Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this budget resolution because it is not balanced. The consuming desire of our Republican colleagues for immediate political gratification has caused them to pursue exploding tax cuts for the most privileged people in our society without regard to our obligations both to our parents for Social Security and Medicare and to our children for educational opportunities. Mr. Chairman, with the tax cuts for the privileged that are authorized by this resolution, we are setting a course, a path, to head back to the era of deficits, to head back to a period when we are no longer reducing the national debt and encouraging economic expansion and lower interest rates. That is a fiscal mistake. A budget is more than number crunching. People can get crunched, too. Recently, the first particulars of this Bush budget and its impact on children in this country have leaked out. These are the troubling numbers and details that will be coming out this next month after votes are taken on the tax cuts. Under this Bush budget, the children of America, who rely on child care will be ``bush-whacked.'' The entire Early Learning Opportunities Fund designed to improve the quality of child care in this country, will be totally eliminated. $200 million will be removed from block grants to the states, for assisting the working poor in obtaining child care. This cut at a time when we already have 41,000 children in the State of Texas waiting to get access to child care; that under this waiting list will only grow. Although there are 900,000 reported cases of abuse and neglect of children across America, there will be an 18 percent cut in federal funding for state child protective services. I am for all of the tax cuts that fiscal sanity will permit, but reality of this budget is that these tax cuts really cost. They cost and crunch our children in a very harsh way. Last year, candidate Bush borrowed the slogan from the Children's Defense Fund, ``leave no child behind,'' but the unrealistic tax breaks for those at the top make clear that this Republican budget has as its mantra ``leave no millionaire behind.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the notion that this tax bill will correct the economic slowdown is truly a fantasy. This proposal was concocted during last year's Republican campaign primaries. It was not developed during hard times, and it is certainly not designed for hard times. The only reason that its supporters seem preoccupied with the thought of recession is that they cannot sell this distorted tax cut any other way. This year, the daily benefit to the typical American family of this tax bill will be less than the cost of one good cup of coffee. That is pretty wimpy help when you get right down to it. And if your family does not want to share a cup of coffee, you can use your big tax savings to buy a can of beans every day. Or, down in Texas, black-eyed peas, with a few pennies to spare. And not just any beans, you can get Bush's Best black-eyed peas or beans. In fact, if they have got coupons at the grocery store, you can probably get a couple of cans of beans so everybody will have extra helpings every day as a result of this Bush's Beans tax cut. For the average American family, it is not $1,600. This year this is the Bush's Best Beans tax cut. And that is all that it amounts to. But while you get so very little immediate tax relief, over time, over 10 years, the wealthiest Americans get a huge bonanza of benefits out of this bill. The disaster that will occur to Social Security and our children's educational opportunities is a very, very serious one, if we approve this bill without ensuring that it can fit within an overall balanced budget. I am for all the tax relief that fiscal sanity will permit, but even the Republican economists have made it clear that this Bush tax cut is not about the economy, it is about overpromising to the privileged at campaign time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to applaud the excellent efforts of the ABC television network and particularly journalists Dan Harris and John Stossel for demonstrating the tremendous deceit associated with the latest round of Philip Morris advertising. Philip Morris is a company that is in the business of addiction and death. It markets a product that it knows causes death, disease, and untold human misery. It markets a product that most of its victims would never consume, or certainly not continue consuming, were it not for the highly addictive quality of nicotine, which is an essential ingredient to its future sales. Hence, in one sense, these advertisements are quite accurate--``the people of Philip Morris'' are ``working to make a difference.'' Indeed, to the 3,000 new children who each day try tobacco, it can be a life and death difference. One thousand of those children will eventually die or suffer from serious disease as a result of their tobacco use. Of course the ``difference'' that we hear about on television is not those children but the children who receive Philip Morris scholarships and shelters. We hear not how they addict people but how they feed them, not how they flood the market with nicotine but how they help flood victims. Indeed, ABC pointed out that Philip Morris has generously contributed $115 million to such charitable activities. But, wait, there was more that Philip Morris did not want the public to know. Although they spent $115 million for charitable contributions, they spent $150 million to publicize their charity. As John Stossel said, ``Give me a break!'' If Philip Morris really had such a big heart, why doesn't it just donate all the money to charity instead of wasting $150 million on ads? The reason, of course, is quite clear. Philip Morris has taken to heart more than most the old adage that charity begins at home. And for Philip Morris, spending $115 million on charity is charity for itself. As ABC has reported, internal