Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman has repeated his stated intent to provide the protection that his bill denies, and I would refer him, again, to page 3, line 2 of this bill as it was presented in committee, and the failure to refer to section 2791(b)(5) of the Public Health Service Act means that that protection will not be there. It could easily have been added if that were the true intent. It is omitted. Same page, line 12, the failure to include guarantees against nondiscrimination is not there. He is concerned about federalizing healthcare. Well, all that I want to do is set a minimum Federal standard that no person in this country will be denied because of a preexisting condition the healthcare that they deserve. That is what the Affordable Care Act was designed to achieve, not only for those in the marketplace, but beyond. Secondly, I want to ensure that different classes of employees are not treated differently. Let me just describe a little more of what is involved there. Just as they would allow insurers to discriminate against a newborn with a heart murmur and call that a preexisting condition, their bill would permit an employer to discriminate against their own employees. Just to give you a practical example. We have a lot of chicken processing plants down in northeast Texas. If there is a facility out there where the chicken pluckers are chasing the chickens, removing the feathers that are flying, those tough, dirty, hot jobs processing them may be managed by a group in some high-rise in Dallas or Tyler. Well, this bill, as it is written, will allow those executives to get their group health insurance policy with all the protections against preexisting conditions and being able to see, perhaps, a concierge service for their healthcare. But the folks that are down there chasing the chickens and plucking the chickens, they get an ICHRA. All they get is ick. That is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He says there is nothing in this bill about preexisting conditions and discrimination, and he is absolutely right. That is the whole failing of this bill. It does not include the protections that are necessary to ensure that no American is discriminated against on the basis of preexisting conditions and that no employer can discriminate among groups of its employees. He also says this is going to open more opportunities for more people to get health coverage. I would point out that studies have shown that 95 percent of the people who are in these icky plans now once had good group health coverage. My concern is that we will see even more people lose their good group health coverage and be put into an icky plan. As for the Small Business Flexibility Act, I am for the Treasury and others educating all employers and employees about their rights and opportunities, but I think this part of the overall package is very slanted. Treasury needs to be out there educating employers, some of whom may not know themselves the limitations that these junk plans have and how much they will disserve their employees. We need education of employees on how to understand whether their employer's offer of coverage meets the minimum standard and is truly affordable for the purposes of being able to otherwise enroll in subsidized marketplace coverage. I think there are limitations on that portion of the bill as well and that it, therefore, should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The chairman of our committee says that there were great gifts to insurance companies. What the Build Back Better bill did was to give individuals additional tax credits. Some Republicans call those tax cuts, but they were credits given to people to be able to afford insurance. As a result of that improvement, many more Americans got the insurance that they need. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I say to the chairman, he is absolutely correct. I referred to the Build Back Better instead of the American Rescue Plan. It is easy to get confused about them. The American Rescue Plan was, of course, signed into law and has helped so many Americans. However, we always know that whatever the name, Republicans are against all of them, as they were, and voted unanimously against all of the opportunity that they created for millions more Americans to get and keep health insurance and provide themselves security. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I focused on one part of this entire package of bills, but together it is truly a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the Affordable Care Act. Being unable to repeal it, having nothing but nothing care to replace it with is really kind of a death by a thousand cuts, making healthcare less accessible and affordable for so many at-risk workers. The bills in this package include a codification of the Trump-era rule that allows employers to offer these ICHRA plans to their employees instead of employer-sponsored health plans. Under this plan, employers may offer a voucher and force their employee to shop for their own coverage. Under this bill, employers are permitted to pick and choose among their employees and discriminate against some with their vouchers. This bill also includes an expansion of the association health plans, which my colleague from Virginia will discuss at greater length. That has been a standard tenet of Republicans' assault on the Affordable Care Act. It