Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague from Arizona had best direct his remarks to his Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate. You see, yesterday they did a little heart surgery over in the U.S. Senate. Yes, my colleague from Texas, Phil Gramm, said the heart, the very heart of this budget resolution was a tax cut for the privileged. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Americans across this great land know the old concept, the concept of the old order that ought to be the concept of the new order as well, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' We know full well that justice is being denied and delayed again and again. We were told that it was inappropriate to consider the charges against the Speaker until the contract was passed. And then when the contract was passed, we were told it was [[Page H5386]] inappropriate to do it until after the congressional recess. Now we are told, well, maybe after Memorial Day. Justice is being delayed and justice is being denied because some people are unwilling to make the hard choices, the hard choices that demand that an independent counsel act without political bias to evaluate these charges, to decide whether they have merit. Anyone, be they old or new, ought to support that very old concept of impartial justice. Looking at these charges, seeing that they are resolved only through an independent counsel will that be done and we need that action immediately.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Lewis and Ed Kierklewski are two hard- working Texans. They have worked hard all of their lives. One is retired, one is nearing retirement, and they deserve to have the security of Medicare and Social Security. But today that security is threatened, because the Republicans say we need to have the largest corporations in this country pay less taxes and we need for Lewis and Ed to pay more for Medicare. Interestingly enough, as peaceful as Ed and Lewis look, the Republicans are scared to death of them, and so in 6 hours of debate, they have provided us this plan. This is exactly what they have told Lewis and Ed they will do with their Medicare. Now we know that on this sheet of blank paper there is nothing about doubling the deductible for Lewis and Ed. There is nothing about raising their premium every year. There is nothing about increasing their costs, because the Republicans are afraid to stand in this well and tell Lewis and Ed and millions of American seniors the truth that they are about to hike their out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman because in the last day and a half we have learned a great deal about rescissions. We have seen one giant rescission on the floor of this House as our Republican colleagues rescinded their commitment to the millions of American seniors that are counting on Medicare. And now we get three more lessons: No. 1, when it comes to making a choice, a choice between locking in savings from these cuts to deficit reduction and using it for a tax cut for the privileged few, the choice was easy; this House voted overwhelmingly to lock in those savings. But it was not 24 hours later than across the street the chairman of the Committee on the Budget said, ``Oh, it is all just a big game.'' And it was just a big game because all along they needed every dollar of those cuts to give out tax breaks for their friends. Lesson No. 2: When it comes time to chop, who gets chopped first? Well, it is the middle-class families that are struggling to get up that economic ladder, to get their children educated, because the place that this rescission begins rescinding is in education and the Federal commitment to back up our local schools with education. Lesson No. 3: Loopholes last. The Senate approved language that would be part of this rescissions bill to condemn the atrocious practice where some Americans can actually go out and burn their citizenship card and at the same time burn the taxpayer. Is that loophole provision in here? No, sir, it is nowhere to be found in this conference report. We have heard a lot about disasters today. Well, let me tell you, as long as the priorities are to cut education first and to cut tax loopholes for the privileged last, that is a disaster. I am glad to have an opportunity to vote against that kind of a disaster by voting against this conference report.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the motion either. I do have a couple of questions, if I might address them to the distinguished chairman. Am I correct that the piece of legislation that we are talking about here is the one that puts a total moratorium on any kind of Federal regulation, from any Federal agency, except for some of those key areas, like duck hunting, that were exempted here on the floor of the House by amendment?

Mr. DOGGETT. The Senate did not even bother to consider this approach. They took an alternative approach to trying to weed out regulations. Really the whole idea of a total moratorium is deader than a doornail in the Senate. You might as well put an RIP sign over it. It is gone. It is not going to happen.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, all of us are certainly opposed to unnecessary Federal regulations, and there are some silly ones out there. This particular proposal as it passed the House went so far, so extreme, so fast, that it was essentially rejected 100 to zip by the U.S. Senate, was it not, for an alternative approach?

