Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Today's bill is another element of a Republican agenda that has consistently weakened our Federal commitment to educational opportunity. I agree with the American Council on Education which said: ``The Federal Tax Code is no substitute for the Pell grant, Federal Work-Study, and other Federal student aid programs.'' Republicans have voted again and again in this Congress to cut these investments in our future. House Republicans approved a budget that would eliminate $90 billion of Pell grants, would deny 125,000 students Federal Work-Study assistance, and would have reduced funding for Hispanic-serving universities and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Now the Republicans come to the floor and are really boasting of the fact that this particular version of the bill does not cut Federal tax incentives for education as much as they wanted to. As originally introduced by my colleague from Tennessee, this bill would have denied 5 million Americans every year an opportunity to use education tax incentives that exist under current law. They would have slashed assistance under the act by $5 billion a year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And so they went back and tinkered with it a little bit, and they are here today to brag that they have a D-minus bill and that is better than the failing bill that they offered initially. I understand that after years of opposing this particular incentive, they might want to change course. They all voted against the improvements, the changes that I authored in 2009 for the American Opportunity Tax Credit. They have consistently opposed the concept of refundability, that is, assisting those students who might not have a tax liability as big as the amount of the credit. And it is progress that they have come around to supporting the credit at all and the concept of helping those at the bottom of the ladder. But while they have reduced the depths of the serious cuts that they proposed only a few months ago to these tax incentives, they have not stopped the bleeding. They deny assistance to many students across America who are assisted by our current law. That is why, as my colleague Mr. Levin pointed out, a group of educational institutions, whether it is Hispanic colleges or Christian colleges or land grant colleges, they all oppose this bill. They have said, and again I quote: ``The bill would negatively impact many low- and middle-income students and families who benefit under current law.'' That is what the educational experts say. And that is because the bill eliminates a guarantee under existing law called the Lifetime Learning Credit. It is eliminated entirely for so many students, and it is important to understand who those students are because I have seen and talked with them at places like San Antonio College, ACC, and St. Philip's College. What kind of person are we talking about? Someone who is a single mother, who has a child to take care of, and continues to work trying to get her associate's degree first, to move out of a low-wage job into a better job, and then go on to UT or somewhere else, but she can't get it all done in 4 years; a mid-level worker who wants to shift industries and needs to upgrade his or her skills for a job in the new economy. They have to work and go to school at night. They can't get it all done in 4 years. A recent college graduate who says, you know, in order to get the job I am best qualified for, I am going to have to have a master's degree. But they are denied assistance and the opportunity to climb up the economic ladder of success, not by the existing law, but by the changes that the Republicans proposed today.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am so pleased tonight to hear one colleague after another indicate that they are ready to act in a bipartisan way on this issue and that it should be a bipartisan commitment to addressing the vulnerability of our children. I think that needs to apply to all children. This legislation that we are considering at the moment is one of seven bills that we are going to approve here in the House today that deal with trafficking because trafficking remains a serious problem here and around the world. Several of the bills that we are considering recognize that there is an international dimension to this problem. Therefore, I would particularly urge my Republican colleagues and all of our colleagues tonight to remember next week the statements that are being made this evening and to be as concerned about the vulnerability and the exposure to the trafficking of those children who have recently sought refuge in our country as we are about foster children or any other children in our country. While the sex trafficking prevention in this bill addresses, specifically, problems within the foster care system, the scourge of youth sex trafficking extends far beyond this population. As we are all well aware, we have had a recent influx of children come across our southern border, many of whom have been abused at home, abused along the 1,000-plus-mile track, and could be subject to abuse or to being involved again in sex trafficking. Polaris, a group that works to help end modern-day slavery, notes that undocumented immigrants are ``highly vulnerable'' to sex trafficking due to their ``lack of legal status and protections, language barriers, limited employment options, immigration-related debts, and social isolation.'' Most of these vulnerabilities are amplified when the immigrants are children. We have an obligation in this Congress to take their unique situation into account and provide them with the protection and the care that they deserve. The steady drumbeat to remove the very protections that help vulnerable children from becoming sex slaves or remaining in slavery is wrong, and that is why 37 Latino organizations, including MALDEF, the National Council of La Raza, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, among them, all have urged this Congress to assure due process for these kids rather than stripping away rights that this Congress provided in current United States law. A diverse group of faith leaders, including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Sojourners, and the National Association of Evangelicals have joined with these Latino groups in calling to assure that these children are not denied their due process rights, and