Philip Morris documents show that charitable giving has been a key part of its strategy for years. Favorite philanthropies of Philip Morris include those who could ``neutralize'' women and minority groups, which might otherwise speak out against their being targeted for nicotine addiction. Those documents also indicate that Members of Congress and legislators around the country have not been forgotten--some of Philip Morris' favorite charities are the favorite charities of those policymakers that have the power to do something about the addiction and death business that is so critical to this company's future. Indeed, I think that Matt Myers at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said it best: ``These ads are not about charity. These ads are trying to convince Congress and juries that Philip Morris is reformed and responsible, so that the next time they have to walk into a courtroom or the halls of Congress, they can avoid real change.'' Of course when they walk into the halls of Congress, they do not walk into strangers. Philip Morris spent from 1997 to 1999, just a 2-year period, about $120 million on lobbying here in Washington. And it was generous with its contributions to the national political parties and to Members of Congress, contributing over $11 million in PAC and soft money contributions during 1999. At the same time Philip Morris was conducting this advertising campaign about its charitable giving, it was also advertising that it no longer markets to children in ways that will attract 3,000 children to tobacco products every day. Of course, in other countries where it markets its deadly products, Philip Morris refuses to abide by any of those restrictions on the marketing to children. Philip Morris continues to play a key role in a worldwide pandemic that will be the largest killer, more than AIDS, more than the combined death toll of a long series of diseases that plague our planet. Philip Morris will be a part of the pandemic that will kill more people in this world than any of these other diseases put together over the next couple of decades. But I think that for this Congress, it is important for us to realize the financial difference between the good deeds Philip Morris advertises and the amount it spends to promote those good deeds. Congress must react by giving the Food and Drug Administration the jurisdiction it needs over tobacco products, the Justice Department the support it needs to continue its lawsuit against the tobacco industry, and address the problem of Big Tobacco's involvement in smuggling around the world. As Members of Congress, we must respond responsively and responsibly to the growing problem of worldwide tobacco addiction and death, though Philip Morris has done neither.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a long title, but it is quite simply a welfare bill. It has a huge price tag that will cost Americans billions of dollars. It has been prepared entirely behind closed doors by those who will receive the welfare benefits. With the blessing of both the Clinton administration and the Republican leadership here in Congress, a very interesting process was followed: If one was going to get something out of this bill, they were invited to the behind-closed- doors negotiations. If they were left out, they were excluded from the negotiations to prepare this legislation. Once this product of all of the clandestine wheeling and dealing sessions was presented to this Congress, every effort was made, both here in the House and across the Capitol in the Senate, to ensure that no questions were asked and no amendments were offered. There was as little talk possible about all of this behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing to get as much welfare for themselves, by some who wrote the bill, as they possibly could: ``Do not look at the details of the largesse, just give it to us as fast as you can.'' This bill represents everything that is wrong with the special interest domination of the legislative process in America today. It provides ample justification for the cynicism that more and more Americans have that their government is not serving them, but serving only those who can afford to have a lobbyist and a political action committee located in Washington.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Portland, Oregon (Mr. Wu), not only on this important motion, but on his work throughout this session of Congress on behalf of schoolchildren and teachers in the Committee on Education and the Workforce. It has been very important not only to Oregon, but it has certainly been important to the children that I represent down in central Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here last night of, at all times, on Halloween evening, amidst the colossal mismanagement of this Congress that has continued throughout the last 2 years, I could not help but think that perhaps this House was haunted, haunted by the ghost of Newt Gingrich, or perhaps it is only that the extremist spirit that we faced throughout his leadership never really left the House. The program that we debate today is patterned after the program that Newt Gingrich and his extremists fought back at the time that they were shutting the government down and inconveniencing people across this country. At that time they opposed our proposed 100,000 federally financed cops on the streets of America. I think that this COPS program has worked. But if we were to replay the arguments of those who opposed that program, our Republican colleagues, they would sound very much like the arguments that we have just heard against the gentleman's very insightful, intelligent, and important motion. At the time of the last Republican government shutdown, they were saying, ``oh, let us just give the States all the money and let them run it through their bureaucracy.'' They were saying, ``well, maybe there will not be enough qualified people out