Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. But there is an ``alien'' issue in this bill and only one alien issue--those who have been so alien to the freedoms we hold dear as Americans. This is an Administration that has desecrated our Constitution, debased our values and repeatedly undermined our freedoms. For a party that purports to hate Big Government, these Republicans sure do seem to love Big Brother. They demand unlimited Executive power and unrestrained authority to intrude into our everyday lives. Today, we dare to impose some limitations on one of so many examples of their callous disregard of our liberties. If even former Attorney General John Ashcroft, sitting there in his hospital bed in intensive care, if even he could recognize the illegality of the surveillance that Dick Cheney demanded, why shouldn't we in Congress be able to do the same? And if one telecommunications company had the courage to say ``no'' to this Administration's wrongdoing, why not the others? And why would we want to protect these corporate accomplices in the surreptitious destruction of our freedom from any accountability whatsoever? Yesterday, we told this President ``no more blank checks for Iraq.'' And today we say no more unauthorized blanket surveillance of American citizens. Those of us who love liberty must stand up to this Administration's fear-mongering, to its continued leveraging of fear for its own political purposes. As Mr. Cheney's current chief of staff once said and what many Americans now recognize is an irresponsible and unconstitutional expansion of Presidential power: ``We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop.'' Well, today we must be that force. This Congress must stay ``stop.'' Liberty is our strength. Fear is our enemy. This legislation strikes an appropriate balance to keep our families safe and ensure they remain free.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, some refer to this as a bridge fund connecting monies from one year to the next to finance this Iraq war. A bridge is built to overcome an obstacle, and the obstacle here is George Bush. Granting this President 50 billion more dollars without reasonable restrictions to end this war is just building another bridge to nowhere. Today, instead, we use this funding to build a bridge that brings our troops home by beginning a safe, orderly, phased redeployment from Iraq. The President can no longer defy our Constitution as the sole ``decider.'' America has decided that he's wrong, dead wrong, too many deaths wrong, and it's elected representatives in this Congress are now declaring ``no more blank checks.'' Despite the sacrifices of our troops in this deadliest year of the war, this surge has failed completely to achieve its purpose of political progress. ``Retreat,'' you say; you've had a 5-year retreat from political reality. Progress, you say; not in Iraq, not in political reconciliation; progress, perhaps only in your self-defeating propaganda as you repeatedly waved your ``mission accomplished'' banner. The continued cost of this war in hemorrhaged blood and $3 billion of taxpayer money every week is not acceptable or sustainable. Mr. President, no more ``cut-and-run''. We will not cut these reasonable restrictions from this legislation, and we will not run from your veto threat. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. We are hearing the same old tired Republican borrow-and- spend rhetoric. They're all for our middle class tax relief and extension of important tax incentives; they just don't want to pay for it. They would rather borrow from our grandchildren. ``Borrow it, you'll like it.'' That's the misguided approach we've followed for 7 long years under this Bush administration. And look at the mess it has gotten us into: the dollar going down by the day, the specter of inflation and recession occurring at the same time. And now, because of our Democratic commitment to pay-as-you-go government, what we do in this bill is to reduce the revenues coming in by about $76 billion in mostly middle class tax relief over the next 5 years, and then replace those same revenues with another $76 billion. It's balance. No new debt. And that is the type of fiscal responsibility that is anathema to our Republican colleagues and this administration. The best that they have been able to do is offer us more empty demands to just cut spending to pay for this legislation. President Bush sent his representative from the Treasury Department to our committee on this very bill, and we said, ``well, what specific spending cuts do you have to pay for this bill if you think that's the way to do it?'' And he scratched his head, and he couldn't think of a single spending cut, nor have our Republican colleagues sought any. Their approach is just more borrow and spend. Let's be clear about it. Over the last 7 years, no one in this country has spoken louder about fiscal responsibility and cutting spending than President Bush, and no one in this country has done less about it. Ole Rip Van Bush, he snoozed while the spending soared, and he just borrowed more and more with a happy face toward our children. Today, we Democrats fulfill our pledge to stop making things worse so we eventually can be able to turn them around. A vote for this bill