Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is an appropriate time to focus America's attention on what occurred 1 year ago tomorrow, because we have come to the first anniversary, birthday party No. 1, so to speak, of the so-called Contract on America, announced on the Capitol steps with many smiles about this time last year. Certainly if one is to assess and evaluate that contract based on hyperbole, based on rhetoric from the floor of this Congress, it has been a great success. It has been something that would give cause for great celebration, if we were to analyze what has been said about it in this Chamber rather than what is actually happening out in the real lives of real people across America. If one is to evaluate this contract in terms of what legislation has been passed and signed into law in the law books of America that might have some impact on people across America, one gets a more modest evaluation, because in fact thus far we have had a bill passed and signed into law dealing with the question of unfunded mandates; a bill passed and signed into law that was really a Democratic idea that passed the last session of Congress, to require that the House and the Senate and all of our congressional institutions abide by and follow the same laws that we pass and apply to businesses across America and to people across America. A good idea, signed into law, should have been signed into law and would have been, had the will of this House last year been accomplished. So that is two bills out of many proposed and discussed from this microphone, not exactly revolutionary, that have been placed into law. There is a third measure that has passed both the House and the Senate, another Democratic idea. It is called the line-item veto. The line-item veto would be law now and would allow President Clinton to go in and pencil out, redline certain bits of pork barrel either in the Tax Code or in the appropriations bills, but for Republican objection. Members will recall that last year when this great Contract on America was unfolded here on the steps of the Capitol, with all the smiles and the bright lights and cameras rolling, that it included a line-item veto that apply not only to pork barrel spending but to tax loopholes. But when the bill got here to the floor of the House, a little surgery was performed and the tax loophole part was kept out. They are protected. They are preserved. The President, under the line-item veto as passed by the House and by the Senate, would be powerless to really get at the tax loopholes that protect the privileged few, that need attention in this country. But there is still some merit to the bill. We passed it in a way that the President would be able to do something about pork-barrel spending, and certainly there is too much of that. But again, despite the hyperbole and the announcement of the great revolutionaries about all they were accomplishing in this bill, and how they wanted to rush it over to President Clinton so he would have a chance to either put up or shut up in terms of line iteming some of these items, they decided that they really did not want that to happen. So they have dillydallied around and delayed and just never gotten around to adjusting the differences between the House and the Senate. In fact, we had to wait until just this past month for there even to be conferees appointed to adjust the differences between the House and the Senate, and some Members of the Senate were saying what is obviously true; that is, that the House leadership, which proclaimed itself to be so revolutionary from this and other microphones back in January, did not really want President Clinton to have the power to go in and line item out the pork barrel that they put in this set of appropriations bills, the few that they have gotten past the Congress, and those that will be dumped out in the President's lap within the next week or two. So the line-item veto, which was one of the centerpieces of this contract that you would expect people to be celebrating today, is not law today, and it is not law today because the self-proclaimed revolutionaries did not want the revolution to occur so early that it might clip a little of their pork barrel out of the appropriations bills. It is also appropriate, as we look at and evaluate what has happened with reference to this Contract on America, to look at what lies ahead in the next few days. We got an indication of how really extreme its proponents are in comments that were made over the last [[Page H 9499]] couple of days, the incredible declaration of Speaker Gingrich, the contract's father, that, ``I don't care what the price is. I don't care if we have no executive offices and no bonds for 60 days. Not this time,'' in indicating in a speech in front of the Public Securities Association that he is ready to shut down everything if he does not get it exactly his way. Indeed, after those very inappropriate remarks, the dollar plunged as much as 5 percent in world markets, interest rates went up sharply, and we are already paying for this extremist zeal that says, ``I don't care what the price is as long as I get it my way.'' That is the same kind of approach that is really what is the cause of not passing more items in the contract, some of which are decent principles and could have been shaped in a bipartisan fashion to a point of moderation. But when you take such an extremist, such a zealous point of view that you are willing to shut down everything if you do not get it your way, then you often do not get it America's way. In fact, at the same time that this remark was being made, Americans were themselves speaking out. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday the latest results, that Americans by a vote in one poll of almost 2 to 1 disapprove of the job that this Contract-on-America Congress is doing. I think it is because much of the same sense of extremism that characterizes the Speaker's remarks on Friday, that are reflected in the remarks of one of the Nation's leading Republicans in commenting on his party. Former Governor Kean of New Jersey, saying this was not the year for him to run, declared this month: ``I'm moderate. I'm in a party that's becoming radicalized. That creates a problem.'' Indeed it is a problem, not just for Governor Kean. It is a problem for America. You can thumb through the TV Guide where they printed that contract and you can look at it inside out, upside down, backward and forward, and one of the things that you will not find in there is the Republican Medicare plan. That is, the Republican ``pay more, get less'' Medicare plan. You will not find, in your TV Guide or anywhere in the Contract on America, the claim that what we need to do is to cut the Medicare Program by $270 billion, that we need to raise the premiums for our seniors and our disabled people, that we need to raise the deductible and we need to find some way to have the largest cut in Medicare in our Nation's