Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Is this part of the book tour or what.

Mr. DOGGETT. So we have seen our military forces being treated as second-class citizens. They are discriminated against even in the case of rape of a servicewoman or the spouse of a serviceman. These services are not available.

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield further, indeed, the family planning program as described by our colleague, the gentleman from California, it actually is a program that has had support even of some of the people that have probably been members of the Bohemian Club. It has had broad bipartisan support from Republicans and Democrats until the extremists took control of the committee, is that not correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. The gentlewoman is not just talking about the controversial subject of abortion, that right being denied for all of our Federal employees and for all of their families, but the gentlewoman is talking about any form of Federal participation in family planning for families that want to plan, who do not want to face the choice of abortion, but want to actually have a variety of alternatives presented for family planning, they are going to get zero, zip, in the way of Federal support?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, do I understand, I would ask the gentlewoman, that, for example, Planned Parenthood of Boston and planned parenthood organizations and other community family planning across the country have not just been reduced in scope, like so many of the slash-and-burn efforts here in the Congress this week, but have been totally eliminated in the measure that came out of the appropriations bill?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. When you get put on one of these wanted posters which have now spread to the political realm, but one group is putting up wanted posters for physicians performing legal procedures and another group is putting up wanted posters for Members of Congress who have the audacity to support that basic constitutional right.

Mr. DOGGETT. She will be getting into medical school this next month. I know that will be one of the areas that she studies in her practice, but I have to say, as a father, I cannot help but have concern that if she chooses to go into that area of specialty she may actually risk her life, as so many physicians are doing today, as so many people at these Planned Parenthood and other community planning agencies risk their lives to simply provide basic health care services that our young American women need.

Mr. DOGGETT. What is so surprising about all this is this is the year of the conservative attitude in the House of Representatives and Congress, an the whole attitude here is get government off your back. But, indeed, these policies get government so far involved in the most personal issues in one's life. Because in order to monitor and prohibit you have got to police it. I cannot imagine what kind of trickle-down enforcement procedures are going to be there. And the message it says, let me just read you from a Sara Lowenthal, who lives in Santa Cruz, a community that I represent. She wrote this to me. She says, ``As an HIV educator who works directly with at-risk teens, the attack on title X scares me. One of the most direct, effective and influential ways that local teens can get information about HIV is through Planned Parenthood. The elimination of title X is not just a rightist attack on reproductive rights. It is a deconstruction of an educational block that protects Santa Cruz teens from HIV. I am deeply disheartened by the actions of the radical right.'' She is an educator at the local level, and these educators are hard to get, because they do not get paid a lot. They volunteer a lot of their time. And I think that message is not just a message about what specialty to go in. It is also a negative message about what kind of an educator to become.

Mr. DOGGETT. If any of these young women came today to the Congress where all of us were working, this House in session past midnight last night--I know our crime task force got together before 8 this morning. If any of those young women or young men came here to this Congress, would they have found Speaker Gingrich here today?

Mr. DOGGETT. What is going on out there? I missed the first part of your remarks.

Mr. DOGGETT. Is he gone for 2 weeks?

Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Reserving the right to object, Madam Speaker, the Democratic leadership of each of those committees has been consulted, and we have no objection. Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman is not cutting Medicare, why could he not get his plan out here? I learned yesterday that it will be at least another 2 months, until September 22, before we get the details of the Republican plan. They can put charts up. They had wavy graphs yesterday to try to confuse the American people. But the bottom line is that they are going to reach in the pockets of American seniors and they are going to pull out $1 for every $4 that would be paid under existing law with reference to Medicare. That means that the Republicans think our seniors are not having to pay enough for their health care at the present time, because the second part of their plan, as revealed not by them but by the newspapers this week, is that they think seniors should be discouraged from getting Medigap insurance; that they are not having to pay enough; that they do not have enough incentive to not make use of health care under existing law. Yes, they are MediScared. They are MediScared to tell the American people the truth about their changes, and that is why we are not getting the plan today. That is why we have to wait 2 months, because they are MediScared to tell the American seniors that it is their pocket that is going to be picked.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was old Will Rogers who said all I know is what I read in the papers, and were he around today, he would have a great deal in common with the seniors and the people who care about seniors, who are concerned about Medicare. Because you see, all that our Republican colleagues have had to say about their specific plan to change and alter and reform and refine Medicare is that they think that ought to be done. If American seniors or Will Rogers were to have read the Times on Monday, they would have learned one of the specifics of this particular secret plan, that the Republicans think that Medicare beneficiaries should be discouraged from buying insurance to cover what Medicare does not cover already. The Republicans evidently believe that MediGap coverage insulates patients from the cost of care; in essence, that our seniors are not paying enough for the care that they receive today. We have had two Members this morning come up and talk about Medicare. They have failed to outline one specific change. They should be talking about MediScare, because they are scared to death to tell the American people how they are going to increase the cost of Medicare to every senior in this land.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I have yet to talk to anyone in central Texas who can even imagine renouncing their citizenship in order to avoid paying their taxes, people who have earned their sustenance in this country, in the freedom of this country, who would then renounce their citizenship in order to get the maximum after-tax benefit from the sustenance of this country. There is a suggestion by my colleague from Texas that a way has been found to solve this problem. The way that has been found, according to the administration, is a way that leads to about $100 million in additional revenues, whereas the proposal that Mr. Ward advances and has been advanced by the ranking member, Mr. Gibbons, would yield $1.7 billion over 5 years in additional revenues. I think, therefore, that the arguments that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has advanced, that the Archer amendment will only allow expatriates who are patient, who hire the best-priced advisors to continue what they have been doing in the past, has great merit.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hoyer antidiscrimination amendment because that is what this amendment is about; discrimination against young women who serve this country as public employees. We are talking about the young park ranger who is the victim of rape. We are talking about the young nurse at a VA hospital who is the victim of incest. And what does this appropriations bill say to those young women? You cannot have the health care procedure that you and your physician think you should be able to have. That is discrimination, pure and simple. We know that some 70 percent of the health maintenance organizations and the vast majority of private insurance companies in this country provide to those in the private sector the right to choose the procedure that they and their doctor think is appropriate. But this bill, which fortunately the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has come forward and attempted to amend through an antidiscrimination provision, says do not consult your doctor, do not consult your family, do not consult with your minister or your rabbi, talk to your Member of Congress. Mr. Chairman, that is outrageous. It involves the government in the most private of decisions that a young woman might choose to make, and that is wrong and that is discrimination against one group of our population, and that is the young women who serve this country so ably in public service. Health care benefits are only a form of compensation. They are just like salary. What is the next thing going to be? The same kind of extremist views coming to the floor of this Congress and saying not in the future, not in the future do we want our Federal employees to spend their wages to get an abortion? That is the same thing that is being done here. A form of compensation is being cut off from these young women, and the next step is to tell them how they are going to spend their Federal wages because those are tax dollars also, and yet they would be permissible under the current bill, but not under the next step. This provision is harmful to women's health in this country. It suggests they cannot follow their physician's direction. It is unfair treatment. It has nothing to do with tax dollars being spent. It has everything to do with discrimination and the rights of young women. We hear plenty these days from the political commentators about angry white men. I would say it is time to hear a little more about angry young women of all ethnic origins who should be angry about having this personal decision interfered with by this Congress. Support this Hoyer antidiscrimination amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I do come from Texas, and believe in energy independence. But I do not think this measure is about energy independence. It is about pork futures. I took a shot at NIPER, which is what this is all about, it is the National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research, known by its acronym of NIPER, in the Committee on Science. And we came within one vote of eliminating this earmark, which is a good indication of how really disputed this whole issue is. If energy independence is the goal, then why is the authorizing committee cutting fossil fuel research by 45 percent and why is it being reduced in this bill? The issue here is not energy independence. It is whether or not we are going to earmark these moneys to be spent on one research institute of all those in the country that just happens to be in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. When we begin earmarking to these particular institutes and particular facilities, we violate the tradition that has gone on in the Committee on Science up until this year. And we also essentially in doing an earmark are doing nothing but having a sow's earmark. People talk about cutting pork up here, but this is one of those little $5 million piglets that is squealing around this floor tonight. If you believe we ought to provide not only for energy independence but a little independence for the taxpayer and see that this kind of special interest amendment is not included, then you vote for the amendment that my colleagues have offered. [[Page H 7043]]