there to work in our neighborhoods and help us deter and reduce crime''; and they fought us through two, three sessions of this Congress against the 100,000 Cops on the streets of America, until they were finally convinced by the people of America, that this was a rather good Federal initiative. I can tell my colleagues that in Travis County, in the center of Texas, we have over 200 additional law enforcement officers in our neighborhoods, protecting our families and our businesses as a result of the COPS program. This 100,000 teacher program that the gentleman from Oregon is supporting takes exactly the same approach, and it is already beginning to work. Last session, over the objections of the Republican leadership, we got additional teachers into the classrooms specifying that that was going to be a specific purpose of our appropriations bill for education. At the beginning of this current school year, with my school superintendent there in Austin, Texas, I went out at that happy time when new teachers and parents and kids were sharing the excitement of a new school year. There to greet those students in Travis County, Texas, were 72 new teachers employed as a result of this classroom size reduction initiative. Not one of them would have been funded had the Republicans prevailed during the last session. What we are saying through this motion is, it works, just like our COPS program. Let us support new, well qualified teachers, so that classes will be of a size where they can maintain discipline and can work in creative ways with these young minds. There is substantial evidence that if we have smaller classroom sizes, our students can benefit. So we say through this motion, let us do something constructive to back up local efforts, not to interfere with them, give them the flexibility that they need, but back them up in their efforts to improve the quality of education. Mr. Speaker, as we review this Republican Congress, we have to say that, with reference to this motion and so many others, that the words that come to mind are failure and flop and fiasco. Unfortunately, the report card for the performance of this Republican leadership is pretty much straight Fs. In contrast, the approach that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) has suggested is an enlightened one that can really help improve the quality of education for young people in the center of Texas, in Oregon, and across this country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer, to demand an immediate vote on prescription drug relief for seniors, to offer the following motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 4577, a bill making appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. 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. 4577 be instructed, in resolving the differences between the two Houses on the funding level for program management in carrying out titles XI, XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, to choose a level that reflects a requirement to prohibit, through the Secretary of Health and Human Services, any market exclusivity for a prescription drug manufactured by a pharmaceutical manufacturer if the manufacturer does not make available to individuals eligible for benefits under such title XVIII all prescription drugs manufactured by the manufacturer at the best available price (as defined in section 1927(c)(1)(C) of such Act) or at the lowest negotiated price paid to such manufacturer for such prescription drugs by any Federal agency or department.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this tax bill is a true Halloween witch's brew; a heavy dose of money for big, unaccountable HMOs that rely on the bean counters to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship, a tiny little pinch of relief for taxpayers, together with the flavoring of a little eye of old Newt's threatening government shutdown for good measure. You can comb through all the pages of this bill, and one thing you will not find is one cent of marriage penalty tax relief. You can comb through these pages and you will not find one cent of estate tax relief for small family businesses and farms. This last minute conglomeration is devoid of meaningful relief for ordinary American families. But this partisan measure showers benefits on the healthy and the wealthy. It gives billions to the same HMOs that have a stranglehold on this Congress and are blocking a patients' bill of rights. They throw in $100 million every year to benefit the tobacco industry in its export of death and disease. Mr. Speaker, no marriage penalty relief; not a cent for marriage penalty, but $24 billion in tax benefits are included to fund the two- martini lunch. Mr. Speaker, here is a bill that even the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Republican chair, is going to vote against. What better symbol of a Republican Congress that can best be called failure, flop, and fiasco.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate Philip Morris and the big tobacco lobby because this bill represents a victory of massive proportion for the addictive industry as well as its beneficiaries and supporters here in the Congress. Indeed, big tobacco is three for three with this Congress. First, this particular bill grants it a new type of trademark protection that our Federal law does not provide to any other industry in the entire world. This special protection will cost Federal taxpayers millions of dollars to provide this special cuddly treatment to the tobacco industry. Second, the House has already approved from the Committee on Ways and Means a very nice gift of about $100 million a year in Federal tax subsidies to the tobacco industry to promote sales of tobacco abroad. Third, the same friends of tobacco over in the Senate who tucked this provision in are restricting through the appropriations process our ability to maintain a lawsuit in Federal court to allow Federal