history. Of course, you just saw a report presented by one of our committees. You will not find anywhere in the contract or in the report of this Congress's work a copy of the piece of legislation to implement that. That is particularly unfortunate, because it was only a short time after the announcement of the contract that the Speaker was saying in November and actually reading from parts of the contract what seemed to me to be a very desirable reform. He said, We will change the rules of the House to require that all documents and all conference reports and all committee reports be filed electronically as well as in writing, and that they cannot be filed unless they are available to any American citizen who wants to pull them up. Thus information will be available to any citizen in the country at the same moment it is available to the highest paid Washington lobbyist. Well, the problem that we find ourselves in on this first anniversary of the contract, the Washington lobbyists, some of them have the Medicare cut, $270 billion. No Democratic Member of Congress has it. No citizen anywhere in this country can go to the Internet, can go to any kind of system and get a copy of this bill, because it is yet to be presented. In fact, what occurred on Friday was a bit of a charade. It was a hearing of the Committee on Ways and Means, not on a bill the way that Congress would ordinarily operate, but indeed what is truly revolutionary. For the first time the Committee on Ways and Means designates one day of hearings on the future of all of our 37 million seniors, the cut of $270 billion, and what do they have a hearing on? Not a bill but a press release. They call in their first witness, a Republican actuary who admits under questioning he has never seen the bill. All he has got is the press release. Yet he is an expert on that press release, and he is at least candid enough to indicate that the Medicare trust fund would be secure for 10 years in the future as long as the Republicans plan to secure it with a change of $160 billion. That leaves $110 billion out of this plan, 41 percent of the cuts that do not have anything to do with the Medicare trust fund. If we Democrats and Republicans would come together and work together, we could resolve any of the issues concerning the Medicare trust fund. There is no crisis here that demands immediate cuts and immediate increases in the out-of-pocket cost to the Nation's seniors. No, as their own first witness commented, though all he had was a press release and not a bill, this does not have to be done. My concern is about the 50 percent of retirees that I was hearing about. Since there was only 1 day of hearings, some of us organized hearings here on the lawn of the Capitol and listened to real people, seniors, come and tell us about the problems that they would face under this Republican Medicare plan. We heard that over 50 percent of our Nation's retirees received only Social Security; that is their sole means of support, and half of those receive only $7,000 a year. When this Republican Medicare plan, pay more, get less, raise your premiums, raise your deductible, raise your out-of-pocket cost in order to cut Medicare by $270 billion, when that goes into effect, what will be the impact on that 50 percent of the senior retirees who get Social Security and only get $7,000 a year? They are going to face some tough choices, tough choices about health care versus food, health care versus heat, health care versus rent. They are choices that we ought not to impose on people that have helped to build this into the greatest country in the entire world. But that is not all that was omitted from the Contract on America as we look back on it. Indeed, at the same time that the press release was the subject of a hearing in the Committee on Ways and Means, we find that the House Committee on Commerce was attacking America's seniors from another direction. That is what reference to Medicaid, which in my State of Texas provides the funding for 3 out of every 4 people that are in a nursing home. They get their funding through Medicaid. In addition to terminating the Medicaid Program, last week the House Committee on Commerce, though you cannot find it anywhere in your own TV Guide, they came in and abolished all Federal nursing home standards that set the standards for nursing and nursing care for our Nation's seniors. That is right. They say it cannot happen but it has happened, that every nursing home standard is recommended for total elimination from the Federal level. Moreover, the committee even went so far as to reject an amendment offered by one of my Democratic colleagues that would prohibit the States from requiring the spouses of nursing home residents to have to sell their home or car to pay for a husband's or wife's care. That means that under the Republican Medicaid plan, that those 3 out of 4 Texas seniors that rely on Medicaid for their nursing home care, a spouse, unless some other action is taken, could be compelled by a State to have to sell their car or their home in order to simply provide their spouse with long-term nursing home care when no other alternative is available. Omissions from the printed Contract on America, but what is happening in real life, not in the speeches, but what is happening in real life on the floors of this Congress. When it comes to the way that the Congress actually operates, the way it conducts its business, my main concern with my Republican colleagues is not that they have changed things in this House too much but that they have not changed it enough. In fact, we heard earlier in the year a good bit about the need to reform the operation of the Congress, the Congressional Accountability Act. But when it has come to real reform in the way the lobby influences the Congress, when it has come to real reform in terms of dealing with gifts, with free ski trips, with the golf caucus, with lavish lunches and dinners, nothing has been done in this Congress on the House [[Page H 9500]] side. All that we have heard is equivocation and procrastination. As recently as August of this year, Speaker Gingrich has said that the House Calendar is too full with other items to deal with lobby reform and gift reform, and proposed that perhaps they would prepare a paper on the subject. Recently there has been speculation that when they finish with the Medicare plan, maybe we would get to give some attention to these matters. Indeed, we should, because I sense that between the lines of that contract was basically a dissatisfaction with the way that this Congress has operated in the past. It is time to get down to the real issues, the campaign finance issue on which Speaker Gingrich shook hands with the President in New Hampshire, long forgotten. Hardly had the smile faded than that was forgotten, and nothing occurred with reference to campaign finance reform. So on campaign finance reform, on lobby reform, on gift ban, these are issues that this