Mr. DOGGETT. But 100 Members of the Senate, including all the Republicans, disagreed with the gentleman.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, why have the Republicans cut Medicare as they are doing here in this budget? Of course, it is to finance a tax break for the privileged few. Now, June Cox is a woman in any district. I met with her and about 200 older Austin citizens last Saturday. They are concerned about seeing the budget balanced as much as anybody in this room, but they do not think we have to balance it with a sick tax on our seniors, and there is something else that I had hoped I would not have to show in the course of this debate. It is another picture, and I would like my colleagues to focus on it. This is it. I say to my colleagues, If you'll look real closely at it, you will see through this time of the debate every single thing that our Republican colleagues have told us about, specifically what it is they're going to do in imposing new out-of-pocket costs on America's seniors. That is to say, if you look closely, you won't see the doubling of the deductible. That bothers Jean Cox, and, if you look closely, you won't see the new out-of-pocket expenses when Jean Cox's doctor tells her she has to go to the lab, and, if you look closely, you won't see the new out-of-pocket expenses that Jean Cox will have if she needs specialized nursing care. No, you won't even see the increase in the deductible, because only in Washington would someone have the audacity to come and tell the senior citizens of America that they're doing more, that they're spending trillions and millions and billions of dollars more to help them out. But they stop to think about it from the perspective of the senior citizen. Jean Cox doesn't have a lot of understanding about trillions and billions of dollars, but, you know, to her and those 200 people I talked to in Austin, $20 extra a month is a lot of money. Doubling the deductible is a lot of money, and that is why, when they go through their reams have charts and when they take all the luminaries and all the number-crunchers of the Republican Party and they put them altogether, they haven't come out with a chart that shows anything other than this. Mr. Chairman, I challenge them. I say, come forward with your plan. Where is the plan. Where is the information for the American people as to what you're going to do to their out-of-pocket expenses in Texas, or Connecticut, or anyplace else, because we haven't heard one word. Ms. Cox and others who are watching, we haven't heard one word about what's going to happen to the out-of-pocket expenses of these seniors, and it's about time we hear something about it. My colleagues, the basic difference, as we approach this debate, is that we Democrats believe that Medicare is reliant on a trust fund, not a slush fund, to pay for tax breaks for the rich. announcement by the chairman

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the former Republican Secretary of HEW has warned the Republicans not to go down in history as the party that destroyed Medicare. I wonder whether these cuts will destroy Medicare for this family.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. I read in the same paper, though, that Speaker Gingrich promises that while these cuts are big, they will be painless. Will they be painless for Margaret Leslie?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, why are the Republicans cutting Medicare to pay for a tax break for the rich? And two of the people who want to know more about this are in the Kierklewski family in Austin, TX. Louis is 94 years young; his son Ed is 62. They are among millions of American citizens who will suffer from the broken promises contained in this budget resolution. Louis and Ed were among 200 senior citizens and people that were concerned with them in Austin, TX, last Saturday who came together to express their great concern about the broken promises that are composed in this Republican budget. Louis Kierklewski has devoted his life to hard work. He repaired looms in a textile factory until that job gave out. Then he went to work at the church as a janitor. And now all he has for economic sustenance is a $549 Social Security check and his Medicare. And he already has to spend out of that $195 just for prescriptions because Medicare, as important as it is, does not cover prescriptions. And Ed--Ed worked 20 years defending this country in the U.S. Air Force. Now he is working as a custodian, moving towards retirement. And he and his wife are worried, and they have good reason to worry about this Republican budget. The Republicans propose to double, and they did not bother telling us about this in the Committee on the Budget but we found out later through their secret memos, to double the deductible that Louis so going to have to pay and that in a couple years Ed is going to have to pay and then keep raising the deductible after they have doubled it year after year after year. Now, if in fact Louis needs to go to the lab, he is going to have to pay extra money under the Republican plan. And if Ed decides that he needs home health care, he will have to pay extra money for that. If Ed or Louis had the audacity to say, we want the same doctor we have always had, well, the Republicans are going to charge them $20 each per month to claim their own doctor. And meanwhile, their premiums will go up month after month, year after year under this Republican plan. That is why the AARP, the retired persons group, calls this Republican plan a sick tax on the most frail and vulnerable seniors in our society. I guess the problem is that the Republicans had old Captain Crunch over there with the number crunchers at the Committee on the Budget, crunching away at the budget, but what they forgot about is that when you crunch numbers in a budget, sometimes you crunch human beings like Louis and Ed Kierklewski, the kind of people who built this into the greatest Nation in the world. When the Republicans crunch the numbers this time they are really crushing every American who is dependent on Medicare or hopes to be in the future.