that they do not have rights guaranteed by American law today taken away next week. Over 50 child development experts from around the country, many of the same people that supported our effort in today's legislation, wrote this Congress yesterday and urged that we change course before we put thousands of traumatized children into danger. They describe an expedited screening process that would leave children in danger. It is the expedited screening process that applies today to Mexican children, and it is flawed. Children who fear trafficking, or were previously trafficked, can be returned to Mexico to reenter that trafficking trade and come back again. We shouldn't subject the Central American children to the same process, yet, that is what has been recommended today. I am concerned about what happens to children along the Green River, about what happens along the Potomac River, about what happens along the Colorado River, but I am also concerned about what is happening to the many who have just crossed the Rio Grande River. When children are asked about whether they have been trafficked by a police officer, who may not speak their native language, in a rushed interview in what may be a chaotic situation in a detention center that is much like a police station, where someone who just abused them or who may actually have been involved in the trafficking and smuggling process is nearby and can perhaps overhear these tales, they will be reluctant to articulate the sexual trauma, the very private trauma to which they have been subjected. These children who have been traumatized, in some cases, multiple times, who may well have left their native country because of abuse, deserve to be interviewed and evaluated in an environment that takes into consideration their youth, their vulnerability, all of the factors that we have been talking about on this piece of legislation, and the other six pieces of legislation that the House is about to approve. These children deserve the same type of protections, not an intimidating environment that is made all the more unfamiliar to them by virtue of the fact that they are in a land that they have never been to before. This special treatment does not occur and happen if you have an expedited screening process. That is why we unanimously passed the guarantees that are in the 2008 law. If we want to protect these children, we should abandon a plan to throw out these children by the wayside by abandoning those protections. I believe that we shouldn't let our desire, the fears of some, perhaps the hate of others, to result in the quick deportation of children and return them to a live of sex slavery. They are vulnerable children. We don't assure them amnesty. Certainly, we cannot accept every child that wants to enter this country. I am not in favor of amnesty, but I do think we need a little humanity, a little human decency, and that those children deserve the same respect and due process as any child that we are talking about tonight. So I am pleased that we are making progress on this piece of legislation and another six bills. I think they are an important step forward in dealing with a serious international problem. But it is critical that this interest in bipartisan concern for the vulnerability of children extend to those children who are now in my home State, and about whom we will be talking in the few days that remain in this Congress, and that we apply the same kind of standard then as we are applying tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to join in the accolades for our chairman, Dave Camp of Michigan, and to particularly recognize the key role he played in helping to create our child abuse commission, which is currently holding hearings. They had the first one down in San Antonio, in my district. They will be going to Michigan, and they have been in Florida. I think they are collecting data that will provide us another opportunity to act, to deal with some of the same issues that we are concerned with today. I appreciate the leadership that he has shown and, certainly, that Mr. Reichert has shown. I am pleased that among those groups that we have heard from is the American Academy of Pediatrics, which plays such a leading role. They say that this legislation is an essential step in improving the health and well-being of foster youths and in expanding their access to appropriate permanency options. The Children's Defense Fund was important in this legislation. It emphasized the importance of permanent placements for children as they leave care and of empowering our older youth. I believe that this bipartisan legislation is a good step forward. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, would you report on the time I have remaining.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a special responsibility to protect vulnerable children. This is bipartisan legislation that takes some important, though modest, steps toward meeting that responsibility by addressing three issues: combating the exploitation of at-risk children, promoting permanent homes for foster children, and strengthening international enforcement of child support obligations. With a bipartisan, bicameral agreement between the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, this legislation combines modified versions of three bills that we previously passed here in the House earlier in the session. This measure has been endorsed by a number of important child advocacy groups, including the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Welfare League of America, and Voice for Adoptions. I was pleased to work with Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Levin, and certainly Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Reichert, as well as our colleagues in the Senate, as we came together with bipartisan agreement on this legislation. There are still provisions in the bill that I think could use improvement, including the fact that an important program that helps link children in foster care to relatives, called Family Connection Grants, is extended only for a single year; but I think that even with some of its limitations, this legislation does make a positive difference in the lives of many children, particularly those who are vulnerable to sex trafficking. When children come into foster care, they already have issues. They have suffered abuse or neglect. They have been exploited. They have suffered. They