Congress needs to address if we are to have a real revolution instead of a phony one. When we get down to that issue of lobby reform and gift ban reform, two issues that the Senate had failed to deal with are issues that my Democratic colleagues have been urging. On the issue of lobby reform, the Honorable George Miller of California has suggested that one of the most effective lobby reforms would be to simply require that any time an amendment or a bill is offered, you have to indicate any lobbyist who had a hand in writing it. I sat through a hearing where the committee counsel actually would turn around and talk to the lobbyist that helped write the bill on committee computers, in order to give the answers to questions that were being raised about the bill. Do the American people, in a spirit of openness, not have a right to know who writes the legislation here and if it is one of these special interest lobbyists? Let us honor them and give them the attention that they deserve by actually putting their name down as a part of our rules, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller ] has suggested. When it comes to gift ban, though I am encouraged by the progress that the Senate has made, as I have studied that measure, one of the unfortunate deficiencies in the bill is that, unlike what my Democratic colleagues passed before I reached the Congress during 1994, this gift ban legislation says absolutely nothing about books and book royalties and payments from the likes of Rupert Murdoch or anyone else to a Member of Congress in order to have a book. I think the American people are concerned about that issue. I see no reason why our gift ban and lobby legislation ought not to address the issue of book royalties and book payments to Members, because that is a way to circumvent these matters. If you have someone who can come along and offer a $4.5 million book contract or can offer large royalties on a book, certainly that can influence the legislative process. It is appropriate that this Congress provide meaningful gift ban and lobby reform, not just partial, by dealing with the gift ban issue, the book issue, and by dealing with the question of which lobbyists are writing which laws. Of course this Congress has additional need to approach these issues and deal with these concerns because of the ethical cloud that has hung over it. Rather than deal with that, let me go back a few years and turn to the speech of Speaker Gingrich when he was Congressman Gingrich, discussing the issue of our ethics process here in the House, which I think is very important to the whole way that we review the Contract on America and the whole way that the Congress is viewed by the American people. He said from this very place, in the well of the House, on July 27, 1988, and I am quoting from the Congressional Record from Speaker Gingrich, : In order to conduct a thorough and credible investigation, the special counsel needs unlimited subpoena power. Both Common Cause and I insist that in order to carry out the responsibilities of an outside counsel effectively, it is necessary for the counsel's authority and independence to be clearly and publicly established. The special counsel must have the authority and independence necessary to conduct the inquiry in an effective and credible manner. Speaker Gingrich, then Congressman Gingrich from Georgia, said: Clearly this investigation has to meet a higher standard of public accountability and integrity. I think it is vital that every Member reflect on the fact that the integrity of the House is at stake, and that all of us have a responsibility to ensure that the standards being set are those of an extraordinary investigation. I could not have said it better. I do not know a Member of this House who could have spoken more eloquently on the subject of the authority and the direction of an independent counsel. Why is it that those good words of Speaker Gingrich in 1988 have been forgotten? It seems to me that we should, in the course of discussing the general issue of ethics in this House, consider having independent counsel available when there are questions raised about a Member's conduct that has this kind of broad authority. Certainly that is true with reference to an investigation of a Speaker. Indeed, at the same time Speaker Gingrich also said: It seems to me for this investigation to have any legitimacy, it has to be allowed to follow the leads wherever they lead, and it seems to me that it ought to be that the independent counsel has to be truly independent. He cannot be on a short leash held by the Democratic chairman of the committee. There again is some very insightful comment that it does not pay to have an ethics investigation. If you are going to take your watchdog and you are going to keep him on such a short leash that they cannot watch anything, they do not have full authority, then what good is it to have a watchdog in the first place? Fortunately, we know exactly what an independent counsel for the Ethics Committee ought to do because in addition to these comments, Mr. Gingrich outlined in 1988, along with the outline from Common Cause, exactly what should occur. He issued a press release insisting that the House Ethics Committee give the special counsel appointed to investigate the Speaker at that time the independence necessary to do a thorough and complete job. He said he was discouraged by several news reports that the special counsel, Richard Phelan, would be restricted in the scope of his investigation, and he proceeded to write the chairman of the Ethics Committee a letter identifying what the authority of the special counsel could be. He was very proud of the fact that Archibald Cox, the then head of Common Cause, joined in the recommendations for what a special counsel should be permitted to do. He referenced the Common Cause letter that it ``commit itself,'' the Ethics Committee, ``to the following measures:'' No. 1, the outside counsel should have full authority to investigate and present evidence and arguments before the Ethics Committee concerning questions about the Speaker; No. 2, the outside counsel shall have full authority to organize, select, and hire staff on a full- or part-time basis in such numbers as that counsel reasonably requires, and will be provided with such funds and facilities as the counsel reasonably requires; No. 3, the outside counsel shall have full authority to review all documentary evidence available from any source and full cooperation of the committee in obtaining such evidence; No. 4, the committee shall give the outside counsel full cooperation in the issuance of subpoenas; No. 5, the outside counsel shall be free, after discussion with the committee, to make such public statements and reports as the counsel deems appropriate; No. 6, the outside counsel shall have full authority to recommend that formal charges be brought before the Ethics Committee, shall be responsible for initiating and conducting