Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman identified under the rules because they may want to speak again and I may want to object.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, there have been no objections to anyone else getting unanimous-consent extensions on this.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] be granted 3 additional minutes to respond.

Mr. DOGGETT. So even though tobacco is the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the United States, this Congress, this House under the Gingrich leadership, is not doing anything about it?

Mr. DOGGETT. How does the gentleman from California mean it was stopped?

Mr. DOGGETT. Now, the gentleman from California mentioned that there are other measures besides this amendment which only keeps us from wasting a certain amount of public moneys in support of death that ought to be taken. Are there going to be any of those measures coming out of the subcommittee that the gentleman from California has served on and focused so much attention in prior Congresses to this tremendous tobacco epidemic in the country?

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this failed Congress failed to act on the national budget resolution. Apparently the budget resolution advanced by the Gingrich leadership was so bad that even some of our Republican colleagues could not stomach it. In fact, I quote from a leaflet that one of them sent out, Do we want the deficit to go back up, the budget resolution conference report shows the budget deficit going back up again, reversing the gains made in the past 3 years. He could have added, under President Clinton. And he is exactly right. Their resolution increases the budget deficit, and he urges the House to reject the conference report. These are the same Republicans who in the name of deficit reduction said they were willing to cut Medicare, the same Republicans who in the name of deficit reduction shut down the Government with their antics of last year. Yet now that we have an election coming along, they are willing to let the budget deficit soar. Those of us who backed the conservative coalition budget have a better way. Balance the budget now without unbalancing the budgets of American working families and without wrecking Medicare.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, America needs a new gardener. When Speaker Gingrich insists that Medicare should be permitted to wither on the vine, it is time to find a gardener who knows the difference between strengthening Medicare and allowing it to shrivel. That is not EverGrow that Speaker Gingrich is proposing to pour on the vine of Medicare; it is the salt of neglect, of decades of neglect of the health care security of American families. That is not a green thumb that the Speaker is offering; it is the darkened green thumb of neglect of the health care security of American families. Mr. Speaker, we should focus on the Medicare trustees' report, for the real issue is trust. Should we trust the people who want to let Medicare shrivel on the vine, or should we trust those who overcame the opposition of Bob Dole and the Republicans of that era to build Medicare into a garden whose fruits of health care security are available to every American?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this House Republican leadership has turned over the job of writing much of our legislation to special interest lobbyists. They gather here at the Capitol weekly to write the Nation's business. So, it is little wonder that now with the election approaching, they have begun a corruption search to cover their own misdeeds. The latest chapter in this is this callous act of raising these accusations about the death of Ron Brown at the very time his family still grieves. The Speaker said yesterday, Reagan was teflon, Clinton is flypaper, this stuff is going to start to stick. The only thing stuck around here is this Republican leadership. It is stuck in the gutter because of its own misdeeds and now these callous accusations.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Instead of a trust fund, a slush fund. Instead of furthering and strengthening the trust fund, they would raid that fund in order to provide these special tax breaks. Mr. Speaker, I know you have focused already on this trustees' report, and the key word there is trust. Who do the American people trust to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare so it will be there not only when we retire, but when our children and our grandchildren retire, so provide them the kind of health care security they need. I would just want to add one other thing. I see our colleague and one of the few physicians in this body, the gentleman from Washington, Dr. McDermott, is here who has worked so hard on this. But I think as we consider the millions of people that are going to be adversely affected if the Speaker is successful in letting Medicare wither on the vine and shrivel up and go away for middle-class Americans, I just wanted to bring a picture of a couple of Texans, hard-working Texans that are going to be impacted, because I think we have to bring this down to human scale. Lewis Kerclusky is a fellow I met at a senior activity center in Austin. He is 94 years old, and he told me that he was there because he worked with old people. I was mighty impressed with the tact that he is still involved in working with old people in trying to help them get services and have the benefit of his assistance. Unfortunately, since all he has to rely on is his Social Security check and his prescriptions total almost $200 a month, he had to move in with his son, Ed. Ed is still working, but he is only about 3 years away