Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record the report from NBC news correspondent Norah O'Donnell entitled ``Prescription Drug Benefit Imminent'' from yesterday's MSNBC.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law over massive Republican resistance, Republicans have never ceased in their determination to end Medicare. We all remember the partner of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who insisted that Medicare should be allowed ``to wither on the vine.'' He has been chattering again this month, that Medicare is an ``obsolete government monopoly.'' The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) joined him yesterday by declaring, ``To those who say that [the bill] would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is: We certainly hope so.'' ``Old fashioned Medicare isn't very good,'' he added. The gentleman may not like reporters, especially if they report, but really there is nothing new or inconsistent in this statement and many that he has made for years. He just referred a few moments ago to Medicare as ``yesterday's Medicare,'' denigrating and deriding it. ``Yesterday's Medicare,'' ``old fashioned Medicare'' has served millions of Americans pretty well. The one problem we have with it is not the result of a defective Medicare. Rather the failure to deal with the outrageous, predatory pricing of prescription drugs has resulted from the sustained collusion of House Republicans and pharmaceutical manufacturers. We can do something meaningful about that, but this bill is not it. What of this plan that seniors are finally offered tonight? It is basically a ``pay a lot and get a little'' plan. If you are a senior and you have been hoping and praying we would finally be able to overcome this Republican resistance and deal with prescription drugs, what do you get from this bill according to its own clear language? Well, this year you get nothing. Next year you get nothing. The year after that you get nothing. Oh, yes, you are entitled to a discount card. It is as valuable as one of those cards you pull out of a cereal box. With it and a dollar or two you can get a cup of coffee, but it does not guarantee you a cent of reduction in the cost of your medications. Finally, in 2006 you get all their much ballyhooed help. If you have $4,900 in drug bills, and that is mighty easy to get at today's outrageous prices, you pay $3,500, and you get $1,400 paid for you, and that is only if you also pay an unknown premium, already estimated at least $35 per month. And such incomplete coverage at such a cost tells us what this initiative is really all about. This is a plan to eliminate Medicare and force seniors out into inadequate private insurance plans. This is not a prescription drug. This is a prescription for disaster. I hope that our Republican colleagues continue holding up this poster about ``strengthening Medicare'' that they have been showing here because it looks like the type of solicitation scams that so many seniors receive weekly. Their poster shows seniors out frolicking on the beach because of all the benefits they will get, when in fact seniors will be denied the very protection they so desperately need on their prescription drugs. That is because those who are proposing this bill are the same folks, who tried to undermine Medicare from the time Democrats and Lyndon Johnson got it passed through Congress in 1965, and they have not relented until this very moment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, once again Republicans insist on a fiscally irresponsible bill that will benefit the wealthiest and in this case the healthiest at the cost of at least $174 billion added to our already soaring national debt. Mr. Speaker, despite the bright sunshine outside, it really is a dark day for so many Americans who are working hard just to make ends meet. This bill is the natural companion to a measure written by the same folks that are presenting this bill, which previously denied a child tax credit to poor working folks. Tax cuts, no matter what the economic conditions, no matter how pressing are the other priorities we have in our country, such as protecting our families from terrorism, tax cuts, we are always told, can cure any ill in our society, unless of course you are poor and working, in which case your kids are not worthy of a child tax credit. Thanks to the intransigence of the House Republican leadership, there are now 6 million working American families, they are folks like cafeteria workers and teachers' aides, nursing home employees, those working at our hospitals doing the tough work, they will receive no check for their children this year like other Americans. Their bid to gain a little economic independence, to share in the economic benefits of the American Dream, it will come and go on July 4 unfulfilled because of the refusal of this House Republican leadership and their desire to go on recess not only for July 4 but to continue their recess from reality. For these same families that were deliberately excluded from the recent tax cut as well as for many other working families, House Republicans add more insult to injury by encouraging employers to terminate or to weaken any group health insurance coverage through which some of these employees may be covered. This bill is also the natural companion to the next bill that we are about to take up, the bill to repeal Medicare as we have known it, since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law. We know this is not new. They have opposed Medicare since before President Johnson wrote his signature to make it a reality. Newt Gingrich wanted it to wither on the vine. Earlier this month, Mr. Gingrich declared, much as our