proceedings if formal charges have been brought, and shall handle any aspects of the proceedings believed to be necessary for full inquiry. No. 7, the committee shall not countermand or interfere with the outside counsel's ability to take steps necessary to conduct a full and fair investigation. No. 8, the outside counsel will not be removed, except for good cause. Those are the eight guidelines, not from me, but from Speaker Gingrich, endorsing a position of Common Cause in 1988, concerning the way to structure an independent counsel. It is time that this Congress adopted the same kind of approach. [[Page H 9501]] Indeed, Common Cause has not been silent to this Congress. In a communication this past week, the new head of Common Cause, Ann McBride, has said let us do the same things again. Just because it is 1995, instead of 1988, that is no reason to forget these eight principles, just because we might be dealing with a Republican Speaker instead of a Democratic Speaker. That is no reason to set up a separate standard of conduct. Our laws are to be applied fairly, certainly our ethical precepts, without regard to whether we are dealing with Democrat, Republican or independent, because it is the people's business we are doing. And an ethical cloud hangs over this House when there is no true independent investigation or when there is any attempt to muzzle the watchdog independent counsel that needs to be appointed to attend to these matters. So it is that this past week the chairman of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has received a communication from Ann McBride, the president of Common Cause, calling for exactly the same thing to occur. Referring to the 1988 letter concerning the Democratic Speaker at that time, and saying, as I have indicated, that at that time in the investigation of the Speaker it was Mr. Gingrich himself who stated he agreed with the points made in Common Cause's letter, endorsed the above measures and called for providing the outside counsel with true independence and full leeway in pursuing the investigation. She says: Common Cause has long supported an appropriate role for an independent voice in dealing with congressional ethics matters. Appointing an outside person with unquestioned integrity, with a nonpartisan background and experience in dealing with matters of this kind, will be a critical matter in obtaining a publicly credible result. I could serve to repeat and to underline and to emphasize each of those phrases, because that is what we are looking for in an independent counsel; someone who has the power to get the job done and someone who has the independence, the unquestioned integrity, the nonpartisan background, the experience in dealing with matters of this kind, to achieve a publicly credible result. Not a result that helps Democrats; not a result that whitewashes Republicans; but a result that is fair and independent and thorough. That is what Common Cause, as of last week, said is needed. The same thing, the same position that they took in 1988, when the shoe was on the other party, on the other foot. The process-- Common Cause says-- that the Committee uses in looking into this matter involving Speaker Gingrich, the most powerful Member of the House of Representatives, will directly reflect on the integrity of the institution. We urge the committee to retain an outside counsel and to clearly and publicly establish the counsel's authority and independence. The Hartford Current has adopted the same call and with good reason. They say: An outside counsel should not be hamstrung by a narrow mandate. No questions should be left unanswered. If they are, Mr. Gingrich would serve under a cloud. And so, as we do a full and fair evaluation of this contract, we find that one of the biggest questions that remains unanswered is how the great proponent of this contract, the person who said as recently as Friday that he did not care what the price is, he did not care what the consequences were, if it caused interest rates to go up and the dollar to fall, he is willing to shut the Government down, whether we will have a full, fair, and thorough investigation by a nonpartisan person of unquestioned integrity into the charges that have been made. Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential on this anniversary of the contract, that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which has delayed and delayed and delayed, get about its job, complete this investigation, appoint someone with credibility, and restore the credibility which Americans are increasingly doubting about this institution. Restore that credibility with a full, thorough and fair, nonpartisan investigation of the charges that have been made about Speaker Gingrich and the book deal, with GOPAC, about all these other ethical charges that raise such serious concerns. Let us finish this Contract on America anniversary party by celebrating with a fair and nonpartisan investigation of Speaker Gingrich who gave it to us.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, fair and equitable treatment of our military personnel and our veterans deserves greater attention in this Congress. Dedicating one's self to our national security should at least result in some personal security at retirement time. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has approved a plan to refigure the retirement pay that our men and women in the military had figured on as being theirs at retirement time. They call it High One, but the Texans that I have been hearing from say it is little more than ``hi and bye.'' We have folks who have served in the military for 10 and 20 years, the whole time thinking that they had a fixed income when they retired. Then along comes this formula refiguring and all of a sudden some folks who calculated a particular retirement find out they have got to do some recalculating. This is all the more unfortunate given the inattention and inaction on some other issues like COLA inequity, Medicare subvention, and forgotten widows. It is time to give our veterans and those who are in our military the attention they deserve. As the old saying goes, ``It's not doing our veterans a favor, it's repaying one.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. And you know I am reminded by your comment that another of our fellow Texans who does not serve in this body, though I know he aspired to come to Washington, Ross Perot, who recently commented on this plan, though I have some differences with him about this subject among others, but he suggested if we were going to have these big changes in the way Medicare works, that just as you pointed out with business, you do not just jump what you have got and go to something else. You test it before you proceed to apply that to everyone and suggested that new ideas should be tested out before you make 37 million Americans the guinea pigs for this new approach that really amounts to little more than pay-more, get-less.

