Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I would ask unanimous consent to do it and further ask unanimous consent to take it up and consider it at this time so we can go on and vote it out of here right now if it is such a great idea.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, subject to that reservation, I would ask the gentleman, this is as I understand it to permit 3 hours of general debate tomorrow on the reconciliation bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. Fine. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Is it also your understanding, we have in addition to what will amount to 6 hours of debate, then, on reconciliation; that by coming in early at 9 a.m. on Thursday, following more or less the timetable we had last week, that we would also at 9 a.m. Thursday have fifteen 1-minutes per side?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, let me just be sure I am clear about this. Under the series of unanimous-consent requests, there will be 3 hours of general debate tomorrow, and then in addition to that, as the rule provides, there will be 3 hours of general debate on Thursday, plus an hour on the substitute.

Mr. DOGGETT. That is our understanding. Mr. Speaker, with that understanding, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I know you have put in a long day and have been participating here on the floor all day during this debate, and I want to thank you for your efforts. I know with the kind of leadership that you have provided today, that New Jersey will never be Newt Jersey. In fact, it was interesting to see that even at least one of our Republican colleagues from the apparent Newt Jersey, who had voted in favor of the Newt plan in committee, apparently had a change of heart our here today, perhaps hearing the words of the many Republicans who have spoken out from New Jersey saying that they would exercise their independence and would stand up for seniors. If we can just get the Members of the Senate to do the same thing, there is yet hope, and if President Clinton will stand firm on this, there is yet hope that our seniors will not find themselves plucked clean.

Mr. DOGGETT. Under your plan, the substitute, would seniors have seen this rapid increase in their premiums, and when the Senate finishes, an increase in deductibles? Would they have had out-of-pocket costs if your $90 billion had been adopted today?

Mr. DOGGETT. This is the organizational chart. We will now have at a time we have been told we need less government we are now going to have a new baby-boom commission set up. We will have a variety of other new commissions, and boards, and agencies, and our seniors of course will face a wide range of new choices. What it all boils down to, of course, is the choice to pay more and get less, but the way it is spread out, it is an organizational chart that is really an organizational nightmare. The lines that seem to me to be the most important though are the taking from the two funds that the gentleman is familiar with, part A and part B of Medicare, the taking from those funds, and taking that money out and really giving it, as you have been saying, to a tax cut for the most privileged members of our society, and I wanted to add to this very important debate, but I also would like at this point to comment on another topic that really related to my district.

Mr. DOGGETT. I note first in this great Medicare debate, as I pointed out earlier today, we are about to substitute for the Medicare card a giant maze that looks somewhat like the maze that our Republican colleagues criticized President Clinton on last year on health care for the company. We are about to have a maze of that type presented to senior citizens. I wonder if some of them are not going to need to go back for a little late life education to get and understand the full maze of this, and I know you are familiar with this from your work there on the Committee on Commerce, but there are new commissions set up under this bill; are there not?

Mr. DOGGETT. Would it be appropriate at this time to touch on another subject? Have you concluded most of your remarks?

Mr. DOGGETT. This is about that we have been involved in a great debate today about the Medicare system and many of the important public policy issues. It is about another great debate and another debator. Like many of the Members of this body of Congress on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, I had an opportunity early in my life to participate in the forensic program, and I rise tonight with the unhappy task of calling attention to a recent tragedy that befell members of the Texas Forensic Union, an award-winning debate and speech team of my alma mater at the University of Texas, Austin. On a single weekend students were participating from the University of Texas along with their colleagues at debate tournaments in Kentucky and in Nevada. Unfortunately as one group of these young Texas students were returning from Nevada, their van was involved in a terrible accident just outside of Las Cruces, NV. A young man was killed in that mishap, Jason G. Wilson of Boca Raton, FL. Mr. Speaker, although I did not have the good fortune of knowing Justin personally, I know that the hearts of people in this body, as were my friends at the University of Texas, go out to his friends at the University of Texas, go out to his family, and to his friends, and to the entire University of Texas community. This was from all of the reports that I get from my friends at the University of Texas an exceptional young man, an excellent student, well liked by his peers and a very noteworthy debater who one day might have been participating in the Halls of this Congress. Justin's life was tragically cut short. Mr. Speaker, all too often these days we hear of slipping academic standards, of deterioration of education, and a [[Page H 10473]] lack of caring by our colleges and universities. By contrast, the young people who are involved in this tragedy, and particularly Justin Wilson, embodied a real commitment to excellence. He should be honored, and I know that he will be missed. Justin and his colleagues were returning from intercollegiate competition, and I can remember attending similar events at an earlier time that were really significant in my life and in the lives of many others. I can remember the camaraderie, the mutual respect that characterizes these events, and the opportunity to compete and achieve excellence is really very important to the future of our democracy. Our sympathies go out to all of those who were involved in this tragedy. It is an event that reminds us that every year there are thousands of committed young students of all types of political philosophies and outlooks, and their coaches and their faculty members representing with pride their particular college or university, individuals like Justin Wilson that try to make a difference in the academic community and in the broader life of democracy in our country. Ironically, in my year of debating, the subject was whether the United States should have a Medicare System. Today, we have been debating this same topic, as the other young debaters like Justin were participating in considering topics of important national interest this year. These individuals make great sacrifices. They often go unnoticed, but their work is very important. Justin's too-short life is appropriately remembered here tonight in the halls of our Nation's Capitol. We strive to be more aware of the contribution that these unique students, and particularly Justin Wilson, have made to our country. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DOGGETT. Under that substitute, would the gentleman have essentially provided the same amount of security for the Medicare trust fund that the Republicans claim they were providing?