from having to rely on Medicare himself. These are the kind of hard-working people that built this into the greatest Nation in the world. And if he let Medicare and Social Security simply wither on the vine, if he says, as you were just discussing with our colleague from Hawaii, that they are suddenly now going to have to pay all that a health care provider would want to charge them above the Medicare payment, if we continue a system where he cannot even get coverage for his prescriptions, there is no protection under existing Medicare for those, and instead of strengthening Medicare and fulfilling our trust to America's seniors, we are going to weaken that system and let it be used as a slush fund, then people like Lewis and Ed are going to still be impacted in a very, very significant way. I think it is important, even for people that are not as old as Ed or Lewis, or as old as you or I, or even the young man from Washington State who is joining us here, young people that are out there trying to start a family, trying to get kids through the public school, who is it that a senior who cannot make it, who cannot even pay his prescription, is going to turn to if they have a medical emergency and Medicare is not there to stand by them? It is going to be those middle-class families that are having a hard enough time just making ends meet for themselves and their kids. They are going to be called on, instead of providing a college education, to take care of an unexpected surgery, instead of being able to do things for their family and get ahead and provide their kids the same future that they want for themselves, they are going to be called on to provide for long-term health care. I appreciate your focusing attention on what is really happening here, this trust issue, the trust of America's seniors and those who will be seniors in our Medicare system and our responsibility to stand there and see that that system does not wither on the vine, as much as Speaker Gingrich might be determined to let it wither.

Mr. DOGGETT. Actually, it is Lewis, who has almost $200 a month in prescriptions not covered now. And I know the gentleman and Dr. McDermott will remember that when Republicans put out their big strategy, their PR plan on Medicare. They told their own Members, do not use the word ``improve,'' because that is going to raise expectations that we might really do something to help seniors. They were supposed to use other words to create the impression that there was some immediate crisis, which there is not, that there was some immediate danger of bankruptcy, which there is not. There is the need for long-term, bipartisan planning. But the only bankruptcy we face today is the kind of political bankruptcy they have when they insist on letting Medicare wither on the vine. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the observations of our colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii, and the gentleman's response, because I think as you described how Medicare would be eventually destroyed, what the gentleman is really getting to is, to use the Speaker's own words, Speaker Gingrich, saying that he was going to let it wither on the vine. That is, I suppose, an indication. We have the Republican majority leader quoted down in Houston the other day, and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], saying that he views Medicare as an imposition on his freedom. But they recognize that the Medicare Program, which it is now almost 31 years of existence since President Johnson signed it into law, we now have, instead of more than half of America's seniors having no health insurance, we have 99 percent covered. So they realize that they cannot have a direct assault to just abolish and vote against the program. That is what they want to do. Simply, as the majority leader so candidly admitted, their philosophy is ``Medicare is an imposition on our freedom.'' Most Americans, I think, believe that Medicare is one of the best things that this Congress has ever set up, just like Social Security, which our Republican colleagues have also questioned, but in lieu of a direct, frontal assault to just abolish Medicare, to do as Bob Dole in fact said here just a few months ago, that he was so proud that he was one of those who stood and voted against, on the floor of this House before he ever got over to the Senate, who voted against creating Medicare in the first place, they would let it wither on the vine. Mr. Speaker, we got a lot of things down in Texas that are withering right now. We have a little bit of a drought down there. But barring those unusual circumstances, I think most of the people that I know that are commonsense folks around central Texas, if they have something that is withering on the vine that they have entrusted to a gardener, they know the best thing to do is to get another gardener, and I think that is what we are going to have to do here if we do not want Medicare to wither on the vine. I came across a book this week concerning this so-called Gingrich revolution and I wanted to know if my colleague from New Jersey has seen the part of this book that is written by two Washington Post reporters who have been studying this revolution and apparently getting behind the closed doors, which are really the signature of this revolution, all the secret meetings that go on, the secret task forces. This particular one is on page 72 of this new book, and I just want to quote from it. It says, at a leadership meeting over dinner in Gingrich's office, that is the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, the fellow who wants Medicare to wither on the vine, on February the 15, that is February 15, 1995, Kasich, that is the chairman of the Republican Committee on the Budget, John Kasich, our colleague from Columbus, OH, and his aids, expressed concern that a 7-year balanced budget would require Medicare cuts ``unlike any this town has ever seen before.'' Kasich was hoping to have more flexibility. ``Who said we have to do 7 years,'' he asked? Gingrich remained adamant. That is from this new study about Medicare cuts, the fact that they would, in the words of the House Republican Committee on the Budget chair, have to be unlike any this town has ever seen before. Are you familiar with this new study?