taxpayers to recoup all the losses we have had as a result of the tobacco industry and its misdeeds. Americans can look at what has happened, indeed not only with this bill, but over the last 6 years in this House, and rightly say that the tobacco industry has a stranglehold on the United States House of Representatives. Sometimes those of us who care about public health can prevent some of the wrongdoing, but we are totally unable to overcome the power of the tobacco industry to get largely what it wants from this Congress. As a result, 3,000 children every day will get addicted to tobacco and tobacco will remain a world pandemic affecting millions of people and causing millions of deaths. So while big tobacco has plenty to celebrate this evening with the special treatment that Congress is according it, we who are concerned with this plague have hope for a better Congress next year that will be more sensitive to public health needs. This particular measure prohibits so-called gray market cigarettes, for example, Marlboros that are made in Mexico and imported into the United States and sold at discounted rates by discounters around the country. Reasonable measures to address these gray market cigarettes are not unreasonable. The State attorneys general have rightly complained that these tobacco products are sold, and the revenues, though they pay Federal and State excise taxes, fall outside the master settlement account that they negotiated. But Philip Morris and the other tobacco companies have hidden behind the State attorneys general who will really only see for their States pennies while the tobacco industry earns millions of dollars as a direct benefit of this piece of legislation. As Matt Myers, the president of the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids, has said, we should not be going forward with a gray market bill without addressing the real black market problem that exists in this country. These black-market smuggled cigarettes are costing our States hundreds of millions of dollars, and they are leading to problems, not only here, but around the world. Far from hurting business, tobacco companies have found that they can move their lethal products around the world by assisting smugglers. Big tobacco profits from selling cigarettes to smugglers who reduce the price for the black market and increase consumption and sales, helping them to build a global market. A good example of this right off the pages of The Washington Post is ``Tobacco affiliate pleads guilty to role in smuggling scheme.'' This was a major smuggling operation through RJ Reynolds to move cigarettes into Canada and avoid the taxes in Canada. My colleagues will remember that this was the same argument that the tobacco industry used to thwart reform in 1998, saying we were not doing enough about smuggling. Well, this bill provided an excellent opportunity to do just that. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) mentioned that this bill was approved by the Committee on Ways and Means. When it was approved by the Committee on Ways and Means, it did not have this benefit for the tobacco industry. When it was approved by the House of Representatives originally, it did not have this benefit for the tobacco industry. But to avoid real reform, they waited until the Senate to add it back in, knowing how compliant the House would be on this matter. It is estimated that about a third of the cigarettes in international commerce are smuggled cigarettes through the black market. Recent documents in the litigation that has occurred here in the United States shows that U.S. tobacco companies were well aware of such smuggling and considered it an important advantage to them. I believe that we need to do more than just provide special protection for this industry. Can my colleagues imagine every other industry in America, whether it is Ralph Lauren or Nike, if they need a trademark protected, they do not turn to the Customs Services or to the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm divisions of the Treasury Department. They go to court. But instead of turning to court, what Philip Morris and the other tobacco companies will do as a result of this bill is that they can turn to the American taxpayer and ask the taxpayer, through the Treasury Department, to enforce their trademarks in a way that no other company, no other industry is entitled to. That is one of the reasons that ENACT, a coalition of 55 major national medical and public health organizations, including the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association, have urged that we address the black market issue. Madam Speaker, we need to stop the real smuggling problem that affects children in this country and children around the world that will lead to a pandemic in which 10 million unique human beings die every year as a result of addiction. We ought to stop the smuggling. We ought to stop the mugging of the world's children through nicotine addiction. Instead this bill, this bill provides more help to the muggers.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pipelines are certainly important in supplying our Nation's energy needs. But in Travis County, Texas, when gasoline is to be pumped through a 50-year-old line not designed for gasoline located within a few feet of 11 public schools and across a major source of drinking water, the term ``pipeline safety'' is a conflict. It is an oxymoron. Despite over thousands of Central Texans asking that they place the pipeline somewhere else, the Office of Pipeline Safety has been totally useless. Frank King, for whose son this bill has been named, came all the way from Washington State to Austin, Texas, to meet with us to describe the horror that can develop when pipeline safety is neglected and pipelines are mislocated. This bill does his family absolutely no justice. It has been so weakened that it has even been blessed by the giant oil companies that are trying to impose the Longhorn pipeline on Central Texas neighborhoods. We need a real pipeline safety bill, not a legislative illusion that does more to appease special interests than protect America's families. Reject this illusion tonight.