today is a vote for middle-class tax relief, and it is also a long overdue vote to repudiate this Republican fantasy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today we take an important step forward in developing a comprehensive 21st century trade policy, recognizing that the benefits of trade cannot be measured solely in the volume of commerce that crosses international borders. A modern trade policy considers the impact of trade on workers and the environment, and this pact does that. Yet we have not fully achieved the goal of effective safeguards, and I believe that we are taking a step in the right direction; we're just not quite to the final destination. I believe it is better to approve this agreement as a step of genuine progress than to reject it. This agreement includes unprecedented action to prevent illegal logging that is decimating rainforests in South America. For the first time in this agreement, environmental infractions can be enforced with something that is more than a mere parking ticket. That's what was done in prior agreements where governments wrote fines to themselves no matter how great the environmental degradation. And today, finally, we have recognition in this trade agreement of the importance of multilateral environmental agreements that have been totally disregarded in previous trade pacts. So this is real progress. But I am pleased that our chairman and the Trade Subcommittee chairman have recognized that there is more work that we can do and there are plans to conduct hearings, the first ever hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, on the environmental effects of trade as well as on the investor-state provisions. While our legislative intent is unequivocal regarding the agreement's preamble that ``no foreign investors have greater rights than do American citizens,'' the potential harm to our health, our worker safety, and our environmental laws from abuse of investor-state provisions demand the removal of outmoded and flawed language that keeps cropping up in these agreements and should not appear in future agreements. Acknowledging that we are making real progress with this agreement is really a recognition of just how far behind we have been. After years of total indifference to the concerns of workers and the environment, this agreement addresses those concerns, and almost any change represents progress. Today we move forward, and eventually together I believe that our ultimate goals will be fulfilled.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, support for our troops does not begin on the battlefield and it must not end there. With approval of this legislation, Texas veterans will be eligible for below-market home loans of up to $325,000. Under the previous law, this benefit was restricted to veterans who had served prior to 1977. Today, we close the gap for the many who have been our heroes in the last 30 years who are not currently eligible. Those who have served to keep us safe in our homes deserve a chance of a home of their own. That is what this bill does. We know that Veterans Day is approaching, but every day that we enjoy freedom bestowed by the sacrifices of those in uniform is a day that we should honor them. It is often said that we should honor our vets not only with our words but also with our deeds. Well, today we expand the opportunity for each vet to obtain a deed for their home. As veterans paid the price to build our great democracy, we can afford the price of building a foundation for their home ownership.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, on this unfortunate day 5 years ago, a majority of this House enabled President Bush to proceed with his tragic ``go it alone'' war. He was dead certain then, and he was dead wrong then. He is dead certain today, and once again dead wrong. As a result of his choices, we approach now some 4,000 Americans whose lives have been lost, perhaps as many as another 30,000 who have been disabled. Our Treasury, of course, has been disabled of what is scheduled to be probably a trillion or more dollars out of our Treasury that could have been spent right here at home on more causes that would have touched and protected the American people, their health care and economic security. After this 5 years, I think it is important to look back and realize that despite the position of the Republican leadership, the Republican administration, and most of the Democratic administration, that in this House that day 5 years ago, a substantial majority of House Democrats voted against this war that should never have been launched. We say today that the best course for this country to pursue is a new course, a change of course, not just more of the same old thing as the President proposed in his escalation, as he has implemented in his escalation, but a genuine change in course. We need to end this endless war in Iraq. We really already have a blueprint of how to do it, how to implement a safe and orderly redeployment. The United Kingdom, the only one of our allies to offer any substantial help in Iraq, is already redeploying and seems to be indicating that their troops will be out of Iraq next year. We need to join that coalition, the coalition of refocusing on priorities here at home, because what we have done