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will yield on that, so that is 10 days about the tragedy that happened in Waco, 28 days about what the President may or may not have done; was that 12 years ago? Some long time ago, back when he was Governor of Arkansas. Twenty-eight days on that. And how long on this incident in Idaho?

Mr. DOGGETT. Indeed, given the ramifications of this particular plan, it might be well advised to have these hearings at a variety of different locations, since the Republicans are not doing that and we are forced to have ours outside the Capitol, for those citizens around the country who will not be able to come personally, perhaps someone who is confined to home and unable to leave and be here. Would there not be a mechanism where they could forward their comments here to the Capitol and advise people of their concerns about this plan or their suggestions improvements in Medicare to strengthen it?

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for his observations. I think actually, in referring to my colleague, Mr. Gibbons, and some of his contemporaries, I may have referred to World War I. There actually may be some World War I folks that will benefit or be adversely affected by what we do on Medicare, but the gentlemen from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] is not quite that senior and served during World War II. I think it is particularly that World War II generation that will be most troubled and has most reason to be concerned about what is happening here on Medicare. Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague from New York, who has spoken so many times about the importance of not taking the care out of Medicare has arrived, and I would yield to him for such observations as he might have about the troubling developments of the day where the Republicans issue a bigger press release but do not give as much in the way of a detailed plan.