have a sense of isolation, and they often feel that they have been removed from one home and put out in a place with which they are not familiar. They are especially at prey for sex traffickers and are targets in that condition. This bipartisan legislation attempts to combat trafficking in the foster care system by screening at-risk children and providing services, when necessary; by reporting the incidence of trafficking so we will have a clear indication of that among foster children; and by expediting the location of children who run away from foster care. Additionally, this bill attempts to help children live more normal lives while in foster care by allowing them to more fully participate in the activities that most children enjoy, such as playing sports and an occasional sleepover at a friend's house. This legislation also extends and adopts changes in the Adoption Incentives program to encourage States to find permanent homes for children in foster care, which is certainly the best approach. The bill increases the program's focus on promoting the adoption of older children in foster care. It also, for the first time, provides an incentive for States to increase the number of children leaving foster care to live with a legal guardian. It includes a provision that I authored ensuring children won't lose their eligibility for Federal guardianship assistance if the guardian dies or becomes incapacitated. Finally, the legislation would take necessary steps to implement a very important international treaty on enforcing child support obligations abroad so that leaving this country doesn't allow individuals to leave behind their responsibility for the children that they parented that are here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, we still have much to do to ensure that the well-being of vulnerable children is receiving the attention that it deserves, but I think this is a good start with this bill. I urge its passage and swift action by the Senate in accord with our agreement to see that it gets to the President's desk soon for signature. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), who cochairs the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth. I don't know another Member of this Congress who has expressed more concern in going all over the country to work and seek improvements in the lives of our foster children.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to approving this permanent Republican tax break for Twinkies. That is exactly what this bill does. I think we should encourage charity, but also fiscal responsibility and accountability. This bill fails on both the latter two points. A while back, there was a Texas official who often derided the war on poverty and Social Services in general by declaring: America is the only country in the world where most of the poor people are fat. Well, in more recent years, we have come to understand that the challenges of obesity and poverty are different faces of the same problem, that diabetes and hunger sometimes go hand in hand. Disadvantaged neighbors, who too often lack enough to eat, too often make up for it with high, sugary, fatty foods that provide temporary relief from hunger, while making them more prone to disease. According to the American Heart Association, 1 in 3 American children are obese or overweight. That is nearly triple the rate of 50 years ago, and 1 in 3 children will contract what was once called adult-onset type 2 diabetes. Now, we can address these challenges through direct government expenditures like WIC, the Women, Infant and Children nutrition program, and we can address the challenges with tax expenditures like the one that is proposed here today. I happen to believe that we need both of them, that we should be encouraging food banks and the businesses that donate to them--who do some excellent, some valuable work, we ought to encourage them to expand the work that they do. But when we tell a taxpayer that they don't have to pay the same taxes as their competitor if they donate for a good cause, we ought to be sure that that cause is good. Just as we scrutinize the WIC program and other food security programs to ensure no misuse, no ineligibility--we want to see that every one of those dollars spent is spent efficiently--we need to do some of the same with reference to tax expenditures like that is proposed for permanent extension here. We need accountability, and you lose that when this and the other provisions are extended forever and never carefully evaluated. Now, the expenditure that is provided here for food donations is one that the law says is available for any food that is ``apparently wholesome food.'' The only problem is that apparently wholesome food includes much food that is not actually wholesome. For example, some potato chips that have long since had their expiration date, they qualify. A can that fell off and was run over by the forklift and is very damaged, it qualifies. Most particularly, if you have candy at Halloween and you overstocked and you have a significant amount of candy left--or for the Easter Bunny or at Christmas--the shelves at some food pantries overflow with these products. Why is that? Because the business that donates the Twinkies or the stale potato chips is entitled to deduct not the cost of what they cost that business, but twice the cost of what it cost that business, and this bill makes that permanent. Why should we at a time of great fiscal concern be paying twice the cost of stale potato chips and Twinkies and sugary nonwholesome and nonnutritious foods--why should we be paying for that? It is a tax break that goes too far, that requires more careful evaluation. Indeed, one 2011 NPR report that was entitled ``Overburdened Food Banks Can't Say No to Junk'' because some of the same retailers that they rely on and count on for wholesome food dump the Halloween candy, dump the Easter eggs there, and they are available and treated just the way that wholesome food is treated. I say, Mr. Speaker, let's encourage donating the good stuff, but let's not pay for the junk. We have the power to correct that problem by, instead of having a flawed permanent bill, having one that is available for evaluation on a more regular basis, just as we do with reference to these other provisions. The cost of this bill is part of the overall cost and strategy to wreck our budget and reduce hunger programs in this country.