is a provision that would allow self-employed individuals and small businesses to circumvent the guarantees of the Affordable Care Act and steer consumers into shoddy coverage that does not cover the healthcare they most need when they need it, the essential health benefits. It also does not offer them protection against preexisting conditions or age or the fact that before the Affordable Care Act was adopted, women were discriminated against at a great rate and often denied the coverage that they needed or it was priced so high they could not afford it. The bill would also preempt State regulation of association health plans and disrupt risk pools as these plans do not have to follow standard premium-setting rules and risk adjustment. This bill is similar to the Trump administration rule that was struck down in 2019. If you are beginning to recognize a pattern here, this is all Trump, Trump, Trump because he is still the Pied Piper for the Republican Conference, as we just saw in this disgraceful presentation about our honorable colleague Adam Schiff. This package also contains a provision to encourage employers to offer self-funded plans, which are not required to comply with ACA protections, again, on preexisting conditions, on essential health benefits, and more. Most employers do not want to take on the risk of offering a self-funded plan. However, by expanding stop-loss coverage, which sets a catastrophic amount the employer will be responsible for, and then covers any other costs that may come up from covering their employees, self-funded plans will be more attractive. This legislation prevents Federal and State governments from regulating stop-loss coverage and risks more employers opting for self- funded plans that do not protect healthcare consumers. Finally, without providing any additional resources, this legislative package tells the Treasury Department to educate employers about how great these new icky plans are and their health reimbursement accounts, which would bar workers from more affordable coverage under the marketplace already available. At the heart of this effort is just the perpetual push by House Republicans to weaken the protections of the Affordable Care Act, which have prevented financial ruin for so many people and assured access to healthcare for so many people. Under the provisions of this bill, employers can form association health plans to skirt some of the requirements of the ACA like the essential health benefits. State and Federal regulators will be hamstrung in their ability to protect small businesses and workers in self-funded plans. Utilizing these icky ICHRA plans, employers can also push those with preexisting conditions, women, and older workers into the individual market with vouchers while keeping their younger and healthier employees on employee-sponsored insurance. Therefore, the sick get treated differently. Those who have disabilities, who have had long-term chronic conditions, could be treated very differently and put at great risk. I think for all these reasons that this legislation should be soundly rejected. This is an opportunity to defend all that the Affordable Care Act has meant to Americans and offer that opportunity to more people rather than deception that is the hallmark of this bill and following the Trump approach that junk insurance is what would be most available to Americans. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I would say to the gentleman from Michigan, I am sure there are many Republicans who want to assure good healthcare to all people. The problem is with this specific bill. The one-page amendment that I offered could have guaranteed these ICHRA employees that they would face no discrimination among classes of employees and no barrier of preexisting conditions. That clarification would have solved this problem, and their failure repeatedly to accept that one-page amendment, with no explanation other than that they wanted to do the same thing, or that it was duplicative, betrays the promise of this bill and suggests that discrimination and denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions is what Americans in these plans will face. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, our colleague from Missouri (Mr. Smith) closed by saying that his goal is to cut red tape. Well, that is a goal that I think all of us can share, but I am afraid that this bill, as written, will only throw more Americans into the red and into medical debt, which is already high despite the protections that we have provided to date. There are so many families overwhelmed by medical debt, and some who will be denied the opportunity to get the protection they need from their healthcare providers because they simply cannot afford it. Madam Chair, I would say at the appropriate time I will offer a motion to recommit to this bill and send it back to committee. If the House rules permit it, I would have offered this motion with an appropriate amendment to the bill. My amendment would ensure that this bill does not take effect unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that this bill will not result in anyone losing access to coverage of essential health benefits or see their healthcare costs rise, the very objective that the gentleman from Virginia has been discussing. Madam Chair, I include in the Record the text of this amendment. Mr. Doggett moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3799 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment: Add at the end the following new title:

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting it, recommitting this, pursuing the objective of better healthcare for all, and protecting all Americans from preexisting condition barriers, and ensuring they are not the subject of discrimination.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I don't believe that we have noted yet in the course of this debate the great irony, the fact that this is called the CHOICE Arrangement Act, that we have some pro-choice Republicans here who want to give employers the choice and allow them to discriminate against different classes of their own employees. All of this is happening the same horrible anniversary week of the Supreme Court's wrongful decision to overturn decades of reliance upon Roe v. Wade and to eliminate the right to an abortion with an effect on women's healthcare that is so far-reaching that it is affecting our colleges of medicine across the country and delivery of healthcare to women who may never have been involved in the slightest way with an abortion. They called this healthcare freedom today. I call it the repression and the interference with the basic healthcare rights of women. By the terms of their own amendment, patients and doctors should make healthcare decisions, not government bureaucrats or insurance companies. The CHOICE Arrangement Act comes at the same time that they interfere with what happens in our bedrooms and our doctors' offices and, most recently, even in our kitchens. They would sentence patients under this basic legislation with preexisting conditions to a future of very few choices and no freedom. With no choices for adequate and affordable healthcare, this legislation guarantees one kind of prescription and one kind of prescription only, and that is a prescription for personal bankruptcy and unlimited medical debt from policies that do not provide essential healthcare benefits. It is really a shame that, in a country as wealthy as ours, we still have millions of citizens who go without health coverage. Over 30 million Americans, in fact, lack coverage, and many in our home State of Texas lack coverage because of the fact that our State legislature and Governor were never willing to provide the guarantee we anticipated with the Affordable Care Act of Medicaid expansion as most States have done. Patients do not have a choice, do not have freedom when they suffer a heart attack or are diagnosed with a dreaded disease or a broken arm, and they lack insurance coverage that provides them the benefits that they need. Under this amendment, which is a sense of Congress resolution that really doesn't accomplish much of anything, this bill is not improved. Americans would have so much skin in the game they would get burned just as the Republican dirty fossil fuel plan would burn up our planet. It is not just the Affordable Care Act that is being targeted today. There is reference to socialized medicine of the kind that Newt Gingrich once attacked in this body when he suggested Medicare should ``wither on the vine.'' Contrary to Republican attacks, we have heard about public insurance programs. Seniors on Medicare value their Medicare as do the 16 million people who signed up for the Affordable Care Act this year. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment has a rather nominal effect in not improving what is a very bad and deceptive bill. It is appealing to talk about rural areas. I am concerned about those rural areas, about the chicken pluckers, about the meatpackers, about the field workers, and the way they will be discriminated against under this bill. I will elaborate on that. While this is mainly a Republican caucus that follows the seditious pied piper who was our President, in this case, even under the Trump administration, when they considered this kind of proposal, the Treasury Department, the Labor Department, and the Health and Human Services Department came together and recognized the danger of discriminating against different classes of employees. Ultimately, unfortunately, the Trump administration did not provide the protection against discrimination, so that people who are working in rural areas under this bill may be discriminated against by their employer as a result of this legislation. It is the failure to have clear language in this bill to prevent such discrimination against rural workers, in favor of those who are in the office towers managing everything, that is at the heart of our opposition, as well as the refusal to provide protection and guarantees against people being denied as a result of their preexisting conditions. Rural Americans are more likely to die from heart disease, cancer, stroke, unintentional injury, and respiratory disease. Yet, we would take our sickest workers, our most vulnerable low-income workers, and deny them a comprehensive employer plan with many protections and allow them to be the subject of discrimination. There has already been too much discrimination against rural areas and rural workers. We ought to prevent it, not make it worse. There are no guarantees that these people can find any coverage with their ICHRA plan, let alone affordable and quality coverage. I think rural Americans deserve far better than this amendment to try to put a patch on a very sorry bill that undermines the protections of the Affordable Care Act that has offered great benefit to so many Americans, and I urge everyone to vote ``no.'' Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chair, I would say that the only education that would be really helpful on this bill would be to educate both employers and employees about all the shortcomings of this bill. Educating employers that they ought not to be discriminating against classes of workers and treating the rural, hardworking employees there at lower wages differently where they get an ICHRA policy that denies them preexisting conditions, that denies them the essential benefits under the Affordable Care Act, while the folks in the city in management get treated differently--they get a concierge kind of treatment that is not available to the rural workers. Just educating about this bill, which allows that discrimination, would not accomplish much of anything. I think what we are going to see with this kind of legislation is more and more workers in rural areas, as well as urban areas, who face discrimination and who face great medical debt because these plans are so weak. They are junk insurance that will deny the benefits that most people need. Educating about them, if truthful education, if not the kind of deception that is buried in this bill, educating about them will only tell people the limitations and the shortcomings. Otherwise, it will be a kind of education that covers up, as this bill does, the great harm that is being done in denying folks access to a family physician with the protection that is there. Remember that in moving to these ICHRA plans, we already know that 95 percent of those that are in ICHRA plans today, that have this icky kind of coverage, are people who once had good group health insurance that I would like to see available to more Americans. Again, I urge my colleagues to definitely vote ``no'' on this amendment and vote ``no'' on this sorry bill and support our motion to recommit. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The ACTING Chair. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, this is the freedom resolution on the week that we have the anniversary of the anti-choice Dobbs decision as part of the CHOICE Arrangement Act. Well, I am reminded of the lyrics of a famous Janis Joplin song: ``Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.'' No choice is left. No freedom is left. This is our future under Republican plans--so much to lose, nothing left tomorrow. We need to protect more Americans from the dangers of health debt and bankruptcy. We need to ensure broader coverage. There is a huge coverage gap that is leaving perhaps as many as 2 million Texans without coverage because of the failures and ideological objections of our State Republican government. Those Americans deserve the same protection that 16 million Americans got when they signed up for the Affordable Care Act this year. They have access to a family physician that is so very important. They have access to the essential benefits of the Affordable Care Act, getting access to the kind of care that they need to ensure their family is secure. I believe that there are many improvements that are necessary in the Affordable Care Act. We were limited in being able to make those improvements when all we had for more than a decade were 60-plus Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Let us reject this bill and this amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this legislation, I recognize the importance of our engagement with Taiwan economically, as well as our military presence to deter conflict and to maintain safe passage through the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. These are international waters. This incomplete trade agreement that we take up is a modest first step and can only be enforced after the approval by this Congress. The work that we are already doing with Taiwan benefits businesses across America. Taiwan is already our ninth largest goods trading partner with over $90 billion in two-way trade during 2020. We have seen the People's Republic of China, unfortunately, violently suppress democracy in Hong Kong, breaching its claim that it would support one country and two systems. We have seen, apparently, over a million Uyghurs who have been placed in concentration camps. There is every reason to be concerned by the threats the PRC has made about the future of democracy in Taiwan. The opportunity tonight is not only to speak up for Taiwan, but as Chairman Smith indicated, to reaffirm the role that Congress plays not only with Taiwan, but with all of our trading partners. No administration, neither Democratic nor Republican, can adopt trading agreements that are enforceable without Congress exercising its constitutional responsibility for international trade. We will not yield that authority. It applies not only here, but to every trading partner. We do, as we move forward in supporting Taiwan economically and militarily, need to recognize as well that it is not a matter of abandoning Taiwan to talk with China, to seek to avoid war with the People's Republic of China, which would be disastrous for the entire world. While effective military deterrence, strong deterrence is essential, this trading engagement is important. Our diplomatic power is also important, and, in that regard, the recent Republican attacks on Secretary of State Blinken for attempting to normalize diplomatic relations in Beijing are outrageous and totally counterproductive. As a member of the Taiwan Caucus here in the House, I salute Taiwanese Americans, particularly their contribution to my hometown of Austin, and to the valuable insights that they have given me about the importance of our relationship with Taiwan.