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, in central Texas, workforce development is the number one, overriding high-tech issue. From the work that my office does with one technology company after another in helping get H-1B visas processed, I know that such visas represent one short-term answer to our needs. One reason that Austin, Texas prospers is by living the lyrics of that great Texan Lyle Lovett, who sings, ``Oh no, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway.'' We have attracted the best and brightest people from all over the world in part, through this H-1B program, to sustain our high-tech industries. A high-tech leader in Austin, only a couple of months ago, was telling me that his situation in not being able to get qualified people to do the jobs that needed to be filled yesterday is not unlike a steel mill that cannot get an adequate supply of iron ore. Because we have such a serious problem, with unemployment at an all- time low, in being able to get needed workers, I joined with a bipartisan coalition back in March to increase the supply of visas and to reform the process by which they are provided. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has been entirely too modest tonight. Without her determined leadership in forging a bipartisan coalition, we would not have secured H-1B legislation this year. My regret is that it is here in this fashion, and that so little has been done to address the other critical needs such as for modernizing immigration services with on-line filing and monitoring. I am here not because I think this is a good bill, but because it is the only bill that the House leadership will permit us to consider on this issue. To schedule this debate 3 hours after Members were told they could leave the Capitol because there would be no further votes, to schedule it in a way that limits the debate time to a few minutes, to deny all perfecting amendments, is all too typical of the way this House has operated this year under the Republican leadership. But after months of inaction on much a critical high tech issue, this unfortunate approach shortchanges both this House and our high-tech industry. In what will hopefully be a much better Congress next year, I will continue seeking more comprehensive legislation to reform the visa process and to create a separate ``tech visa.'' At the same time we must also make much more effective use of visa fee revenue to develop the skills of young Americans to fill future tech job openings so that even more of our neighbors can share our economic success.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which reauthorizes the National Domestic Violence Hotline, headquartered in my hometown of Austin, Texas. This hotline has seen a steady rise in its calls from around the country that it so effectively handles. In 3 years, the number of calls has almost doubled to over 142,000 each year. Hotline Director, Shun Thompson, and her staff have capably ensured that those in crisis are referred to local community services across America. Further, this legislation is vital to community organizations like SafePlace in Austin, so ably led by Executive Director Kelly White and Board Chairman Donna Stockton Hicks. The professional staff and numerous community volunteers at SafePlace provide a number of innovative programs in addition to the traditional counseling, domestic violence emergency shelters and transitional housing. One of these is ``Expect Respect,'' a program that focuses on raising respect and preventing domestic violence among our youngest Austinites in elementary and secondary schools. Because today's bill has been presented under a procedure that permits no amendments, I am unable to offer my proposal, the ``Domestic Violence Economic Security Act,'' which would authorize temporary unemployment compensation for those victims of domestic violence who have a reasonable fear of violence in the workplace. It ensures that no victim who leaves a job because of a reasonable fear of violence is denied help. In this country, a woman is battered every 15 seconds--nearly 6,000 women a day. This public health problem must be given top priority, and we can begin that focus by reauthorizing the ``Violence Against Women Act.'' But there is so much more work on domestic violence for the next Congress to undertake.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in June this Congress approved the first substantive reform of our campaign finance laws since 1979. The bipartisan vote for approval followed months of discussion of the perverse impact on our democracy of clandestine political organizations organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code. While this was a small victory among many defeats on the campaign finance reform front, it was nevertheless significant. The path to progress, however, was a twisted path. Final approval followed repeated rejection of bipartisan reform proposals in the House Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, after months of delay, the House Republican leadership reversed course and brought up a 527 bill for our consideration here in the House, late at night, with no amendments permitted and very truncated debate. During previous Committee on Ways and Means consideration on this matter, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) and I had offered a more comprehensive alternative. Unfortunately, the provisions of this alternative were omitted from the final bill during the belated scrambling for immediate floor consideration. Now, many State and local officials are paying the price for this mistake with unnecessary time and effort in completing unnecessary filings here in Washington