colleagues are here today, using the very same words that they got from Newt Gingrich, that it was an ``obsolete government monopoly.'' Only yesterday we heard the same language from the sponsor of this measure: ``To those who say that the bill would end Medicare as we know it, our answer is, `We certainly hope so.' '' ``Old-fashioned Medicare isn't very good,'' said Bill Thomas, the sponsor of this legislation and the companion measure to repeal Medicare tonight. Some of us think old-fashioned Medicare has worked pretty well for the millions of Americans that it has served since 1965, and we want to strengthen it, not see it undermined through into privatization. The bill before us this afternoon does something very similar to what the later bill proposes to do to Medicare and, that is, to weaken, at great cost to our Treasury, our employer-based health care system. By totally excluding employees unless they are in plans that deny any assistance on at least the first $1,000 or $2,000 in medical bill coverage, this bill will encourage even higher deductibles. And it will be a struggle for a cafeteria worker to pay their first $1,000 or their first $2,000 or more-thousand under these new high-deductible plans. The same plans will encourage more small employers to stop providing coverage at all and to protect themselves individually through these MSAs and to terminate costly health insurance for their other employees. It will encourage group health plans to reduce covered services, increase copayments. In short, through these three bills, we see Republican indifference from cradle to grave for children, for workers, for seniors.

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman aware that the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security has not reported on any aspect of whether homeland security resources were used other than the aircraft and has specifically declined to report on which individuals may have asked that homeland security resources be diverted for this purpose? In other words, the investigation is incomplete.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, just to complete the record, it is very clear that the office of Inspector General did not explore anything other than one aircraft. They did not explore the other misuse of the response of the Department of Homeland Security; and, second, it is clear that they failed to provide or even pursue evidence on the question of which Federal officials may have asked for this misappropriation of resources. Finally, to complete the record, history shows that it was Abraham Lincoln who was among the first to use this tactic of defeating a quorum.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Austin, Texas is the proud capital of the Lone Star State. And we say rather modestly there that we are the live music capital of the world. We do so because of an immense amount of talent and a great interest in music in our community. But of late there has been music of a different type. We have had the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) trying to call the tune and forcing the leaders of our State to dance to his tune. Indeed, he has spent so much time in Austin arm twisting and cajoling State legislators, huddling a week ago today with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of Texas House, that just this past Friday he was named by Texas Monthly as one of the 10 worst members of the Texas legislature, not of the United States Congress. It is difficult to determine for which body he is devoting the most time. Against that backdrop, we consider this legislation. The problem that we face today is that no matter how much we appropriate for homeland security to protect us against terrorism, if its resources are being diverted to political purposes, such as fulfilling the desires of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), then we will not have the protections that the American people deserve. We know that the Department allocated some of its resources to searching for Texas legislators who were involved in legitimate opposition to the DeLay Redistricting Plan. The Department first assigned a former Republican Congressional candidate from Texas as the Inspector General to conduct an ``independent'' investigation to decide whether the resources had been misallocated. When that gentleman, after his biased and partisan background on this matter was exposed, recused himself, and then another person was appointed, we were assured that she, as an Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security, would get to the bottom of this. She assured us she would explore all aspects of the misuse of the Department of Homeland Security, but then produced a report that only looked at the sole issue of the Department's inability to find a cotton farmer from Plainview and where his plane had gone. I hope they are able to do a better job with terrorism than they did in locating an airplane of a former Democratic Speaker of the Texas House. She did not, as promised, conduct a broad examination of misuse of any resources in any part of the Department. Though she told us she would get to the bottom of who required that this investigation be undertaken, she did not do that and her report is silent on whether any federal office holders or their employees were involved. As with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorneys Office, the U.S. Marshals Service, we have received no information in response to repeated requests about how they may have been misused by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) or others in this investigation in the State of Texas. In fact, we have a stone wall and we have asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), well