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I will not yield at this time. Perhaps at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for his comment. In fact, what I would like to do is to have an opportunity to yield and discuss and debate at length this whole subject of welfare reform instead of handling it in the same shabby way that the Republicans did Medicare reform last year, which was designed to provide those tax breaks for the people at the top of the economic ladder and make those people on Medicare bear the cost of those tax breaks. Now we are going to approach this other tough issue in our society that needs to be attacked in a bipartisan way to try to get at the heart of making welfare work and making it work fair, but to do it in this kind of fashion, when even the Republican Members do not know what is in their bill, is the kind of extremist approach that America has rejected. I think that it is time for this Congress to get down to business in a true Democratic spirit, not in terms of party but in terms of a process that does not come around with the kind of arrogance that we have seen here tonight, of saying we will present you something and you can take it or leave it, because that kind of approach is not going to produce any legislation. That is why this Congress has nothing to show but political rhetoric and nonsense and wasted taxpayer money for most of the last year and a half, because these folks have not been interested in trying in craft legislation in a bipartisan way to deal with the true problems of this country. They have been interested in scoring political points. They do not care next week whether one welfare mom goes back to work, because they are not interested in jobs for welfare moms. They are interested in protecting their own political job, and America is going to see through this kind of nonsense.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the theatrics in which the majority leader engaged in the few minutes before the closing of this Congress tonight again provide America an indication of what is wrong with this Congress. The majority leader, you will remember, outlined a schedule for next week, and he conveniently omitted one piece of legislation from that schedule. This particular bill will be considered on a day when most of the Members of Congress are not present here in Washington. This particular bill will be considered under a procedure that limits debate to 40 minutes, with no amendments, and it can be actually defeated by one-third of the Members of this body. This bill, the majority leader finally conceded, has not yet even been written, much less discussed and considered by a committee in Congress and presented to the American people for their debate, which is the normal approach in a democratic society. Now, this particular bill is not a bill to name a post office in Podunkville after Dick Armey or to declare National Apple Pie Week. No, this particular bill deals with a subject that most Americans are concerned about, and that is our welfare system. It is a welfare system that is broke, that is not working for the taxpayer, quite clearly, but it is also not working for the people that it is designed to benefit. I know that those of us on the Democratic side, from our unanimous vote in the last session of this Congress, expressed our view that we want to place an importance in welfare reform on work, on the value of work, on teaching the value of work, on helping families that have been torn apart get back into the work force and provide for their families. But if anyone would have thought we would deal with such a serious matter with the kind of stunt that we saw tonight, the notion that this Congress would take up a matter of such importance without any real debate, without the Members even knowing what was in the bill. We did have one gentleman who thought he knew something about the bill. We learned that there were 97 line item vetoes by the Governor of Wisconsin in this bill. Under the debate procedure, we will have less than 30 seconds per line item veto to consider this. One would think that this is, as I asked the majority leader, just another example of his very strange sense of humor; that this stunt is all a joke. But one who thought that would not have observed the way this Congress has been conducted for the last year and a half, for it has been one stunt after another like this that has created the greatest failure of any Congress in recent American history. It all started last year when these Republicans decided that they were going to provide a tax break for the richest members of our society and make those who were now on Medicare pay for it. And so they set up a series of secret task forces, and those forces were out there figuring out how much more they could hike premiums, how much more they could increase the cost of health care for our seniors, all to provide tax brakes for those at the top of the economic ladder. And they did it all in secret, and then they came out here and presented it as essentially a ``take it or leave it'' plan, originally to our Committee on the Budget and finally to the House. It is the same kind of extremism that caused this Government to be shut down last year for weeks at a cost of $1.5 billion. Frittered away. Totally and completely wasted American taxpayer money by these folks in their Government shutdown fever. It is the kind of political theatrics that instead of coming in a sensible bipartisan moderate way to see how we change this welfare system and make it work and change this Medicare system and make it work better.