Mr. DOGGETT. I know you have to be back for a piece of legislative markup, and, as you are departing, I will just continue some observations on this, and I think an appropriate observation in discussing this matter is to reflect on Congressman Green's remarks that many of the people who will be most directly affected by this are people who served our country both at home and abroad during World War II, and I do not think anyone served our country in a more distinguished role than a gentleman who figures prominently in this debate and was on national television last night, and that is the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who will be considering this measure. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], for those of you who do not have personal familiarity with him, is a true American hero. He was a paratrooper on June 6, 1944, D-day, in France. He fought for this country. He fought against fascism and against tyranny, and since returning is now serving his country in another way in this body. He continues to be a true American patriot. It is not unlike the experience I just reflected on, about the inability of Democrats to even receive a copy of this measure, the incredible experience that he had yesterday. True, sometimes the news media likes to focus on the fight rather than the substance of what produced the fight. But the American people and all of our colleagues who were not there should know that the reason that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] expressed the anger and the dissatisfaction that he did was because of what occurred in the Committee on Ways and Means which was supposed to get a full outline of this measure yesterday and have a hearing on it as we are debating here this afternoon. But instead the committee met and refused to even permit the ranking member, a distinguished and senior Member of this body who served his country with such valor and distinction, to say word one. They would not let him discuss the proposal at all. Instead he was cut off without being able to say a word, a vote was taken in an autocratic method, and so his remarks were confined to what occurred in the hall outside this Chamber. Again it is an example of how difficult it is for those of us who want to achieve a bipartisan solution not only to the issue of Medicare and the security of our Nation's health care, but on a widening range of matters in this House that, when you proceed with such arrogance, with such high-handedness, with such determination, to do it your way or no way, that it is very difficult to have a basis for reason and for moderation. It is not only the State of Florida, of course, who has contributed heroes to this country like the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons]. We have done our share in Texas as well. One of his contemporaries, I suppose, and someone who I have admired since earlier days in the public school system of Austin where he served as a distinguished member of the Texas legislature, is the gentleman from San Antonio, TX [Mr. Gonzalez], my colleague who I know has some observations that bear on Medicare and a number of other things that are occurring here, and I would like at this time to yield for remarks that I know he has. The dean of our Texas delegation, the Honorable Henry B. Gonzalez.