Mr. DOGGETT. The same Republicans that are advancing this include a group that have characterized as welfare Pell grants, school breakfast programs, senior nursing care programs. They want to lump all that as welfare, and they say we just can't afford that. I don't believe that we can't afford to target public resources where they are needed, whether they are tax expenditures or direct expenditures, but we don't need a permanent tax break for Twinkies and stale potato chips. Let's take the fiscally responsible, accountable approach, not the irresponsible approach that is being advanced today, and reject this bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you for your good work on this amendment. This will be the third bill that we have amended on it. Mr. Chairman, seldom has a day gone by recently without a headline about some American company that is running for the border to avoid its tax bill. Indeed, today's New York Times has ``Patriot Flees Homeland,'' ``Drug Firms Make Haste to Elude Tax,'' and an excellent piece in Fortune magazine and The Washington Post that Ms. DeLauro referenced by Allan Sloan, entitled, ``Positively un-American tax dodges.'' It all gives new meaning to the term ``sunshine patriot'' when some corporation renounces its citizenship and claims it is a citizen of the Cayman Islands or of Bermuda, where it does little or no business other than tax evasion. The willingness of corporations to renounce their citizenship and leave America behind, at least in name only and at least when the tax bill is due but not when the desire for a government contract is there, has been recognized in the Senate Finance Committee, where Senator Wyden will conduct hearings next week on the best legislative approach to put a stop to this. But we can do something today to put a stop to what are called ``inversions,'' which are truly perversions of the Tax Code. As Mr. Sloan writes, ``Inverters are deserters.'' Today, Members can respond to this desertion by denying them government contracts. I would like to do more, but I believe this legislation adopted now in these other appropriations acts--repeating it for every one of them--will do a great deal to send a message about those who shirk their responsibilities to America at the same time they ask other taxpayers to use their tax money to finance government contracts.

Mr. DOGGETT. The amendment says, if you renounce your citizenship and go abroad to avoid paying taxes, don't come with your hand outstretched to ask other taxpayers who stayed here and worked and contributed to the success of America--those that are proud to be American businesses and are paying their fair share--to pay for you to get a government contract. Don't ask them to put up their tax dollars to pay for your success. We believe that this approach provides protection to the Treasury and responds to those corporations that have abandoned America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today really demonstrates the House Republican fear of even trying. Their guiding strategic principle in this Congress is to do nothing and to be sure that no one else can do anything; and when they are eventually overwhelmed by a self-created crisis, as they have done with our transportation system, then to do next to nothing. Bridges can literally fall down, highways crumble, public transportation systems are hobbled, but the House Republicans continue to reject a normal reauthorization of the Transportation Act of the type that, for decades, had broad bipartisan support in this House. The only thing bipartisan about this last-gasp desperate effort to prevent a stoppage of transportation projects and the various groups that have endorsed it is that, after having had presented as a purported serious proposal by House Republicans that the way to stop the traffic slowdown was to have a mail or postal slowdown to finance it, they see this as a chance finally to at least prevent temporarily a total shutdown of our transportation project system. And so they are going along with it. I am not. I realize that to have a sound transportation system, you can't do it week to week or month to month. There has to be some long-term planning. These bridges cannot repair themselves. These potholes don't fill themselves. We often hear that freedom is not free. Well, neither are freeways. We have to have the revenue to have the kind of responsible national transportation system of the type that Dwight Eisenhower once provided the lead on when there was bipartisan support for reasonable public investment. Our competitors understand this. They are out there designing a 21st century transportation system that will be competitive, and we are being left in the potholes. It is essential that we have a long-term bill, not this type of stopgap measure.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, Republicans say they would like to help, but they claim we just don't have enough resources for medical research in order to address cures for Alzheimer's, cancer, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and other dread diseases--diabetes, for example. Wildfire season is approaching, and there are not enough resources to begin planning to prevent those wildfires because there is not enough money to actually address the fires when they begin, and delay is occurring. We have hurricane season and tornadoes all over the country, but there is not enough money for the National Weather Service to give us all of the details we need. Only yesterday, we learned that Republicans were refusing, once again, to correct the bankrupt transportation fund. The best they can do is postpone the bankruptcy