in Iraq has not made our families safer. As one independent study after another has shown, what we have done there has made our families much less safe than had this adventure never been launched. For the last 5 years, this administration has repeatedly presented us with false choices. Remember, there would be a mushroom cloud, perhaps, if we waited to find the smoking gun to justify the invasion of Iraq to find all these weapons of mass destruction that never existed. Now we hear the same old deadly course is the only alternative to a ``precipitous withdrawal.'' Well, I don't know of anyone who is proposing a precipitous withdrawal. There are other reasonable alternatives. We believe that the better course, a new course, is a safe, orderly, fully funded, phased redeployment. The British already have this underway. The British already have this underway. We can follow their example, and we can follow the leadership of the American people reflected in one study after another, that they want that kind of change in course. The choice to redeploy or not is a decision about priorities. While it is true that the big cost of what we are doing there is measured in the blood of the brave, we are also hemorrhaging some $3 billion in Iraq expenditures right out of our Treasury, week after week, month after month. The President vetoed the Children's Health Insurance bill, because even too little for our children seems to be too much for him. Half a trillion dollars for a war already that he chose in Iraq, but for the children of America's working poor, he brusquely tells us, they can just go to the emergency room. With millions of children uninsured, it is too soon to declare ``mission accomplished'' there, just as it was too soon for him to make that declaration years back and many deaths back in Iraq. In Iraq and with the Children's Health Insurance Program, we believe that the President is on the wrong course and that we cannot afford to wait until he departs office to end this war and to end the indifference that he has shown toward our children. This fifth anniversary then should be commemorated with thoughtful consideration of alternatives for new courses and new avenues to address the tremendous damage that has been done by this faulty policy of preemptive war. I believe that we need in these next few months to continue to focus on the wrongs that have been committed, the damage that has been done, and bring people together behind a genuinely new course that we have not tried before, and that is a complete but phased, safe and orderly, fully-funded redeployment of our troops that will protect our families, that will assure our Nation's security, and will not continue with the hemorrhaging that we have suffered these last many years.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. The Republicans charge that we want to help so many children with no insurance and that we want to allow them so much time to reconsider their indifference. We plead guilty as charged. This President? It's like the book title, Dead Certain but also Dead Wrong. The only question is how many children will be dead or will suffer with disease and disability until enough Members of this Congress are willing to stand up to the President and stand up for children. President Bush has ideological blinders. He is never around the children of the working poor, the child who sobs with an earache, the child who moans as a result of an abscessed tooth, who has no antibiotics for a strep throat, and the poor parent who lacks the ability to do something about it. The President's veto today is neither sound fiscal policy nor good medicine, and his solution that these Republicans embrace of ``just go to the emergency room'' is neither compassionate nor conservative.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has rightly earned a place on this uncontested Suspension Calendar. So long as it is not misinterpreted as suggesting that Congress supports a long-term troop presence in Iraq, it merely generates another report that does no harm and not any significant good. We know that, in addition to the blood of the brave, President Bush is hemorrhaging money as fast as he can get it, $3 billion every single month, building toward a price tag of $1 to $2 trillion on this tragedy. The Senate version of Senators Kerry and Clinton has a better approach in demanding cost estimates on each alternative redeployment and in asking that one of these redeployments occur by the end of next year. Our problem in Iraq is not a lack of reports, but a lack of the collective will in this Congress to initiate the change in course that President Bush will never undertake on his own. And I hope we have the courage of our troops, the courage to take that action as soon as possible.