known as ``the hammer'' to tear down that stone wall. To date we have nothing but silence and excuses and stonewalling with reference to these matters. What relevance does that have to today's appropriations request? All the relevance in the world. If the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshals Service or the Department of Justice can be used for partisan political purposes like this and all it takes is a call from someone with a badge, what is there to prevent a sheriff somewhere in America who wants the Department of Homeland Security to help with a divorce investigation to involve them in this? If there is a local police chief who wants to do some opposition research on the opponent of a local mayor who is up for reelection, who will prevent the Department of Homeland Security from getting involved in that? If you have a local police officer who is suspicious of a political or religious group, what is there to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from responding to his request. Well, from what we have learned in ``Texasgate'' so far, one would say there is very little and that this episode only reinforces the concerns of many Americans that this Department, well intentioned as it may be, would bring us a new America in which the watchword is ``spy on our neighbors.'' There is very real concern about government resources that should be dedicated to protecting American families and instead could be misused for personal or political gain. Until we get a full and complete disclosure from all the participants in this scandal, we will not have a complete answer as to whether Americans are adequately protected, and that is the purpose of defeating this motion for the previous question on this rule. In this way, we can attempt to get to the bottom of this and to ensure that the resources are not diverted from where they should be to protect our families, into protecting some political partisan who is trying to reshape America in his image.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, perhaps President Bush is wrong about this bill. Perhaps the 94 Members of the Senate who voted on this child tax credit measure are wrong, and perhaps all of the Democrats who have supported relief now, not some day, with reference to the child tax credit are also wrong, that all of us who together have supported meaningful relief that is paid for, that does not add a death tax to future generations of Americans, perhaps all of us are out of line and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), standing there along with his minions who insist on having an approach that is different than that and killing this child tax credit, perhaps they are right. But I rather expect they are not just right, but far right, extremists and outside of the mainstream of American thinking; that those who work very hard, be they police officers, be they teachers' aids, be they home health care workers, be they the people that empty the bedpans in the nursing homes and do the hard work in our society, that they deserve a chance too. I believe that it is today, with the obedience to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and his thinking out of the mainstream, that our Republican colleagues have sentenced this child tax credit to death, death by conference committee. Many Members will remember that death by conference committee was the appropriate execution method used to kill the Patients' Bill of Rights, so people in this country still do not have the rights they need to protect themselves from the giant insurance HMOs that often deny them the health care they need. Today, by sending this bill to conference, this is an attempt to kill a proposal that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) never wanted this House to consider, and today again rejects. It means for people in Texas almost 1 in 4 families will not get the child tax credit relief that they deserve. It means 1.3 million, 1,312,000 children, will not have tax relief that they deserve; they will instead be saddled with a giant debt tax as a result of the approach that is being proposed.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure is the case with each of those who have spoken tonight, I come to these remarks with a heavy heart, one of the more difficult remarks that I make here I guess for two reasons, both because of my affection for Al and because he is not here to help me with the speech. As I look back over the floor, I see the spots where I would see Al sitting with John Buckley and Janice Mays and Dan Maffei, with Beth Vance and other members of the staff of our committee, knowing the loss that each of us speaks of tonight as a Member is a loss that has been suffered by his colleagues who worked with him, the closest as staff members on the Committee on Ways and Means. But I think of the many times that I have been here when I was over there vigorously scribbling the final notes of what I might say in rebuttal to some argument I heard when Al would come over and note something that had been omitted from the debate and totally change my speech; or when having concluded that the strongest argument for our side was a particular bit of data, I would turn to Al and have him indicate that it really was not quite as solid as perhaps the sheet that had come out from one of the various groups particularly interested in the matter might have indicated and that a stronger argument was to be found somewhere else. Al did all this with that sense of gentleness, of cooperation that has been spoken of by others here tonight. He was a remarkable individual. Also, I still have a collection of e-mails from Al because, as others have also pointed