into next year--after the election--as our highways crumble and bridges literally fall down. As for the comprehensive safety inspection of our food and our drugs, they would like to do it, but there is just not enough money, and there are not enough funds available to monitor effectively infectious diseases or to produce vaccines to stop other diseases. There is not enough to adequately staff our Federal prisons. There is not enough to fully fund Federal law enforcement. There is certainly not enough to provide strong, effective foster care for the many children, after having been abused and neglected, who are removed from their homes. As for workforce development, so that we can be competitive with our friends abroad, there doesn't seem to be the resource to permit children from pre-K to postgrad to achieve their full God-given potential. While there are so many vital needs that we just don't seem to have the resources to address, these same Republicans tell us today that we can afford to borrow from the Chinese or the Saudis--or whoever will lend to us--the resources to deliver bonuses to some people. They urge more public debt to fund more bonuses. While they rightfully argue on every expenditure program that we should be looking for evidence-based programs--programs that actually work and that provide the promised outcomes--and that we ought to eliminate duplication and inefficiency, they have absolutely no interest in evidence-based tax expenditures, which is what is involved today. When the evidence conflicts with their ideology, they abandon evidence and pursue ideology. The evidence-based approach to this particular expenditure could not be clearer. What is involved here is that when any business goes out and obtains machinery, a vehicle, a truck, a building, they depreciate it over the useful lifetime of that asset--standard accounting principles. What is involved here today is Washington math. It is the Washington manipulation of traditional accounting rules. It is a matter of violating those traditional accounting rules, and we have learned from the economic studies that that is a very sorry, not evidence-based investment. Indeed, even as a stimulus, the analysis shows that, for every dollar that is invested, we get 20 cents of growth. A fellow could go bankrupt with that kind of economics, and that is exactly what they would have the country doing and not meeting its other needs while funding something that doesn't work. Both the Federal Reserve bank and Goldman Sachs--which is not exactly a Democratic organization--concluded this year that letting this special tax treatment expire that they want to make permanent and extend forever will not have any significant economic impact. Today's bill is an example of the very kind of waste and inefficiency line items that they always say, in campaign rallies, they can discover and eliminate, but which, today, they are perpetuating. I am for a pro-growth, pro-jobs creation set of government policies-- including tax policies--that promote competitiveness. It is competitiveness that involves an adequate transportation system, a trained workforce, the research in medicine as well as in technology to help us compete, but we don't have the Federal resources to hand out one bonus after another to corporations when we know it won't work, when it will not grow our economy and at the same time that the same people who are advocating for policies that don't work refuse to pay for policies that do work. We should reject this bill. It is not in the interest of the country. It may be good politics in an election year, but it is bad economic policy, as near every economist who has looked at the issue in an objective way has concluded.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague. I have been pleased to join her in adding the language of this type to each appropriation bill that has thus far been approved in the House. I am surprised that there could be any opposition to it today because all this amendment is saying is, if you renounce your citizenship and go abroad to avoid paying taxes, don't come with hand outstretched to ask the other taxpayers who stayed here and worked in America and who are proud to be American businesses and are paying their fair share, don't ask them to put their tax dollars into providing you a government contract. It seems to me very apparent that some corporations are willing to do their fair share in paying for American security, energy and water projects, and other vital government services and some are not. There are a string of corporations who have decided they would keep their business operations in America, but they would suddenly renounce their American citizenship and become a citizen of one of these island kingdoms. That is not the American approach of fairness in paying for the services that we need. This amendment would put an end to that renunciation of citizenship and asking for taxpayer-funded business. It is equitable; it is fair. We cannot have the resources that we need to remain the greatest Nation in the world without having every American citizen contributing their fair share. Most are. Those who renounce their citizenship and nominally declare that they are now a foreign citizen and not subject to full American taxation, they are not carrying their fair share. I urge adoption of this amendment, an equitable amendment, for fairness in our public policy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. This Congress has a constitutional obligation to approve military action before any President decides to shoot first and ask questions later. A 12-year-old resolution, enacted in the aftermath