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, why are the Republicans cutting Medicare in order to provide a tax break for the privileged few? Here is a quick preview of today's debate on the Republican budget of broken promises. If you like horror movies, stay tuned, because what the Republicans do to Medicare recipients is horrible. If you like mysteries, stay tuned, as we try to unravel the many ways that secret Republican task forces propose to hike the cost of Medicare. Best of all, if you like comedy, do not tune into the comedy channel, tune in right here. Watch the Republicans try to explain how a cut is not a cut, how, if they propose to double the Medicare deductible, raise the premiums every month, even charge people $20 a month extra just to be able to see their own doctor, that that is not a cut. They do that with a straight face and call it reform. Horror, mystery, comedy; very dark comedy we will see today as the Republicans cut Medicare in order to provide a tax break for the privileged few.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with Mother's Day on Sunday, we are reminded of the commandment to ``honor thy father and thy mother.'' And, my, how our fathers and our mothers and our seniors all over this country have been honored this week. They have been honored with $300 billion, almost, of Medicare cuts, and they can bring charts up here all day and all night and all week long. Apparently, they want to limit the time to discuss this to the bare minimum, but they cannot deny the fact that under existing law they are cutting Medicare by almost $300 billion. It is not a matter of what happens here in the Halls of Congress. It is the way the American people will view these cuts. If you do not understand a cut is a cut, go out and ask the seniors across this country and the people that care for them what it means that in order to get the same level of care, your medical deductible is doubled, your premiums go up every month, suddenly you have to pay for home health care and for lab services. You may not call that a cut, but a senior citizen that faces the decision of whether to eat or whether to get health care is going to view it as the very serious cut that it is.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would ask the distinguished majority leader, I am troubled to hear of even the possibility that this budget might get as little as 4 hours of time. It has been described as a revolutionary budget, and I know as one of I guess what would be the chief revolutionaries you would have some concern about explaining it fully, and that is barely 1 hour for $100 billion of Medicare cuts, and I would hope you would work with the Committee on Rules so that we could have a full and complete debate extending over at least a couple of days to explore what this budget means for ordinary American families.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, these morning hour debates are very important to both sides and I understand there has been consultation on this. We applaud the gentleman's effort. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. That is absolutely right.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mineta amendment. I have to tell the House that the Democratic members of the House Committee on the Budget were put to a very difficult choice yesterday: Should we stay across the street in the Cannon Building and fight the surprise attack disclosed in its details for the first time yesterday morning of the Republican members of the Committee on the Budget to wreck havoc with Medicare, to break their promises with reference to Medicare, and to affect senior citizens across this country by reaching in their pocket and insisting they come up with more money to fund their health care, the same group that wants to challenge the middle class families of this country who want to send a child to college, to thwart their efforts by adding $5,000 to the cost of a Stafford loan, do we stay over there and fight that kind of surprise attack concocted in the shadows of this Capitol by secret Republican task forces, or do we come across the street and help the gentleman from California here on the floor of the Congress stave off the polluters who want to wreck one of the most effective pieces of environmental protection legislation that this country has ever known? Well, it was a tough choice. But staying there from 10 in the morning until after 1 o'clock this morning did not stop a mean-spirited budget resolution from passing. But I hope it has helped inform the American people about what lies ahead, because with Mother's Day coming up, if there is any American citizen that has not yet bought a present for Mom, they better send her some money if she is on Social Security, because