out, Al would see some bit of contradiction. One of them I came across was one that in a simple message said I was struck by the following sentence in the President's speech last night, preceded by an analysis by Al of the contradictions between what the President said and what the President and his administration had done. Al has provided the kind of careful insight to public policy, the kind of careful analysis of the numbers but also with an understanding of the human condition, an understanding in a life varied in experience, filled with love from his family and from his colleagues, and he brought that special insight to us so that it was not just a matter of regurgitating the numbers but of putting flesh and bone on those numbers and translating them into what they meant to ordinary American citizens in a way that few people I met here, either elected or unelected, have a capacity to do. As I think about the tragic loss of Al, something that came so unexpectedly to all of us, to his family, his friends, his colleagues, I think that while I will add a few more specifics in my extended remarks here tonight, that I would want to reflect on Al's commitment to words like dedication, industry, loyalty and integrity and would say that when it came to issues like retirement security, like assuring that people could get health care, like guaranteeing that there was at least a little sanity in the budget process, and I initially met Al working with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and with his predecessor, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), as a young member of the Committee on the Budget, on issues like tax fairness that have been so important to me personally, that Al was committed to those issues. His tragic passing reminds us that we never know how long our tenure and our ability to serve what we view the public interest is going to be, and I think we are called upon in remembering Al to remember the causes that were most important to him and to redouble our efforts in his spirit and on his behalf to fight for fairness, to oppose hypocrisy, to stand up for what is right for the American people in much the way Al would do if he could be here offering us suggestions tonight.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what incredible nonsense we have heard here on the floor of the House this afternoon, this attempt to raise the flag and besmirch Members of this House over their stance on the American flag practically on the eve of Flag Day. Let me tell the gentleman (Mr. Kingston), there are two kinds of people today that have the American flag wrapped around them. Some of them are young men and women who come back in coffins with the flag draped around it, who gave their all in the ultimate sacrifice for this country; and all of us honor them, whatever our views about the President's policy. But the other kind of people we do not honor, and it is those who choose to wrap their own bad policies that they cannot defend by stretching the flag around themselves. What are the merits of the argument about the child tax credit? Who came up with it in the first place? I think the names are Al Gore and Tom Downey, who both served in this body who long ago presented a child tax credit proposal. How did it become law? It eventually became law with the signature of a Democratic President in 1997 when we passed the Balanced Budget Act with the support of a large number of Members on both sides of this aisle, balancing the budget, not busting it as this Republican tax bill would do. The child tax credit has had strong Democratic support within our caucus and within the Committee on Ways and Means on which I serve, and the only reason any Democrat has voted against that child tax credit on this floor was when it was used, much as the flag has been misused this afternoon, as the reason for voting for a bill that gave most all of the help to the people at the top and none of the people at the bottom. I am glad that my colleague from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has joined us this afternoon. He has announced to the American people that there are more important things to do than to ensure that the child tax credit is available to people that earn a mere $20,000, $25,000 a year. Who are those people? They are the people that empty the bed pans at the nursing homes. They are the cafeteria workers in our public schools. They are the people that we check out with at the gas station when we go in to pay for our gas. They are people that are sweeping the floors today at the hospitals around America. Why do those young women and men not have an opportunity to get the same type of child tax credit available to those at the top? They are working. Some of them are working two and three jobs to have a chance to advance out of poverty and share in the American Dream. They respect the flag just as much as the gentleman from Georgia does, but they would also like to share in a little of the American Dream.