Mr. DOGGETT. Let me ask you about that because we do hear examples on the press. Seldom do you go out and visit with seniors, as I know you do in your district, and I do up in Austin, without hearing about an incident where a health care provider perhaps abused the system. That is the kind of subject that we ought to have some bipartisanship about. I have not seen anyone yet come on the floor and defend fraud, maybe someone will, but we ought to be able to come together and work together. But let me ask you about in that regard in trying to achieve some bipartisanship. I am amazed to hear this. Except for the experience we have had within the last few weeks here, I understand that the chairman of the Committee on Rules, actually the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moakley's office went over to the chairman of the Republican Conference's office to ask for the 30-page outline that is now available on this plan, that this happened as we have been here debating this afternoon, and was told that is not available to Democrats. Now, I do not know if you have seen other incidences of that kind of rude and arrogant behavior here before, but those who come and say you need to be more bipartisan, it is a little different to be bipartisan with people that would not allow a hearing and would not even give an outline of their sorry plan to you.

Mr. DOGGETT. I am a new Member, and so I was not here last year, but I read that when that health care plan came up and when the Congress moved along near the August recess, it was the Republican members of this body who were saying, even though there had been extensive hearings in several committees, we need more time, the people need more time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Would the gentlewoman yield on that point?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, during this next hour I and a number of my colleagues are going to be discussing the Republican Medicare plan. It is the pay more, get less plan. We have been discussing it this week during the special orders because of the fact that there is no real opportunity to debate this plan on the floor of the U.S. Congress, except during these sessions. Indeed, it has been impossible to get even a public hearing so that citizens across America could come forward, the experts could come forward; and our seniors are among the leading experts on how Medicare works. There has been no opportunity for them to come forward for all of these many months really and be heard on a specific Medicare plan. All they know is [[Page H 9409]] that they will have to pay more and get less. Tomorrow we will have the only day that has been allocated to hear their concerns. And as I begin this discussion, I think it is appropriate, because the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has spoken so eloquently this afternoon on this matter, to hear the conclusion of her remarks, because she shares the same concern I do that if our seniors are saddled with a pay more, get less plan, this Nation will be much the worse off, and I would welcome the observations of the gentlewoman.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank you for your important observations. I see that we have been joined by other colleagues from Texas. Again, I congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, for the work that he has been doing this session and for his victory this week on behalf of individuals with disabilities as he worked to preserve our State vocational rehabilitation system. I know that there are people with disabilities across this country. Even though our focus in talking about this Medicare plan has been that it means pay more, get less for America's seniors, the same is true for many people with disabilities, several million in fact across America who are not 65 but because of a disabling condition are reliant or dependent upon the Medicare system. Perhaps you are aware of how they will be impacted by this vague plan that we have had presented.

Mr. DOGGETT. In other words, when our Republican colleagues coming up here, instead of giving us the details of their plan, they turn and say, ``Why do not you Democrats come up with a plan to cut $270 billion out of Medicare,'' they are going to have to cut an awfully long time, because we do not believe $270 billion ought to be cut out of Medicare.

Mr. DOGGETT. In fact, is it not true that last year, the trustee used the very words, save one or two, that they used this year, to express concern about the future of the trust fund.

Mr. DOGGETT. I know I read in the Dallas Morning News, a well-known publication and has been known throughout its history to have been known to have at least a slight Republican tinge to it, actually referring to the Republicans this year, and it was not my word but theirs, the Dallas Morning News word, as being guilty of hypocrisy. How is it in 1 year, after having weeks of hearings on a health care plan, they could come to this Congress and deny us and the American people all but 1 day to focus on this essential problem?

Mr. DOGGETT. Certainly when the issue is health care security and misrepresentation that is being made to our seniors about their health future, we all need to come together. I wish we could get more of our Republican colleagues coming together. There is nothing in the rules of the House that prevents them from coming to the floor this afternoon and utilizing their hour of time to outline in detail their plan, but apparently they have chosen not to do that.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank you very much for your observations. I see another colleague of ours, Mr. Bentsen, from Houston, TX has joined us, and may have an observation in response to your comments.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, the gentleman you mentioned another effect of continuing to cut down to too low a level the payments made to health care providers. I just happened to come across a report here on the impact in central Texas of problems we already have with Medicare, the kind of thing that I know you and I want to do to improve Medicare to deal with these problems. There is the story of Richard Bergin, who is 74 years old, has lived in Austin for 40 years, served as a naval officer, as a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and he was doing fine and had a relationship of his own with his primary care doctor. However, when his 83-year-old brother moved into town from out of town to live with him, they could not find any doctor there that would take Medicare in all of their initial searching. The American Association of Retired Persons reports that about 80 percent of the doctors in most Texas towns today will not accept new Medicare patients. If they have this look-back provision and they keep chopping back the [[Page H 9415]] amount that health care providers are getting, will it not make it even more difficult for people like Professor Bergin and the others across Texas, whether it is in Houston, LaGrange, or Lubbock, or anyplace else in this country for that matter, will it not make it more difficult for them to find a physician that will take care of their needs?