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, do I understand then that we will be taking up on Tuesday, a day when many Members will not be here, I certainly plan to be here personally, that a piece of legislation that has not yet been written and that we will have only 20 minutes per side to debate that piece of legislation? Are those the circumstances that we will face on Tuesday?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman's interest in confining this debate to 40 minutes on a bill that has not yet been written that will be presented on a day when most people will not be here an indication of his disinterest in getting a welfare reform bill passed or just his wry sense of humor?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, our fellow citizens know this Gingrich Congress by its deeds, and first among these is its continuing desire to cut Medicare in order to fund the tax breaks for our most wealthy citizens. We saw a great deal of that last year as they proposed cuts of $270 billion in a pay more, get less Medicare plan. And this year they have not given up on that determination, as the Speaker says, to let Medicare wither on the vine. They have just regrouped and are coming at it from another angle. They have taken it step by step. Since it is an election year, they want to provide the tax break this year, hand out candy before the election, and next year come back with the full dimension of the Medicare cuts that will be necessary to pay for these election eve political tax breaks for the wealthy. The good indication that they still have their plan to cut Medicare on track is the budget resolution we have up tomorrow as they propose to have seniors pay for bills that they get from doctors above what Medicare pays.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, yesterday I referred to the Committee on Science as a do-little committee that was, through this piece of legislation, offering a do-little agenda for this country when it comes to job creation through invigorating our science and technology policy, going absolutely the wrong direction if our goal is to have more high-paying jobs in this country based on science and technology. I think the Wamp amendment today provides another example of the do- little legacy of this committee, because it is attempting to repair changes in our science policy that should never have been made in the first place. In any case, I was not here on the floor a little earlier this afternoon when the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the committee, asserted that my comments of yesterday were inaccurate. He particularly took umbrage at my claim that the committee had just one committee report to its credit for all of 1995. Take note he did not disagree with my comment that the committee had absolutely zero, that is, a big goose egg when it comes to legislation signed into law through its work last year but he did quarrel with the fact that they had only one committee report. He said they had 16. In fact, I have the Committee on Science calendar for last year, and it confirms that there was only one committee report for all of last year. This is distinguished, of course, as my remarks did, from those reports associated with the filing of more and more of these bills to fulfill the Gingrich ideological agenda. A committee report, for those who do not understand the difference, is a matter of oversight, that we in Congress have a responsibility to exercise oversight over NOAA, over all of these various bureaucracies to see that they are doing their job. But this committee, unlike the time when my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], chaired the committee and had 13 oversight reports of committees, has not kept pace with its work. True, the chairman of the Committee on Science has been very involved in oversight of the Clinton administration, looking for any political examples it can find that might be useful in this year's elections. Perhaps that provides some of the reason why just merely pursuing good science has gotten second shift when it comes to oversight. So I stand by my comments of yesterday regarding the lack of productivity of a committee that ought to be central to a jobs policy for this country. But I would cite this Wamp amendment as an example of more of the problem that when you pursue political rhetoric and political ideology over good science, you make mistakes like this. I believe that it is fair to say that there were not but a handful, if that, of our colleagues on the Republican side who had the slightest idea what was being done in committee when these cuts to NOAA were made and now that probably one or two people in the body have the slightest idea whether the restoration level that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] is proposing is the appropriate level or whether the offset that he would propose will guarantee the integrity of NOAA services. And, of course, since the Committee on Science rarely meets, it goes 4 or 5 months without even convening, there is no committee record of any type. There has not been bringing in any expert or any citizen concerned with this to look at the NOAA issues. So we have no evidence or record upon which to support this amendment. I would say that what we have had in the Committee on Science is amply demonstrated by this, not legislation that could be passed on a bipartisan basis as occurred under both Republicans and Democrats in previous administrations, not committee reports exercising the oversight policy; rather, we have just had an example that the main kind of science coming out of this committee is political science and we have had more excellence in pursuit of error.