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the GOP has become, sadly, the ``Guns Over People'' party. Their answer to the desperate pleas of families from all across America who want to stop the slaughter of schoolchildren and other innocents--their answer is to do absolutely nothing. Today, during this National Gun Violence Awareness Month, what do they do? They go a step further. This is the only opportunity this year that Speaker McCarthy has permitted us to consider any gun violence legislation. What do they do about gun violence? They enable a little more of it. More pistol braces in the hands of killers will cause us to brace for more death. Republicans want to stop an ATF rule that will require background checks in certain narrow instances when a brace turns a handgun into a rifle. Background checks are exactly what we need for all gun purchases so that those who go through the gun shop loophole and don't get a check when they buy it at a gun show or on the internet have to have the same standard as if they bought it in a gun shop. They will not even permit us to respond to the desperate pleas of the people of Uvalde to ban weapons of war from the hands of teenagers who couldn't on their own go out and buy a beer. There is an orgy of violence going on, and they are obstructing those of us who want to respond to the police from doing anything about it, from banning weapons of war, from requiring background checks to ensure we know what kind of person is getting a gun and, if they have a problem, they ought to be denied that access. The gun industry is marketing these so-called ``stabilizing braces'' to convert heavy pistols into short-barreled rifles that are more concealable.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the guns are already the number one killer of children in our country. This year, there have been 291 mass shootings. We can count the numbers, but we can't count the pain of an empty chair where there was once a vibrant parent or a wonderful little child who was murdered in a mass shooting. This Congress could do something about it if we could end the obstruction. We need to move toward reducing gun violence, not enabling it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, since Austin, deep in the heart of fossil-fueled Texas, is the only place I have ever called home, I don't believe I have ever been in a home without a gas stove. But I certainly don't need any protection through this contrived bill, and neither does any other American. I don't need to save my stove because there is no Federal bureaucrat out there about to turn off the burners and mandate cold meals forever. After meddling in our bedrooms and in our bathrooms, as if that weren't enough, now Republicans are turning their attention to our kitchens. Republicans propose in these bills to stop regulations that no agency has ever proposed. It follows the Republican playbook. The easiest problems to fix are those that don't exist in the first place, and they are very good at that. Pursuing this manufactured problem places this bill in the race for the silliest Republican bill of the year but, with culture warriors developing this kind of stuff all the time, that is an honor that is very competitive to get. Nonsense like these bills represent just another way of avoiding dealing with the genuine problems that our families and our country confront. There is a growing body of science that indicates that burning natural gas increases the chances of childhood asthma and can worsen preexisting heart and lung issues. Using gas in the home, of course, like using it anywhere else, can involve methane leaks that are important as we deal with the climate crisis. This bill prohibits any consideration of science in the future, no matter what it shows, or what improvements might be recommended for health and safety of those who are cooking on a stove or their families. Unfortunately, rejection of science is to be expected from a crowd of climate deniers who regularly prefer political mythology and ideology over reality. What we should all be concerned about is not how we are cooking on our stoves, but how our planet is cooking. It is overheating to a dangerous level. This bill is yet another indication of Republicans' rejection of science. Our families are already encountering the human health effects of climate change, tropical diseases we have never seen before, heat exhaustion, death and destruction from one disaster after another. When Democrats pursue solutions to these problems, House Republicans are quick to point, look over there. Look over there at this imagined Fox network fantasy that can upset you, while meanwhile they seem to have never met a polluter they didn't like or to whom they were unwilling to grant special privileges. More and more families are, in fact, going electric with their cars, their water heaters, their solar panels and more. At some point, I expect my family also will make the change with our stove, not because we are being forced by a bureaucrat, but because science shows that it may be healthier for our grandchildren and for our