of 9/11, should not provide a basis for endless war. Some of the same self-certified smart people who were talking about mushroom clouds and weapons of mass destruction are, once again, trying to stampede us into war. We have been there, and we have done that, and America is still paying a terrible, terrible price for their past failures, though they refuse to acknowledge them. Protecting our Embassy in Baghdad is one thing--a true emergency--but if any President wants to launch offensive military action, they need to come and make a specific case to this Congress for authorization, just as President Obama said he would do last year on Syria, not some convoluted interpretation of a resolution from a different time and circumstance. If there is a case for war, have the courage to come here and make it, but don't rely on an open-ended authorization of military force from long ago.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, that is very good to hear. I join in supporting this amendment as a coauthor of it. Multinational corporations that do business around the globe have an even greater interest in world order and in national security. They should not be paying a lesser rate of taxes than corporations that focus their business right here in America. Unfortunately, some of them scheme to avoid their fair share and to shift the burden to smaller businesses and to individuals. Some of these same companies have on more than one occasion paid more to their lobbyists to lobby this Congress and the Treasury to avoid paying taxes than they actually pay to the Treasury. It has been a pretty wise investment for them because our Tax Code is a mess. It is riddled with preferences and loopholes and one exception after another. This amendment addresses one of the most egregious tax gimmicks. That is where a corporation actually renounces its American citizenship, declares itself a citizen of some other country, and then continues operations in America, demanding the full protection of the laws and the military and the educational system that it refuses to contribute a fair share to pay for. Tax lawyers call it an ``inversion''; I call it a perversion of our tax laws. To add insult to injury, some of these same corporations, which have abandoned their citizenship, then ask for American government contracts paid for with the very tax dollars from the small businesses and individuals to whom they have shifted the tax burden. American companies that stay and contribute to building our country and keeping her strong at home and abroad deserve a level playing field, and that is what this amendment does. The action that we take in approving this amendment today sends a message to executives that they can pretend that their company is located on some Caribbean beach to avoid paying taxes, but Congress is not going to put its head in the sand about this kind of tax dodging.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Republicans would dig our country into another trillion dollars of debt, borrowing from the Chinese, the Saudis, whoever will lend it to us. They have already approved borrowing $614 billion for business tax breaks, and they have told us that there are more on the way, more tax privileges, more tax exceptions, more tax advantages. This bill today is just another chapter in their ledger of accounts payable for the American taxpayers. Such fiscal irresponsibility doesn't represent a plan for genuine tax relief for small businesses or for anyone else. I will say that I agree with them, that small businesses have every reason to complain, as do individual taxpayers, because the Tax Code that they have done so much to write is riddled with special treatment for those who pay more to their lobbyists here in Washington than they do to the U.S. Treasury. It has been a wise investment for them, but a pretty sorry outcome for small business and individual taxpayers. We have some multinational companies who have set up hundreds of offshore subsidiaries to shift their profits out of America and into a place where they don't pay a dime. I can tell you that the cleaning crew at the headquarters of General Electric pays a higher tax rate than General Electric does. That is not fair. They pay a higher tax rate than Joe's Bakery or Patty's Taco House down in San Antonio. That is not fair. It ought to be corrected; but instead, they have added almost another $100 billion in tax loopholes that they have proposed and have approved in committee to help those folks continue dodging their taxes. At the same time, the proponents of today's bills tell us that America simply cannot afford more to educate its children. Only the day before yesterday, the Senate refused to address the problem of soaring student debt, now bigger than credit card debt, exceeded only by the giant debt they want to incur for more tax breaks. They tell us: we can't afford to do the research necessary to cure Alzheimer's or to find new solutions to cancer and AIDS and other dreaded diseases. This is not about borrowing to raise small business up. This is just an excuse to reduce the government investment that we need to grow our economy. Apparently, to the Republicans, deficits only matter when asking seniors and students and others to sacrifice, but not when it comes to adding one tax break after another. Now, how did we get to the situation that we are in today? Well, there has been a convenient amnesia about the history of tax reform in this Congress. Last January, the gentleman from Ohio--the Speaker--and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) came to this floor and they said: America, have we got a deal for you.