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how very timely is the old warning of Abraham Lincoln about those ``trusting to escape [the] scrutiny [of war] by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory.'' Our troops deserve our fullest support for their tremendous sacrifices, and they certainly have mine. Let us truly honor American sons and daughters in uniform, not with mere words, but with adequate health care and a thriving economy, not an Everest of public debt for their children. Let our nation-building begin here at home with adequate schools, jobs, and opportunity. What this Administration calls a ``coalition'' is, in fact, the U.S., the UK, and hefty advertising. No war in American history has been better marketed. The very weakness of our new ``first strike,'' ``security through attack'' policy and the repeated failure to connect Iraq with the outrage of 9/11 necessitates resolutions like this that must borrow strength from the bold courage of our troops. Surely the thousands combing Iraq today for weapons of mass destruction will find at least a trace, but an honest assessment requires asking whether this second-rate tyrant, unable to effectively defend himself, really ever had the capability to endanger our families. Americans continue to do most of the dying and will do almost all of the paying for this indefinite engagement. Let us guard against it becoming a war without end. With unlimited dollars, we have mastered so well the terrible technology of death, but true security demands wisdom as well as strength.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is a martial law rule, and that is appropriate because there are those in this House and in this country that think the role of all the representatives here is to march in a martial fashion behind the leadership of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). So it is appropriate they bring this rule out today, a gag rule, to gag those of us that do not share the views of the majority leader, who might have an amendment or an alternative way to address the problems that American families face. They deny us that right. They have assured there will be no substitutes considered on this floor. It is their way or the highway. It is a martial America that they are supporting and appropriate they bring this rule up to do it. Their ideas are so narrow and so extreme that they cannot stand to have them debated and voted upon, not so much worrying about the Democrats but worrying that some members of their own party could not be held in line against solid alternatives to do something for the millions of Americans that lack jobs in this Bush economy; to do something about the millions of Americans who lack insurance in this Bush economy; to do something about the children who are denied the opportunity to fulfill their full potential because of teacher freezes, because there are textbooks that will not be renewed in Texas. Meanwhile, the President tells us that he has to break his promise on the ``Leave No Child Behind'' Act. He has come up with a mere $9 billion, that is billion with a ``B,'' billion dollars. He breaks his promise in the short period of time that he advanced a bipartisan proposal for education that we all came behind. Now he will break his promise and not fulfill the promise he made to the American people. Though we do not have the money for our children to get access to new textbooks, we do not have enough money for that, we do have enough money for more tax breaks for those at the top of the economic ladder. The budget deficit puts a hole in the pocket of every American every day of their lives. It threatens the very foundation of our culture. We must seize and act upon this historic opportunity to solve this, the most pressing issue facing the country. Those are not my words, though I find them rather eloquent. They are the words of Treasury Secretary John Snow in 1995 but forgotten by him now that he has a new job in the administration. No ``Snow job'' can hide this administration's Mt. Everest of debt. Mr. Snow got a new job and a new viewpoint at the same time millions of Americans were losing their jobs in this sorry economy. A few weeks ago, the President announced a tax cut of the size that will be imposed on America tonight and said that it was just a ``little bitty'' tax cut. Well, Mr. Snow is coming the same week and asking us to raise the debt ceiling by billions of dollars. Is that a ``little bitty'' increase? No, they practically need an extension ladder over there at the Treasury Department because they cannot get the debt ceiling raised fast enough before they are back having to go up a little higher and raise it some more. Of course, they turn to us and say, ``it is the people's money, give it back to them. It is their taxes.'' Well, it is the people's debt, too, and they are going to have a whole lot more of it. And not billions, but trillions, with a ``T,'' trillions of dollars in additional debt if this lame economic policy, this sorry tax break, one after another writeoff for the rich, is imposed on the children and the grandchildren of America. This is a borrow and spend Republican Party, and that is why they have to have martial rules because they cannot permit Congress to consider alternative proposals. They cannot have full and fair debate. They need everybody to line up in a line and stand to borrow more from the people of this country. A ``no'' vote is a vote for fiscal responsibility that ensures our children will not be burdened by today's excesses.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, ``There is no more fragile construct than a stone wall. In any scandal, the shortest route to safety is always the truth.'' [144 Cong. Rec. H1333 (1998). These are the most appropriate words of Majority Leader, Tom Delay. And yet one full week after asking the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to come clean about the reported attempts to divert Federal resources for purely political purposes in Texas, all we have is that very same fragile stone wall. The administration obstruction has now turned into State document destruction. Borrowing a page from Enron's playbook, State destruction has been ordered of all notes, correspondence, photos, et cetera, related to the search for Texas legislators; and at the same time, the Department of Homeland Security indicates that it has ``no idea how long the investigation would take or when the tapes might be released.'' Never known as ``Timid Tom,'' it is time for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to join us in getting immediate disclosure of all related documents and end the stonewalling.