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today's bill certainly does not do enough for America's children; but even too little is too much for President Bush, who seems intent on doing for America's children what he did as Governor for the children of Texas, condemning more and more of them to suffer without health insurance. As Governor, Mr. Bush refused to lead for Texas children. Our children's health insurance was late, very late. And once we got it, he did all he could to see that as few children as possible were covered, even though the Federal Government was picking up almost 75 cents of every dollar of the bill. Texas has actually refused about $1 billion of Federal money to help our children. And by insisting on such neglect from the start, Mr. Bush has ensured that Texas has the proud record of being number one of all the 50 States in having the highest percentage of children with no health insurance. Now in alliance with the nicotine peddlers opposing this bill, once again President Bush's greatest concern is that too many children will get insurance coverage. He actually demands that some children must wait an entire year with no insurance at all before they are eligible for CHIP coverage. Why doesn't the child of a waitress, the child of a construction worker, the child of one of the many workers at a small business that can't afford to provide health insurance to their employees, why doesn't that child deserve a healthy start in life? Painful earaches, a strep throat, a cavity, they deserve swift treatment, not waiting. As President Bush so disdainfully said last month, just take them to the emergency room. It's that kind of indifference, combined with his record in Texas, that demonstrates indifference to the needs of our children and their health insurance as nothing new for our President. But if he prevails today, the number of children who will suffer without adequate health insurance will be even bigger than Texas. He calls this approach compassionate conservatism. I think most Americans would just call it ``cheatin' children.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, the troop surge in Iraq has clearly failed. It has failed to achieve its purpose. The troop surge has failed not because of our troops, but because of the failures of politicians here in Washington and in Iraq. This President's surge has been as successful as the President's boast to catch Osama bin Laden ``dead or alive.'' We now have three reports from entities at least somewhat independent from the Bush propaganda machine that confirm the obvious. The National Intelligence Estimate providing the thinking of the intelligence community that, instead of getting better, the situation in Iraq will get worse: ``The Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next 6 to 12 months.'' The Independent Commission on Security Forces concluded that the Iraqi Interior Ministry is ``dysfunctional.'' It is so bad that it cannot be fixed; they recommend that it be disbanded. The Government Accountability Office evaluated the surge, and it judged President Bush's policy using his own criteria with a clear ``F,'' a clear failure, a fiasco, a fatal flop, with only 3 of 18 benchmarks having been met. Today, General Petraeus can cite whatever selective statistics that his political bosses may permit him to disclose, but the facts are that each and every month this year has involved more deaths of American troops than each month, including August last year. And despite the ethnic cleansing that has already displaced 3.5 million Iraqis, the increasing violence continues to inflict an increasingly deadly toll on Iraqi families. What is life like for those Iraqis who survive? Almost half earn less than $1 a day; 70 percent lack access to adequate water; and 1/3 remain in dire need of emergency food aid. When the surge was announced, the White House said ``wait until the summer.'' And as summer approached, the White House said ``wait until September.'' Well, now that this much overrated September is here, they cry ``wait until next year.'' The only real mystery about President Bush's September decision has been what new excuse he would offer to justify staying the same old deadly course. And as the American people have seen through the duplicity of each and every other excuse, the President has returned to his original ploy: 9/11, coincidentally, just as we receive this report on the anniversary of 9/11. He claims that ``the same folks that are bombing . . . in Iraq are the ones who attacked us in America on September 11.'' That is false and he knows it is false. But fear with deception is all he has left to rationalize the pain of the many, the sacrifice of the brave, and the loss of $3 billion every single week. As usual, this President is dead certain and dead wrong. What he seeks is war without limits, war without end. Under his direction, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker propose a war that continues for probably another decade, the ``George Bush Trillion dollar, 15-Year War.'' Now Congress must respond to the President's propaganda surge with a truth surge, with a memory surge, reminding America of the repeated false cries of ``progress'' and phony excuses that have only brought our families more insecurity. Congress must learn from the courage continually displayed by our troops. Appeasement will not stop these wrong-headed Administration policies. More blank checks will only drain our national treasury while fueling more death and destruction that only endangers American families. And so today we note the surge has failed, but we respectfully and sincerely thank General Petraeus and all of our troops who serve America and are doing their jobs. But we know we must do our job. It is long past time for Congress to act. Our best hope remains a safe and orderly, fully-funded, phased redeployment that begins immediately.