Mr. DOGGETT. How in the world could you do it for $90 billion when they said they would need $270 billion to assure that the Medicare trust fund was there? How is it that you are able to do it for one- third the cost that they say they need in billions of dollars from Medicare?

Mr. DOGGETT. So you could secure the entire Medicare trust fund for a third as much of what they took out today?

Mr. DOGGETT. You are advancing, then, a proposal that would cost less to seniors than they would be facing under existing law, and yet it would provide every bit of the security of the Medicare trust fund that we heard one person after another out here proclaiming that they were the defenders of, and that though these reports had come out year after year after year, they just discovered them this year, right after they raided the Medicare trust fund for millions of dollars, and added to its insecurity, but you have a way to secure it fully, to the extent the Republicans are securing it, at a third of the cost and without costing seniors any additional premium; in fact, less premium than they would face under existing law?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the rules of debate here in the House are rather constrained at times, and they were constrained this evening as we had the opportunity to witness at the close of this great debate a bit of grace- less gloating from the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, about the victory that everyone on all sides knew was going to occur here today. They provided no opportunity, of course, to ask him a question, much less to respond immediately to his comments, but those comments deserve a response. It is true that this Chamber is almost empty at this moment. Of course, our Republican friends are out popping the champagne corks, celebrating as is their right the fact that they really got those seniors. They are able to be out there saying, well, our buddies are going to really like that tax break we are able to provide now, and we taught those seniors a lesson when we took $270 billion out of Medicare so we could fund our tax break for the rich. But Members will recall specifically, though they are celebrating now, that when the Speaker spoke he began by reading to us the names of the family members in his family and how much they were interested in what was occurring here today. Then he proclaimed with the greatest magnanimity there were so many who had contributed to the raiding of the Medicare system today, it is peculiar that omitted from that list of all those who helped was the Golden Rule Insurance Co. You will recall that it was only a week ago that CBS Evening News reported that Golden Rule, which had complied with the golden rule by contributing over a million dollars to the Republican party, stood to be one of the major beneficiaries of this so-called Medicare reform since they are the prime promoter of the so-called Medisave Program. The truth of the matter is that this particular bill, not 10 Members of this House knew what was in it until about [[Page H 10470]] the time the debate began. And all this hoopla about how we had everybody involved and there were task forces and so forth. The truth of the matter is this bill was written by one person, Speaker Gingrich, sitting in his office with one special interest lobbyist after another coming in. These task forces that existed, they were just an excuse for democracy. Instead of having the normal committee process operate, little task forces would meet and go in and out of the Speaker's office, in secret, where the American people had no opportunity to observe what was happening. Can you imagine raiding the Medicare trust fund to the extent of $270 billion and not allowing one senior citizens in this country to testify on the specifics of the bill that provided for that raid? Yet, my colleagues, that is precisely what happened with this new spirit of democracy and all the task forces and all the inclusion. The bill was written in the Speaker's office. The committee process was basically eliminated. I understand they are even considering the possibility of eliminating committees and perhaps just substituting a committee of one to write all of the legislation in this House. You know, I have discussed this morning a bit tongue in cheek the fact that there was a painting that kind of summarized what was happening to seniors today, a painting by a famous American artists of the last century called plucked clean. It seemed to me that it symbolized what was happening here as our seniors were plucked clean and having to face higher deductibles and higher premiums and higher costs for health care at the time they were stretched to the limits. Well, really, I think this same painting is a little bit symbolic of what is happening to democracy in this House. Instead of a proud eagle of democracy, democracy is being plucked clean in this House, because next week we are about to have the same thing happen. We have got something called reconciliation that is coming up, not the kind of reconciliation that happens between husband and wife. This is not a divorce unless it is the divorce between the reality of the real lives of the middle-class families that are