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman was expressing concern about using the Federal Bureau of Investigation with reference to political purposes. The gentleman is aware that it was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) who himself talked about calling out the G-men, the government men, and mentioned using the FBI. We have seen that movie ``U.S. Marshal'', pulling in the U.S. Marshal on this. This is all in addition to Homeland Security. He said that he had a former Justice Department official on his staff investigating this and that they pulled in some United States attorney, those are the people in charge of prosecuting crimes in the State of Texas, but some United States attorney down there who was also diverted to this political task.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this year, as the Texas legislature convened, it faced, and continues to face, some truly significant problems: a budgetary crisis; proposals to drop 250,000 children from the Children's Health Insurance Program, so that their mothers will be faced with the crisis of trying to decide how to handle an illness and perhaps let it go until they have to go to the emergency room; proposals to stop the publication of new textbooks; in one school district after another, a freeze on the hiring of new teachers. With all of these problems, it is understandable that the Republican leadership of the State early on expressed a reluctance to take up the question of redistricting. One statewide Republican figure referred to redistricting as like having the flu. I do not think that he envisioned that it was the lethal kind that Texas had last week. Now, Mr. Speaker, fast forward several months to last week, and we find redistricting at the center of a struggle where Democrats are working in Ardmore, Oklahoma, and Republicans are twiddling their thumbs under the Capitol dome in Austin. How did this happen? Well, it happened very directly as expressed by our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to The Washington Post when asked why they were doing redistricting. He said, ``I'm the majority leader and I want more votes.'' He was very direct about it. Not unlike his answer when questioned about lighting up his cigar in a Federal building, and he said, ``I am the Federal Government,'' when questioned about this apparent violation of the rules for operation of Federal buildings here in Washington. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is willing to cut however many communities he needs to cut in Texas, to split up communities that have been together since the beginning of our State, if that is what it takes to get him more votes. The question that several of my colleagues have been asking throughout Washington today is whether there has been a going over the limits with reference to using Federal resources in order to further that political agenda. And the reason those questions were raised were comments from Mr. DeLay: his indication that he had a former Justice Department official working on it in his office; that he had a United States Attorney working on it in Texas; that he thought the FBI and the U.S. marshals ought to be pulled into this. Well, where are we today? Our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking Democrat on the Select Committee on Homeland Security, this morning sought to get the information about whether the Homeland Security Department had been used for political purposes. He was stonewalled. This afternoon, our colleague, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), sought to get similar information from the Justice Department. She also was unable to get an answer. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been strangely quiet. The security level of our Nation, the danger to our families, goes up. Comments from Mr. DeLay? They go down. I think the public has a right to know whatever it is that they are so determined to cover up. If this was merely a routine law enforcement request, they do not need an inspector general. Just release the tapes and the other related documents so that everyone can see. Instead, they have ducked and dodged and tried to assign the investigation to a political functionary. This weekend, the latest chapter in all of this. Instead of responding directly to a communication from 16 Members of Congress to release these documents, we got excerpts of tapes. We got an indication that a gentleman named Clark Kent Irvin was going to be the inspector general who would tidy all this up, investigate it, and give us a fair and complete report as to whether anything had gone amiss. And the Department of Homeland Security indicated in comments to several newspapers around the country that they were mighty proud of Clark. They thought he could do a really good job of this and pointed to his recent work in service to this administration. What they did not point out was that Mr. Irvin is a perennial Republican candidate, having run for Congress and tried to become a member of the delegation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); having run in what later was an aborted race for the Houston City Council; having run for State representative; and having failed in these several runs for elective office, then began to take a series of Republican patronage jobs. To his credit, after inquires from the press yesterday and another letter that a number of us sent from the Texas delegation, Mr. Irvin has withdrawn himself from the