was a legendary Texas House Speaker of this body, Sam Rayburn, who said that it takes a master carpenter to build a barn but any mule, I think he said, can tear one down. Well, it's time that we get together to build a solution for long- term health care, not just tear it down.