that duplicate those they were already making on the State level. Mr. Speaker, I have just introduced legislation with a number of our colleagues to correct this error. This new bill will address the concerns of the State and local officials and organizations, it will apply the gift tax as an added element of deterrence for undisclosed contributions as we previously proposed, and it will make other necessary technical corrections of errors that were committed in the course of rushing the previous bill to the floor late one night. Mr. Speaker, while the problem of having the State and local committees make duplicative filings certainly did not have a bipartisan origin, it does demand a bipartisan solution. As with the original 527 bill that I first presented in March, I seek support of both Republican and Democratic colleagues to correct what one group has called ``the senseless duplication of efforts on the part of many State and local'' organizations forced to fill out forms and send them to the Internal Revenue Service, even if they have already made substantially the same public disclosure to State regulatory agencies. Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide an exemption for those State and local groups that are meeting substantially the same public disclosure requirements as now apply to Federal 527 organizations. Simply, exempting the committees without requiring them to be ``substantially similar'' could create an unwise loophole in the modest bill that Congress has approved, but doing it as we propose and as we proposed in our previous legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means will reduce the burden on the Internal Revenue Service; and, more importantly, it would reduce the burden on many local and State organizations. Additionally, this bill removes the requirement that electronic filings be duplicated in writing, thereby reducing paperwork for both the filer and the IRS. As with most bills that get rushed through the House, there are other ambiguities that require technical corrections. To prevent a misinterpretation that would weaken enforcement, this new bill will clarify, as did our old committee alternative, that all of the 527s' income, whether segregated or not, is to be considered taxable income in case of failure to file the required notice. Further, the bill will clear up an ambiguity as to whether the failure to file penalty is to be treated as a tax liability or a civil penalty, which could otherwise delay enforcement and collection. Through this change, the State and local groups, which may have filed late because of a lack of notice about the new law could be afforded the same ``reasonable cause'' arguments available to every other taxpayer under the civil penalty section. Finally, the bill will add back the omitted companion penalties that we proposed for fraudulent filings for violations of the new 527 law and the gift tax penalty for undisclosed contributions. This legislation is narrowly drawn to secure approval now in the waning days of this Congress. But much more comprehensive additional reform is needed. Already, there are groups that are shifting from 527s to different tax status. Within the last few days, The Washington Post has reported that ``Political groups that want to keep their finances secret are changing their tax status in order to avoid having to reveal their donors and spending, making an end-run around a new law intended to crack down on anonymous political activity.'' Among the worst of these is a group called ``Citizens for Better Medicare'' that is determined to block our efforts to end price discrimination against seniors. This is discrimination by which our seniors in America are literally treated worse than dogs, having to pay the highest prices, not only more than animals in the United States, but more than people anywhere around the globe. This group has expended so much in political advertising on television that one commentator recently suggested it has practically become a third political party along with the Democrats and the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, I hope that next year we can have comprehensive reform to address this problem we had anticipated and which could have been largely avoided had the alternative we advanced in the Committee on Ways and Means been adopted. But today, I ask my colleagues to join us in a modest change that can help our State and local committees and public officials and improve the reform legislation adopted in June.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am joining a cancer survivor, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), our colleague, in what is truly a bipartisan recognition of excellence as we introduce legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Lance Armstrong. Lance is an Austinite, but one does not have to share his hometown to appreciate the depth of his achievements. After being stricken with advanced cancer, Lance's chances of survival were slim and his chances of getting back on a bicycle were even slimmer. Just 3 months after his diagnosis in 1996, he formed the Lance Armstrong Foundation to promote cancer awareness, education, and research. And then, his amazing comeback. Last year he conquered the Tour de France with the same strength and grace as he conquered cancer, and this year he did it again. Next week in Australia we hope his yellow jersey is turned into Olympic gold. While his courageous battle with cancer set the stage for an amazing comeback, one of the most amazing in sports history, it is his commitment to raising cancer awareness and helping others triumph over this disease that particularly merits congressional recognition. In honor of his courage, his preeminence in the sport of cycling, and his dedication to both improving the lives of cancer victims and finding a cure for this disease, please join us in supporting the Lance Armstrong Congressional Gold Medal Act.