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown substitute as an attempt to reach a moderate approach consistent with a balanced budget to our national science and technology policy. As we review the activity, to the extent there has been any in this Gingrich Congress with reference to science and technology, I think it has to be conceded that the major accomplishment of the House Committee on Science over this Congress occurred on the first day of Congress. That was the day that the name of the committee was changed. Since the time of the name change, other than that, the activity of the committee has been pretty downhill. After embracing some of the Gingrich agenda to hamstring Federal health and safety regulation and pursuing a technology policy that basically said, if our research has any immediate application, then we do not want to fund it, we only want to fund the most theoretical research, the committee basically has done very little. For over 4 months, it did not meet at all. Last year it has as its monument, as a committee of this Congress, it has one committee report. It did not manage to get a single thing written into law during all of 1995. And today the do-little approach of this do-little committee is projected through the legislation that is offered tonight as an alternative to the Brown substitute. It says we ought to do the same thing with reference to the future of this country in science and technology. You see, instead of the kind of dispassionate, bipartisan, moderate approach of moving forward that occurred not just in prior Democratic administrations but in prior Republican administrations of people working together realizing that, if there is any subject that ought to be bipartisan, it is science and technology policy. We have substituted the scoring apparently of political points for that kind of moderate approach and substituted arrogance for reasoned discourse. Let me give just a few examples of how the Brown substitute, an alternative, proposes to deal with these problems. First in the area of the National Science Foundation, as my colleague from Virginia pointed out, this is a fairly small agency. All this talk about bureaucracy, it has a very efficient program. About 4 percent of its budget of the tax dollars are spent on administration. To be sure, we are getting a return on our research dollars. The other 96 percent is spent on research, going out mainly to university research: Yet, it is that agency that the proposal that is before us tonight would do substantial damage to. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] seeks to minimize the amount of that damage, not really to extend and advance significantly the fine work of the National Science Foundation, but at least to mitigate the damage. A second example is with reference to the environment. Now, I know that the real monument of this Gingrich Congress has been its attempt to cut Medicare. But ranking right up there with the effort to cut Medicare surely is the effort to aid every polluter in the country with reference to the environment. Mr. Chairman, we remember last year the enactment in this House of the Dirty Water Act that would end 20 years of the national cleanup of pollution of our streams and lakes and rivers, a proposal that the New York Times succinctly described as one that would make it easier for polluters to pollute; but that is no surprise because polluters wrote the bill. 1815 Then all of last fall we had all these antienvironmental riders that would get tacked on without a hearing that would propose to hamstring first one Federal agency after another in protecting the public health and safety with reference to our environment, and we have had one thing after another, and this year the only thing different was some memo that came out from the Republican House conference that suggested Republican Members go out and hug trees and go to zoos and pet animals to indicate they really were not as antienvironmental as appeared to be the case. And so now we come to the science budget, and the continuation of this extremist agenda is to simply say that certain types of research will be off limits. We do not want to know what the good science will show with reference to these areas, we want to prohibit research altogether. For example, long-term climate change research at one Federal agency, indoor air research at another agency, and cut renewable energy research by 50 percent, some restricted, some significantly reduced, and I suppose that that is consistent with the comment of one of the House Republican leaders that a scientist, a distinguished chemist who got an award, the Nobel Prize, for his work in chemistry in discovering the link between chlorofluoro- carbons and ozone depletion in our atmosphere, he was referred to as having received the Noble appeasement award. It is that kind of extremist endeavor that is carried on in this bill that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] proposes to ameliorate, and I heartily support his effort to do that.