Mr. DOGGETT. We have got a great deal for you. This big old fat Tax Code that is bigger than the Bible many times over, that we helped expand to resolve the needs of our special interest supporters, we are going to put it on a diet. We are going to thin it down. We are going to give you a simple Tax Code that is easy to comply with. In addition to that, we are going to lower your rate; and you know what, we are going to do all that, and we are not going to add a penny to the national debt, and we will keep the rates relatively the same for everybody. They reserved H.R. 1. They said: it is so important, we are going to make it the number one priority here. Where are we on that bill, I would ask the gentleman today; and I can tell you it is still reserved for the Speaker. They have never brought it out, put it on this table, and given the American people a chance to vote on it because what happened was they went through a long process, they produced their draft bill, and the lobby went wild against it. They could not stand up to the very people that helped them write the complex, unfair Tax Code that we have today.

Mr. DOGGETT. They couldn't stand up to those special interests, so that bill, 18 months later--not the result of anything the Democrats did, not the result of anything the President did--they couldn't agree among themselves about how to respond to all those special interest pressures. So they are back today, going one little bill at a time to add a few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion dollars there, and not provide the comprehensive tax reform they told us, themselves, they would be providing, and that is why we find ourselves in the predicament we are in today. I agree with the gentleman, people in Ohio, across America, in Texas, and elsewhere, that they have reason to question this Congress, because a promise is just like that. Promises to bring reform, to work together in a bipartisan fashion left on the cutting room floor because special interests, the people that don't pay their fair share of taxes today, they want to keep it that way. They want to continue to disadvantage small business and individual taxpayers. Today, we need to say ``no'' to this measure and ``no'' to their other temporary measures and demand real reform.

Mr. DOGGETT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, across America, for 30 million schoolchildren implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is working. Schools are literally stepping up to the plate with a plate of healthier food. Indeed, for school lunches in Texas, 99 percent of Texas school districts are successfully serving meals that meet strong nutritional standards. In most of the schools I visit, 99 percent is an A-plus. First Lady Michelle Obama has provided impressive leadership in getting students, families, all of us, to pay a little more attention to food quality, to encourage kids to be more physically active, to get moving, and to grow up healthy. Active, healthy kids do better in school, and they grow up to be more productive citizens who can help in moving our country forward. Today's bill presents the question of whether we are to wave good-bye with a waiver to healthy school lunch standards. This bill that we are about to consider is not the only place where unhealthy congressional action lurks. At the very same moment that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee was weakening school nutrition standards with a waiver, the House Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve, approved a bill to expand a tax subsidy for ``apparently wholesome food.'' That sounds good. The only problem is that the statutory definition of ``apparently wholesome food'' does not actually limit itself to the wholesome. It includes Halloween candy, Twinkies, Pop Rocks, stale potato chips, and other expired junk food, all of which receive a taxpayer subsidy. I think that is a little hard to stomach. In a Nation where one-third of our children are overweight or obese, we should neither be subsidizing junk food nor repackaging healthy school meal standards into less healthy meals. We are already spending in America an estimated $245 billion every year on diabetes. Rates of dietary-related Type 2 diabetes are skyrocketing among children and young adults. Since many of our children consume up to half of their daily calories at school through the school lunch and school breakfast programs, their health depends upon the nutritional quality of the food they are served. Today, we should not take a giant step backwards. Let's join against this push to lower standards for our Nation's children. They deserve the healthiest future possible.