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, that is so very vital. We have talked about the fact that too many of our seniors are forced to choose between groceries and prescriptions and to make very challenging decisions. For some it is literally a matter of life and death. I had a woman from Austin, Texas, write me recently about an experience that is really of great concern to her family. She says that her brother recently underwent a kidney transplant and he is about to turn 65, at which time he will be forced to go on Medicare and give up the insurance that he previously has had. But he is now going to have to have these anti-rejection drugs after having had the transplant, and she expresses the concern that they just do not know where they will find the money because the cost of these anti-rejection drugs is really prohibitive, they cannot get any coverage on Medicare and at this point, though they are not wealthy people, they do not qualify for any kind of welfare program. And these kind of folks I gather would just be excluded from the insurance subsidy plan that the Republicans are advancing.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, when we hear the story like the one that was just recounted, a person who is going to be facing $17,000 in bills with no remedy, we have to ask, well, why is this Congress not out here working on it tonight. It was a little over a year ago that I offered in the House Committee on Ways and Means with our colleague the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) a proposal to deal with this price discrimination problem that would not have set up any government bureaucracy. In fact, that aspect of it would not have entailed any substantial cost. Every Republican member of our committee voted against that proposal. And we have advanced it again this year. Every one of them voted against it again. Only after their public relations firm told them they had a problem did they come up with the plan the Republican presidential candidate is advancing. The presidential elections I know are capturing most of the attention, but there is no good reason why the Congress should not be acting now. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) could put this back on the agenda. It could be put on the agenda in the Senate and present the next President of the United States with a plan that was already in place that could be implemented. This Democratic plan that we have been talking about tonight, it could go into effect now. I just mention to my colleagues the reaction that I think probably a lot of people have across this country that was embodied in another communication that I got from a constituent that lives out on Oakwood Drive in Austin. It begins: ``Shame on you pharmaceutical companies. Where is the compassion for human life? Have you just gotten so absorbed into making big profits that you can just say, we don't care if you don't have the money, roll over and die, see if we care?'' And this person does not face the $17,000 problem. She says, ``When you have a heart problem and you need three kinds of medication every day and just one prescription costs $120 each month, something is wrong. When these pharmaceutical companies have luxurious jets that transport candidates to the convention as shown on the news, then something is very wrong, especially when needed medications have these kind of exorbitant prices.'' Well, I think we are here again tonight because something is very wrong and that wrong is the failure of this Congress to respond to these needs, a failure that is extended over a number of years and was just papered over with this insurance subsidy plan that does not meet the need of these kind of folks that are out there tonight facing these tough decisions.