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. My colleagues, I want to focus now on all of the details that the Republicans have given to us today and every other day in the course of this debate about the future of Medicare. Here it is. Here is the plan as they have described it here on the floor, a complete and total blank, and I would challenge the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, or any other member of the Republican majority, to have the courage to come and fill in this blank page, because the media has already done it by investigating their secret task forces, and they have told the people of America that what this plan calls for is more copayments, more in higher deductibles, more in higher premiums that will come right out of the pocket of America's seniors. The majority leader has just tried to amplify on his remarks. What else did he say on Tuesday according to the Houston Chronicle? ``I resent the fact that I'm 65 and must enroll in Medicare, but I'm not dumb enough to think I'm going to go out there and lay out a plan.'' That is why we have a blank. They do not want the American people to know what they are doing in cutting Medicare.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 3 of rule XVI, I raise the question of consideration.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman will have plenty of time to him, and I have got a few things for her to respond to, too, but let me pose them first. Mr. Speaker, I think there are many Americans who are out there saying when they watch the proceedings in this House that there ought to be a law against what is happening up there. There ought to be a law against some of the things that are not happening up there. I say to my colleagues, Well you know what? There is a law. It is called the Congressional Budget Act, and the Congressional Budget Act is what these folks propose in this resolution to just suspend, to say that they, unlike other Americans, don't have to comply with some of the laws in the statute books, that they can kind of pick and choose the laws of this great country that they wish to comply with. You see the Congressional Budget Act says that we are to have a budget resolution passed and approved in this Congress so we have the guidelines for the budget that will govern the American people with trillions of dollars of expenditure, and it sets a date for doing that, and that date is not yesterday. That date is April 15. Can you imagine what would happen if the American citizens didn't pay their taxes on April 15 when they are due? Would someone permit them to say, ``Well, we'll just suspend that this year; it just doesn't feel good to pay taxes on April 15. We'll just suspend that.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what these good folks have done, and then they tell us in this law that applies to every American and to this Congress that it is our obligation to complete something called the Reconciliation Act, which when this Congress was in the hands of Democrats in 1993, they followed that law. It says: You complete the Reconciliation Act on the budget, and you do it before you go home on July the Fourth. You cannot recess for more than 3 days during the month of July until you have completed the Reconciliation Act. Mr. Speaker, where I come from, down in Texas, people understand that. They either do their work or they do not get their break. They either do their work or they do not go on vacation. But apparently our colleagues in the majority, the Republicans, do not understand that because, instead of complying with the law and completing reconciliation, what do they come before this House today to do? They asked us to suspend the law for them. They want to go home instead of doing the work that the law charges them with doing. I do not declare that, if this Republican majority has to suspend any more of the law on the budget, every one of them ought to have to come out here in suspenders because they have been suspending this and suspending that, and they are not doing the people's work to complete this budget on time. What difference should all that make other than just this example of flouting one law after another to the American people? Well, as a matter of fact, I think it is going to make a big difference when they pay their taxes, when they reach in their pocketbook, to wonder what has happened on Medicare, when they reach in their pocketbook to wonder what has happened in the way taxes are paid in this country, because, I ask, ``What happens when you delay, and you delay, and you delay, and you got those suspenders on, and you're suspending one law after another instead of complying with it?'' It is that it finally all comes home to roost, and it is all going to come home to roost around here after these big vacations are over with and we are faced with the problems of the fall because, my colleagues, we are only about 3 months from the time that the train wreck is going to occur. Mr. Speaker, we are going to be down to the end of this fiscal year. We are going to be facing a debt limit, and it is all going to back up, and it is going to pile up, and we will have all these last-minute proposals that say from the Republicans: ``Well, Mr. and Mrs. Senior American, we're going to need a little more help out of you. If you want to see your own doctor next month instead of the one that some organization picks out for you, pull out a twenty out of your pocket because it is going to cost you about $20 more a month to do that.'' They are going to say, ``Well, Mr. and Mrs. Senior American, are the young people that are trying to care for their parents and honor their father and mother,'' they are going to say to them, ``Well, if you want to stay at home with home care instead of going into a nursing home, it is going to cost you more money.'' They are going to say, as one of the Members of the Republican leadership does, ``If you're about to turn 65 and retire, don't look to Medicare to cover you health care because you're going to have to wait until 67. Oh, your employer won't cover it anymore? Well, that's tough. You'll have to come up with thousands of dollars to provide yourself medical insurance if you get it at age 65 or 66.'' And there is one other thing that needs to be said: As a State judge, I saw one defendant after another who, lacking a meritorious defense, would come forward and would use delay as their shield. It is not surprising when a defendant does that; it is surprising when the judge gets in a partnership with the defendant to use delay as a defense, and on one very critical matter in this House we have heard action would be taken after the Contract. We have heard action would be taken after Memorial Day. We have heard action would be taken at the end of June, before the July Fourth recess, and yesterday a story in the New York Times put a lie to all of that when it reported how little work the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct had done. It is an outrage for this House to adjourn without the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct acting on the complaint against Speaker Gingrich.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. DOGGETT

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