working to make ends meet in this country and the Republican rhetoric that we hear on this floor. No, indeed, we are talking about a bill that is going to do all kind of mysterious things that have never received a hearing. It is going to rewrite laws that committees refuse to pass, and all of that is about to occur next week without the Members ever having seen the bill and without there ever having been even a final hearing. What we should be talking about next week is a gift ban on the gifts that tie lobbyists and legislators and a reform of the lobby process. Apparently under this Speaker we are going to continue to write laws in secret that bind the American people, like was done today in secret working with various special interest lobbyists to get the law written their way. The American people deserve to have this out in the public. We need to reform this Congress and change business as usual as much as we need to protect the seniors of our Nation and prevent these kinds of Medicare raids.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, today if an elderly American wants quality health care, all they need is this. Even if they are not an American hero, like the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] who has this Medicare card, they are going to get quality health care the way seniors have for the last three decades. But, Mr. Chairman, after Speaker Gingrich and his cohorts finish today paying for their tax cut to the rich, this is the plan that they will have. This is the new Medicare maze that our Republican colleagues present. They have got one bureaucracy after another. Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of new commissions. A baby boom commission. We have got boxes. We have got arrows. We have got quite a new organization of the health care system that for those seniors who could not decide today whether they were getting a cut or increase are going to need to go back from their retirement to get a doctorate to figure out how they are going to get health care. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing that is certain: These red arrows coming from the plan to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy, out of the hide of the seniors of this country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, you know, unless you are a special interest with a swarm of lobbyists, you have very little to smile about with reference to this Republican pay-more, get-less plan. But I think I have found something to give you a smile with. It is a painting that I think captures it all. It captures the raw truth of this Republican plan, a painting by a great American artist, William Harnett, known for the remarkable precision of his painting, who gave in this particular painting a meticulous examination of the physical reality of a lowly object. It is called ``Plucked Clean,'' and that is what is happening to American seniors. A chicken carcass against the wall, plucked clean. I do not suggest that the Republicans were chicken about hiding this plan. If you has a plan this sorry, you would hide it too. What I am concerned about and why I think ``Plucked Clean'' summarizes this plan is that seniors are being plucked clean, a feather today, a feather here, really all about destroying the Medicare system.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the Chair very much.

Mr. DOGGETT. Does that permit a suspension of the three-fifths rule to allow a tax increase to go into effect without a three-fifths' vote?

Mr. DOGGETT. Under this rule, as it is proposed, is the new rule of the House requiring a three-fifths' vote on tax increases before any tax increase can go into effect, is that rule being suspended under this rule so that this will be a tax increase that does not comply with the new rules of the House? I realize it is to provide tax cuts, but does it not have a tax increase?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. [[Page H 10320]]

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, let me take the gentleman to a little different part of his Bible. There is a part called honor thy father and thy mother, and I do not find anything honorable about this Republican pay more, get less plan. That is what it is. Of course, not everybody is unhappy with it. You see, while it gives a swift kick to seniors, those who bought into the plan get a mighty big kickback. Even the Republicans' own staffers say yes, taxpayers are going to have to fork over an extra $1 billion because of the repeal and weakening of antikickback provisions in this bill. The pharmaceutical companies settled for only $100 billion by the Republican plan to repeal the discount for pharmaceuticals at public hospitals. Yes, it is very difficult for the Republicans to talk about being antifraud when there is so much fraud in this plan. We only need to turn to this morning's newspaper to see that they are saying House Republicans today open literally a vote trading bazaar. Speaker Newt Gingrich cheerfully described the bargaining as ``a little bit like Christmas shopping.'' Well, there are a lot of mothers and fathers in America who have nothing to be cheered about and much to worry about when it comes Christmas shopping time.