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman would yield on that, first I think is the very, very important point you made about welfare. When President Johnson was leading that struggle 30 years ago, these same Republican voices were being raised in this room, maybe not the same individuals, but the same philosophy; and they said just extend the welfare program and take care of those most in need. They were opposed to Medicare. In fact, you remember it was only a short while ago that Bob Dole was bragging about how he was one of a few people to stand up and oppose Medicare and Speaker Newt Gingrich was in this very room, and he was boasting of the need to let Medicare wither on the vine. They do not really believe in Medicare, and this is a way to start the concept that we just need a welfare plan for those most in need. I think Medicare and Social Security have been two of the best programs this Congress has ever devised under Democratic leadership, over Republican opposition, and over continued Republican efforts to undermine those programs. I believe if we go with a welfare program for prescription drugs, that is really what the focus will be. The second very important point the gentleman makes is just turning this over to the States is not a very good answer. Texas could have done this, but Texas has not, unfortunately, met the needs of its seniors on prescription drugs. It has not done anything. And when Texas had the opportunity after Democratic leadership in promoting the children's health insurance program to provide health insurance to meet the needs of children in our State, and we have in Texas more uninsured children than any State in the country, I think, except possibly one, we are right at the top, and we, unfortunately, at the State level, there were delays, no effort was made to expedite the program; and Texas has foregone hundreds of millions of dollars that could have helped get children there with insurance for prescriptions and other things. With that kind of example, it does not inspire confidence that seniors who want help now would be able to get that help, even the few poor seniors who would be covered under this Republican scheme, that they would get help in a timely manner to meet their needs.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I think that is just such a critical point. The pharmaceutical industry has been masquerading under something called Citizens for Better Medicare. It sounded like from the news report that the gentleman from New Jersey read that the Republican candidate had been watching too many of their ads. Because they put out ads under the pretense of being for better Medicare, but the truth is that their group is really ``Citizens for Leaving Us Alone to Let Us Charge Whatever We Want to Charge.'' My colleague from Texas referenced the fact that some people along the borders of America are going south or they are going north to go right across the boundary and get prescription drugs at significantly less cost, because they are sold at less cost in Mexico and in Canada. Some of those prescription drugs are made right here in the United States, and they are made and sold by our manufacturers in the pharmaceutical industry for less in Mexico and Canada than they are sold to our seniors here. They give them maybe as good a deal in Mexico or Canada as they will give a dog here in the United States. And to be sure, the prices that our uninsured seniors are having to pay are the highest I think in the entire world. My colleague referred to the experience of some of the other countries around the world, but I do not believe anyone gets gouged as much as a senior in Texas or New Jersey or any other part of this country, and unless we come to grips with that problem and bring in the negotiating power so that it is not one retired police officer, or one retired nurse or teacher who is out there trying to take on these pharmaceutical giants that can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, millions of dollars in lobby expenses, millions of dollars in these television ads, giving misinformation to everyone, we pit one senior against those pharmaceutical giants, they do not have a prayer. The only hope we have through this Democratic plan is to come in and add a little balance in the system so it can be evened out a bit.

Mr. DOGGETT. Is not it true, in fact, that what they did was to have a focus group or they got some high-powered, expensive political consultant to tell them what going by any meeting of the American Association of Retired Persons or retired teachers or many of our retired veterans could have told them for free, and that is that the Republicans are perceived here in the House and around the country as having done absolutely nothing to help seniors when it comes to the outrageous price of prescription drugs? They have sat on their hands. They have been here in charge now for right at 6 years, and they have done absolutely nothing. So after they got that input from this high- powered consultant, it only took a few days and then they were out in our Committee on Ways and Means with a proposal to subsidize insurance companies and make it appear that they were finally getting around to doing something.

Mr. DOGGETT. I believe that their famous comment on that of one of the insurance folks was that it would be like insurance for haircuts being proposed.

Mr. DOGGETT. In short, we have been there and done that in this House, have not we? We have already had a vote on that very proposal which was really a plan not to help the seniors of this country but to help the insurance companies to reach out and touch someone, but in this case it was to touch and subsidize insurance companies and assist them but to leave out the vast majority of what we might call the working-class or middle-class seniors that worked to build this into the greatest country in the world, but they just have been left out of the Republican plan. Is not that correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. And even though they were going to get a general subsidy, they did not know whether they could ever provide the policies. I believe though Texas, unfortunately, has been way behind on doing anything to assist our seniors, there have been some States that have tried this approach that the Republicans have advanced, and what has been their experience?

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