Rep. Doggett: Republicans' 'Wreckonciliation' will wreck one life after another, whether it's preventive health care or whether it's the Meals on Wheels program

Rep. Doggett's full remarks follow below:

Ithink what Americans need to know about this debate is that our Republicancolleagues are telling us that the only way we can move forward is with moretax breaks for those at the top and the needs of those who are most vulnerablein our society can be better handled by the states and by Main Street. Wehave in this motion to preserve the Social Services Block Grant program, aprogram that has given the states additional resources that was signed into lawby President Reagan and has had bipartisan support up until this month.

Now,they say there are problems with the program. They want more effectiveness,they want better measurements, they think the states ought to have more skin inthe game by putting in matching funds, they suggest other improvements thatmight be made with reference to other federal programs. Those may all bevery good ideas. As I said at the outset, I think sometimes these blockgrant programs are block headed—that's the way I feel about the block grantingof Medicaid that is being proposed in the same resolution.

Ifyou find a problem in government, Republicans' answer when they say "reform" isto "repeal." That's what they propose today. They're notlooking to improve this Social Services Block Grant. They're not looking to getmore accountability, better measurements or more effectiveness. They have a real simple answer to the bipartisan program that began withPresident Reagan: eliminate it, cut it out, terminate it. That'swhat they do in today's resolution.

Andthe suggestion is we can rely on private entities to take care of some of theseproblems? Let me read to you what Catholic Charities told thiscommittee: "Everyday thousands of individuals who are disabled, children,preschoolers, homeless, elderly, or at risk of being abused are receivingservices because of SSBG funding...we reject the notion that those mostvulnerable among us should feel the greatest impact of future reductions [inthe budget]."

AndI think we should reject that. Catholic Charities, private contributors, theydo some great work. But they need this to be able to accomplish theirpurpose. The suggestion was we need to tighten the eligibilityrequirements… they've gotten out of control. I can tell you that if achild comes in as a victim of abuse, we don't need to ask how much theirparents make. We need to reach out and care for that abused child andhelp them get their life back together. That's some of the work that thisblock grant does in state after state that ought to be supported.

Thesuggestion is that we're just going to overtax people to pay for these vitalservices for the vulnerable. The effective tax rate for Exxon from 2008to 2010 was 17.6%-- we're not talking about whatever might have been in thestatute—the statute is just there to give their lawyers a way to find a wayaround it and they've done a very good job of doing it. They don't pay arate of an independent service station. They pay special rates, and I cantell you from the price I've had to pay at the gas pump, all these taxincentives sure haven't kept gas prices reasonable up to now.

Thesuggestion is that well, some of these folks need to have more skin in thegame. I can tell you that Donald, and Jenny, and Mary—they've got skin inthis game. Their lives are at stake in this game. The Meals onWheels program says they will be devastated if these cuts are made.

Itis a choice.

Ithink this whole bill is misnamed. It's not reconciliation—it's WRECKonciliationbecause it will wreck one life after another whether it's preventive healthcare or whether it's Jenny and the food she relies on through the Meals onWheels program. I think we should reject the wreck and adopt the motion.

###