planet. Indeed, in January, the American Public Health Association called on Federal agencies to do more to educate the public about these dangers. More research is exactly what we need, including from the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Department of Energy so we can base what we do here on facts, not on fantasy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the leader they worship, Donald J. Trump, is the ``king of debt,'' as he described himself. Spellbound, whenever he commands, they would crash our government and default on America. Never concerned with the soaring Trump debt that they supported, their sudden interest now in deficit reduction is really about undermining education, health, environmental protection, and social service initiatives that they never supported in the first place. Their plan is not about debt reduction. It is only about making room for another round of tax cuts that they have already scheduled for June to benefit the superrich, the giant multinational corporations, those who refuse to pay their fair share of our national security and other vital public services. Don't make Americans pay for Republican hypocrisy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, within this very week, the World Meteorological Association has indicated that for the first time in human history, we will hit a critical high temperature level by 2027. It reported that in just 2 recent years, there were 22,000 deaths from extreme weather events. Recognizing that we already face a grave climate crisis, the American people need a true winning strategy to escape the addiction to fossil fuels. More and more Americans are turning to clean energy, daring to go green. A growing solar industry plays an instrumental role in helping them in seeking lower global temperatures, in saving our planet. Disregarding the extreme heat, extreme Republicans only seem to get hot, to get warmed up, when they see the slightest opportunity to impede progress. Their answer today to those who are trying to help solve this problem? Punish American companies that are out there actually doing something about this problem. Punish them with a $1 billion retroactive tax that they will have to pay. I believe that there is an opportunity to continue to resolve the problems that we face with climate change. We responded to it last year with a climate incentives law. Our Republican colleagues are also seeking to repeal that law. The pause that is involved in these tariffs ends in a mere 12 months, and Republicans will not ultimately be successful today in blocking the President. What happens with this, as with their challenge to our climate incentives law, is an indication of the many obstacles that we face that we must overcome if we are to address the climate crisis. I am yielding my time now, but we must not yield in the determination to protect the only planet that we call home.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, it reminds me of Texas--in fact, it reminds me of someone with whom I served in the Texas Legislature. He was asked what he did there, and he said: ``Oh, I am not here to do anything, I am just here in case somebody else decides to do something.'' That is the approach of these extreme House Republicans. They have no plan to protect our families from pollution or protect our planet from the climate crisis. Following their seditious leader, Donald Trump, they are just here to say ``no.'' For some reason, any time we have a success that is green, it just makes them see red. Democrats are choosing to stand with families that are concerned about real health problems like bronchitis and childhood asthma and cardiovascular disease that is caused and accentuated by pollution. We need some heavy-duty action here today to protect our lungs and the lungs of our planet. Yet, they object to even this modest heavy- duty truck rule--the first updating of this pollution standard in 20 years. With their fossilized thinking and smoggy judgment, Republicans are permitting our planet to overheat, and with this rule rollback, they would ensure that we keep choking during the overheating. As health-harming pollutants enter our air and bake, smog pollutes our cities and endangers the most vulnerable. To prevent announcements of yet another ozone action day, what we need is a little ozone action right here in the Capitol. When this truck rule takes effect, each year we will see tens of thousands fewer cases of childhood asthma and fewer premature deaths. Yet, MAGA extremists are not content with merely polluting our minds, as they do across this country, they refuse to prevent smog and soot from polluting our lungs. Yes, life is a highway, but it need not be overwhelmed with health- harming pollution. Adopting a cleaner standard for trucks protects all of us, but especially the most vulnerable, the young, the elderly, and those with respiratory ailments. You may remember a great musical that proclaimed, ``On a Clear Day You Can See Forever.'' Not so much now. Not so often across America, even in our smoggy national parks. Democrats and Republicans may not see eye-to-eye on much, but we should be able to be clear on smog, it shouldn't be a partisan issue. Once upon a time, long, long ago, ``conservation'' was a conservative value. A ``no'' vote is a breath of fresh air--a vote to keep soot out of our lungs.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 901.