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona speaks of hypocrisy. Let me point out that he and the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana, who spoke a few moments ago, and the distinguished majority leader, they have voted three times in this Congress to waive the very unfunded mandates rule that they now inject into this debate for the sole purpose of thwarting a minimum-wage increase. Mr. Speaker, I think the majority leader has at least been candid with the American people with regard to his position on giving America a raise, for he said he would resist that increase in the minimum wage with every fiber in his body. And it was obvious when he spoke here, and he is a fairly fibrous guy, that he has not only done anything that he could to prevent a minimum-wage increase, he has done everything that he could do to prevent a minimum-wage increase. And this is the latest of those tactics. Our colleague, his right-hand man, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip, denied there were even families out there that were living on the minimum wage. And, indeed, they are barely living on the minimum wage. And to top it all off, the Chair of the Republican Conference, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], said, ``I will commit suicide before I vote on a clean minimum-wage bill.'' That is what this is all about. It is do anything, do everything possible in order to thwart the desire of the American people for a raise. There have been three times in this session that they have voted, every single person, including the gentleman that has raised this point of order, every single person who has spoken in favor of this point of order, there have been three times that they were not so concerned about the mandates bill that they were not willing to waive it. But this morning they have a wave of a different kind. They propose to wave goodbye to the desire of the working people of this country to have a working wage. We believe, in the American economy, that it does not have to all trickle down. It can bubble up. And the idea is to help some of those people at the bottom of the economic ladder rise upward.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, America need a raise. With the minimum wage at a 40-year low, America needs a raise. But our Republican colleagues, when the housing bill was up, instead of giving us a minimum wage increase they raised rents. And last week, when the wilderness bill was up, instead of giving us a raise in wages, they raised the number of acres that could be exploited with reference to the environment. Now we reach today and we get another vote on the minimum wage, but what do our Republican colleagues propose? Instead of a real raise that working people can feel in their pocketbooks, they propose to raise the exclusion, exclude more workers from the basic fundamental protection of the minimum wage. It seems to me these Gingrich-ites do not know up from down. American workers need to go up. They need to be empowered by an increase in the minimum wage, not be excluded from the basic fundamental protection and the sweatshops of getting any minimum wage at all. Let us reject this Gingrich-ite proposal to exclude more American working families, and let us empower them with a real increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Bob Dole took the same quiz and he had a different answer: D, leave school before finals are over. Desperate times demand desperate actions, and it is little wonder that Mr. Dole would decide to distance himself from this Gingrich Congress. After all, this is a Congress that does not seem to learn its lessons. It is a Congress that has failed, that failed last year when it set out to cut Medicare in order to provide tax breaks for the rich. It failed last year when it got government shutdown fever and took its political shenanigans to the extreme of costing taxpayers $1.5 billion. It failed even yesterday when once again it refused to give America a raise. Today the failure is that it has not learned those lessons, and it is back with a bad old budget that proposes to cut Medicare, that still has tax breaks, that still has cuts in education. The real failure is the failure to learn, and it is little wonder that Bob Dole left.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, last year our Republican colleagues, self-described Gingrich revolutionaries, caught Government shutdown fever and brought this Nation to a halt, until the country spoke up and rejected their budget. Now they are back again with the same type of zealotry that they had in 1995. I think the Four Tops wrote their theme song long before they got to Congress when they wrote ``It's the same old song, just a different verse, since you have been gone,'' because they have not given up their revolutionary zeal to change their country in a way the country does not want to be changed. Let me give just one example of what this budget resolution assumes and how it affects Austin, TX. Today, Austin, TX, got 10 more law enforcement officers. They are young people, just like these who graduated from our law enforcement academy last year. It brings to our community a total of over 100 law enforcement officers, over 5 million Federal dollars to support local community policing efforts. This budget proposes to give billions of dollars to star wars. It forgets we have real wars in our streets. Our community is safer because of the commitment that this Congress made to 100,000 new police officers across this country--8,000 communities have benefited from that program. Yet this resolution assumes the termination of the cops on the street program, and some blockheaded block grant program that will not guarantee the safety of our neighborhoods and which can easily be trimmed. Let us stand up for safe communities and reject this Republican budget.