investigation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, not content as U.S. House commander, redistricting czar, and mapmaker for the Texas Legislature, J. Edgar DeLay apparently seeks a job directing law enforcement. His first response to political differences is to call in the G-men, the FBI, the U.S. Marshals to brazenly pursue his political foes. [AP, Suzanne Gamboa, May 13, 2003] He told reporters that ``bringing in either U.S. Marshals or FBI agents is justified because redistricting is a federal issue.'' [Houston Chronicle, May 13, 2003] The United States attorney in San Antonio was asked to explore how to employ Federal resources. [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 14, 2003; Washington Times, May 14, 2003] Meanwhile, someone in the Homeland Security Department was enlisted to track a cotton farmer from Hale Center, Texas. [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 14, 2003] According to Plainview airport manager Marlin Miller, the Homeland Security official ``made the comment that I think this is some kind of political people they're looking for.'' [Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 15, 2003] Americans had thought this Department was to look for terrorists. Perhaps those who attacked these courageous citizen-legislators would treat them as terrorists. This is how tyranny begins, and that is why 16 Members of the House are requesting an official Administration explanation. America is waiting. Who is hiding now?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. That seems to be what is reported by the Associated Press, the comments in the Houston Chronicle, in the Fort Worth Star- Telegram and in the Washington Times, all of these papers with Mr. DeLay as the principal source on most of them himself since he is rather proud of the way he projects his power around here. And certainly our concern is that resources that are very much needed to protect our families not be diverted for a personal political police force.

Mr. DOGGETT. I want to thank the gentleman for taking the leadership on this. This is something that affects more than a few Members of Congress or even something as big as the State of Texas. It does affect the future of our democracy and whether alternative voices will be heard or will instead just be monitored by Federal agencies as they fly a plane or travel or engage in their personal lives. I cannot help but conclude as I see colleagues from Harris County in saying, as the gentlewoman from Harris County pointed out, under the DeLay plan my home county, my hometown that I have spent all my life in, that I represent 80 percent of the people of now, within a stretch of about a mile and a half, there are four congressional districts. One connects Lago Vista out on Lake Travis within the city limits of Houston, traveling through all the little rural towns in between. Another goes a length of about 400 or 500 miles connecting another part of Austin, around San Antonio, down the Rio Grande all the way almost to the tip of Texas. The other two will trail off in different ways. It is the same kind of extremism that tries to bring in the FBI. It is the same kind of extremism that hammers the people in the Texas Legislature to do the plan that he wants done. And it is the same kind of community that is being split asunder, the community that has the name of William Barrett Travis on it, who stood there and drew that line in the sand at the Alamo. It is that community that is being torn in four pieces in a way that is as unfair to the people that are being attached to Travis County as it is to the people of Travis County. I thank the gentleman and all my colleagues.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, if the gentleman would yield to me for just a couple of minutes on both those points.

Mr. DOGGETT. In other words, the very same room, the very chamber of the Texas capital that is under lockdown tonight is where President Bush chose, on his own, to go and introduce himself to the Nation. Is the gentleman aware of the individual that he asked to introduce himself to the American people as our President-elect?

Mr. DOGGETT. And I believe the President was complimentary of Mr. Laney and of the Texas House of Representatives and its members. And where is Mr. Laney tonight?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. In addition to those very persuasive statements from Republican leaders in Texas, is the gentleman aware of where President Bush, after he had been declared the President-elect by the Supreme Court, where he had his initial speech to introduce himself to the Nation as our President-elect?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. To those who say that these Texas State representatives essentially ``took their marbles and went home,'' remember that this game was fixed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) before these folks ever had a chance to play. To our colleague who dared mention the heroes of the Alamo, (Mr. Johnson of Texas) it takes far more courage to put your political life on the line than to follow like sheep. And how ironic, it was William Barrett Travis who drew that line in the sand at the Alamo, and it is the county named for him that is being sliced and split apart like never before in the history of our great State. Desertion, yes. The people of Texas were deserted when Tom's buddies refused to have redistricting hearings around the State and listen to the people and when my neighbors in Travis County were locked out of those hearings and then ignored. That is the real desertion that these brave Texans--Dawnna Dukes, Eddie Rodriguez, Elliott Naishtat, and their colleagues are fighting in Ardmore, Oklahoma, this morning.