Mr. DOGGETT. I would like to talk about each of those. You have extensive experience in business and investment banking, are familiar with principles of financial planning, and you referred to this look- back provision. As I understand it, and I do not believe, though there are many pages in this new press release, that there has been any explanation of how it is of this $270 billion, how they are going to cover their $80 billion or so gap. Just from the standpoint of good, sound business, financial planning, what kind of plan is it that says we will cut $270 billion, except we do not really know how we are going to get $80 billion of that $270 billion? We have just kind of guessed if everything we are thinking about but have not put in a bill anywhere happens to come out, maybe like we hope some day under the best of all circumstances it will, we still got another $80 billion out there hanging and we do not know where we are going to get that.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank you very much for your observations and very helpful comments and, of course, your service here on behalf of all of the people of the Houston area and of our whole State. My comments, of course, this afternoon and those of my colleagues have focused on the Republican pay-more-get-less Medicare plan. But I want to take just a moment here in concluding to tell people who are out there, who are thinking ``Well, they really cannot do that. They really cannot intend to make the kind of cuts that they are making to the American people,'' that they have not heard it all yet. Yesterday, about the same time that the great American hero, the gentleman from Florida, Sam Gibbons, was being denied across the hall even a chance to mutter a few words in defense of Medicare and to raise questions about why these hearings were not occurring, another of our committees here in the House was considering a plan concerning Medicaid. Most people think of Medicaid as being a program that provides assistance to the poorest of Americans, and it is true that it does; but it also, because of some need for improvement in the Medicare system, is about the only way that seniors and people with disabilities can get nursing home coverage. Most of the people that are in nursing homes today, who do not have substantial means, are there with support from Medicaid. There is another thing that comes out of that system Of Medicaid. That is that the Federal Government establishes some patient abuse standards, some safety standards in our nursing homes that they have to meet in order to receive Medicaid funds. Yesterday, at the same time that a slash effort was going on with reference to Medicare, another committee was slashing in Medicaid. Now, if that committee's handiwork becomes law, there will not be one Federal regulation on the books to assure the quality of patient care at nursing homes in this country. I think that by itself is an outrage, that there are people who have become so committed to a rigid ideological agenda that they have forgotten their good sense, they have forgotten our responsibility to protect vulnerable seniors. It seems that the only time people get interested in some nursing homes is when someone is found with abuse, with a death occurring. That is not the way it ought to be. There are many fine nursing homes out there doing their best to provide quality care, but there are always some that try to skim, and it is only with the support of these Federal safety standards, and some inspections, that we have been able to address some of the worst of these abuses, and now that will be totally eliminated. As if that were not enough, the same Committee on Ways and Means that did not want to hear about Medicare yesterday has, within the last several days, approved a proposal that will encourage corporations to withdraw as much as $40 billion from their pension plans, $40 billion from their pension plans, something that people who are not only retired now but may hope, like many of us, to retire some day in the future, should be amply concerned about. There are a number of troubling developments that only by Americans speaking out and making their concerns known are we going to be able to change. As for the Republican pay-more-get-less Medicare plan, lest anyone think that I have a partisan attitude on that plan, let me end by quoting a Republican who was on the radio this week, September 19, Kevin Phillips. He said of his fellow Republicans' Medicare plan: ``Today's Republicans see Federal Medicare outlays to old people as a treasure chest of gold for partial redirection in their favorite directions: toward tax cuts for deserving corporations and individuals. The revolutionary ideology driving the new Republican Medicare proposal is simple: Cut the middle class and give back the money to the high- income taxpayers.'' That is the problem we face, but Americans can turn it around.

Mr. DOGGETT. If I understand it, then someone in the bureaucracy here in Washington, acting under the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Health Care Financing Agency, when the year is gone by and there is this big old gap there of billions of dollars, will go back and say well, the gap is there, next year we are just going to have to cut how much we pay these health care providers by 50 percent, 30 percent, or 25 percent, or however much it is. Is that the way this so-called look-back provision works?

Mr. DOGGETT. That was a real winner.

Mr. DOGGETT. They are open hearings. That is, any American citizen who would want to come forward and present their testimony, if we are not able to hear from all of them orally, can file their written testimony with us and get that to the attention of people, at least within the Democratic Caucus, the 200-plus Members here who would want to hear their observations.

Mr. DOGGETT. Let me ask the gentleman one question about these hearings. Beginning about 9:30 or so eastern time tomorrow morning the gentleman has referenced hearings that will occur just outside the House Chambers here on the Capitol Grounds. Do I understand those hearings will continue into next week?