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I am in favor of the amendment. Hopefully, from the silence that we have heard, there is bipartisan support for this amendment because I know there is a bipartisan commitment here that competition is very much the American way. If you have two companies, as happens all over America, competing on different government contracts, we usually come out with the best result from that competition. But the question with this amendment, which I am pleased to join the gentlelady from Connecticut in offering today, is whether we ought to advantage companies that renounce their American citizenship in favor of finding an office on the beach in Bermuda or in Ugland House in the Cayman Islands. The other company is an American company, not only when it comes time to put its hand out for a government contract but also when it comes time to put its hand out to pay the taxes that it earned on its American business. Which one of these companies should have a competitive advantage? I think it is the one that stayed home and was an American, patriotic company and did not dodge its part of the responsibility for paying for our national security, which is so important to international commerce, and for other vital services. American companies that stay and contribute to building America and that keep her secure at home and abroad deserve a level playing field, and that is all that this amendment does. If a Cayman company doesn't have to pay taxes on some of its income, of course it can underbid the company that stayed in America, that made it in America, that paid its taxes, and then asked to have a level playing field to compete for American business. The history in this Congress, unfortunately, is that many very large companies pay their lobbyists more to lobby this Congress than they pay to the Treasury in taxes, and it has been a very wise investment because they have been able to have one loophole, one special preference, one advantage, one exception--one more bit of complexity to our Tax Code--in order to avoid paying their fair share. The companies that are operating in the Cayman Islands and in Bermuda are reporting huge amounts of income earned in those countries, largely from stripping off earnings that they have here in America and shifting them there through interest gimmicks, through dividend gimmicks, through intellectual property gimmicks. They avoid paying taxes not only on the tiny amount that they might have earned from an occasional sale in the Cayman Islands but from all of the sales from which they are able to strip off earnings and shift them to this island paradise. They are looking for, basically, a shell game. I am not talking about seashells on the beach in the Cayman Islands. I am talking about the shell game that exists when these companies come in, renounce their American citizenship, keep the form and operation of their business here in America, but claim that they are suddenly no longer citizens under the American flag that we honor but are under the flag of some foreign nation. They basically are sending Uncle Sam a postcard that reads: ``Sorry. You can find me on the beach. Glad you are not here.'' That is the answer that they give when it comes time to pay their taxes, but then they have the audacity to come and ask other taxpayers--other taxpaying businesses and individuals who have done their fair share, and then some, for American security--they ask for government business at taxpayer expense. This amendment is set to send the executives a message: they can play all they want to on the beach to avoid taxes, but Congress is not going to put its head in the sand. They can have fun in the sun, but Congress refuses to let the rest of the Americans, who are working hard to pay their taxes, get burned by having to pay not only for the taxes that these tax dodgers haven't paid but for government contracts that are paid for with taxpayer money. Let's support competition, and let's support American companies that are paying their fair share. Let's adopt this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there are few greater threats to the security of American families than those which could arise from the failure of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran. Parts of this bill seek to disrupt the administration's tough, persistent diplomacy. Some would even assign to Israel the job of starting what could become World War III. Even the Bush-Cheney administration rejected that approach. Iranian Revolutionary Guard hard-liners may ultimately doom these negotiations. Our responsibility is to ensure that hard-liners here don't do the obstruction for them. Our arsenal of democracy includes more than bombs. It includes tough negotiations and strong sanctions to reach a carefully monitored, verifiable agreement that will protect our families and our allies. Given the high cost of failure, we certainly cannot afford to surrender to defeatists, who capitulate on the negotiations before they are even completed. It is too soon to wave the white flag and give up in favor of war. The obstinate objections raised last year to the interim agreement were proven to be unjustified. The International Atomic Energy Agency has determined that Iran has taken verifiable actions to halt the progress of its nuclear program. Let's give peace a chance.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.