these Republicans are coming after Social Security and coming after Medicare. Now, what about this issue of water? Not having had a chance to fight the battle yesterday, I do not quite understand why some of our Republican colleagues are so insensitive to the idea of clean water. Maybe it is because they drink Perrier all the time. I do not know what it is. But for whatever the reason, in my part of the country, Colorado on the rocks is still not a bad drink. You take Colorado River water that is pure, and you pour it over some good ice, and on a hot summer day in Texas it tastes might good. This battle is about protecting Colorado on the rocks, protecting the drinking water in the Colorado River, in the critical tributary of that river called Barton Creek, with a natural spring called Barton Springs, which is a source of entertainment and, I might say, a little coolness on a hot summer day in Texas. Citizens all over central Texas are struggling to protect that natural resource. They recognize we have something very unique in the beauty and the quality of the water of the Colorado River and of Barton Springs, a place to swim, to fish, and, most importantly, a source of drinking water. And what is occurring today affects Austin, TX, very much, because we value our water. We have developed a balance between the necessary part of our economy, the need to expand and have to be in conflict with clean water and the environment. Rather, the two can interface and work together. Our children will benefit because we would not let those two very legitimate concerns get in conflict. What is occurring here today is an effort to thwart the attempt of the people of central Texas to protect their water supply. Mr. Chairman, the bottomline is that this so-called Clean Water Act is really a dirty water act. And of the many horrible provisions of this bill, and goodness knows there are a lot of them, the one that the distinguished gentleman from California is now trying to fix concerning the standards for risk assessment is one of the worse. What this measure does is to take an amendment that was rejected by the House Committee on Science, chaired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and rejected here on the floor of the House. Let me tell you, an amendment that is so bad that it gets rejected in that committee is so bad you cannot scrub it down with a brush, Members. Let me assure you that that committee on risk assessment--and let me remind you how it handled the risk assessment bill. This is a committee where when you ask the committee counsel about the risk assessment bill, he cannot give you an answer without turning over his shoulder and getting the answer from the lobbyists that helped draft the bill. That risk assessment bill is the one this House passed. It will be in this piece of legislation even if the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] is adopted today. The question is, do we go even further than that? Well, the amendment that is already in the bill has received bipartisan opposition. It was Senator Chafee, the Republican Member of the Senate, who indicated that this is not about good science, it is about gumming up the regulatory process or, to use his words, it is a recipe for gridlock. And that is all that people want who oppose this amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, risk assessment is a good concept if, and only if, risk assessment means good science. If risk assessment is only good politics, if risk assessment is only gumming up the regulatory process so that you cannot regulate and assure clean water, then it is a pretty worthless concept. We get a good dose of that in this bill, because it was not 30 minutes ago that the distinguished gentleman from California said, well, let us have it both ways. If they are going to come along and weaken the process, if they are going to come along and have waivers so that polluters can pollute a little here on the side and a little there and a little here, then let us apply risk assessment to that. Was that amendment accepted? Absolutely not, because this is a one way street for polluters. It is OK to pollute; do not get in the way of anyone trying to regulate the polluter. But if it is someone who wants to do something about regulating pollution, then let us erect as many barriers as possible.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this morning around 1 or 1:15 a budget resolution was adopted by the House Committee on the Budget. It is the product of secrecy, of task forces meeting, working as a shadow government in this Capitol, to design a budget resolution. And if you had sat there from 10 in the morning until a little after 1 in the morning the next day as I have, you would understand why it has been necessary to conceive this budget resolution in secret, because the members of the Republican caucus have again broken their word. They have broken their word about having an open House, which they promised on the first day. And the reason it was so essential for them to operate in secrecy is that they are breaking their word to seniors across this country. They are coming after Medicare to the tune of almost $300 billion in cuts, directly out of the pockets of American seniors. Finally, after being pressed, they admitted that copayments are going up for American seniors and that many seniors will see a cut in their benefits. They just do not know who has been marked for the most pain.