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with the passage of the energy bill just approved and the passage of this energy bill today, we move America in a historic direction, a new direction on energy, not just away from our overdependence on fossil fuels, but away from our overdependence on fossilized ideas like those that have dominated this House for the last 12 years. One of those fossilized ideas is that it is okay to keep borrowing from our grandchildren. So today the reason that we hear talk about higher taxes on a bill that is basically revenue neutral, that doesn't borrow from our grandchildren and doesn't raise significant new revenues, but rather restricts and evaluates our tax credits to determine how they can be most effective, is that they don't understand this new kind of thinking. Just as they favored foreign corporations over farmers last week, today they favor fossilized energy over new energy and energy independence. You know, going green is not just about securing a healthy planet to raise our children. It is creating opportunities for jobs and economic development in biodiesel and in renewable energy like solar and geothermal power. New technologies bring new opportunities. A new class of jobs are being created, neither blue collar nor white collar but green collar jobs of many types from green energy. It is a matter of recognizing that some boondoggles come along, like where a oil company decides it will drop a little dab of grease in its petroleum byproducts in order to claim a renewable biodiesel tax credit and destroy a new emerging industry like our biodiesel companies and our biofuels companies that are helping us become energy independent. So this is a bill about jobs and about evaluating the oversubsidization of a fossil fuel industry and moving to new energies, biodiesel, recognizing the power of solar power, plug-in hybrids, recognizing that we can become the leaders in the world in green jobs, green collar jobs. This bill offers us a chance to lead on green energy, not become green with envy as other countries leap over us.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we know, first of all, what is not in this motion to recommit. What is not in this motion to recommit is anything about the exciting new opportunity with plug-in hybrids. This has been deleted from the bill with this motion to recommit. We know, as the gentleman from Washington is just saying, that what those who have worked so hard in solar power have requested, an 8-year extension so we can get the investment. We heard from investment bankers saying you need that kind of dependability in order to get the money that solar power needs to expand particularly throughout the South and Southwest. That will not be available under this Republican proposal. But what is in this proposal? Well, after all of the very strange comments that have been made about denying mom an opportunity to drive an SUV, the same tax on Hummers that is in our proposal is in their motion to recommit. Look at the bill. Look at the scoring from the Joint Committee on Taxation for the motion to recommit at page 2, line 7, and you will see exactly that same matter. In fact, after all the talk about how we don't want taxes on the petroleum industry, when I look at their proposal, I find almost $1 billion in taxes on gasoline that they are proposing in their motion to recommit. When I look at the line just above that in the same scoring document, I find almost $1 billion that is proposed by them in a tax on coal. Now, there may be a need to do that at some point as we build our energy future here. But everyone who votes for their motion to recommit, they need to understand today that they are voting for about $1 billion in gasoline taxes and almost $1 billion in taxes on coal, all at the same time they are denying our renewable industries what they need in wind and solar. They are denying them the dependability necessary to attract private investment to let those industries grow. You know, we have so much fossilized thinking that we must overcome if we are to combat the real threat of climate change that endangers our country, that is perhaps our greatest long-term national security challenge. It's certainly a challenge to our health and our future. And we also have to address the need for a new energy future that does not leave us dependent on foreign sources of energy. We have ample solar power here, we have great potential in this country, if we are willing to make the hard decisions to not be bound by the ideas of the past and move to the future. You can do that today by rejecting this motion to recommit. When you reject the motion to recommit, you will also be rejecting about $1 billion in taxes on gasoline, about $1 billion in taxes on coal.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, of course, that letter is one of many endorsements of groups coming together because they know that today they are improving health care for our oldest Americans and our youngest Americans. Unfortunately, my home State of Texas has the distinction of being number one in children with no health insurance, largely due to the indifference of then Governor George Bush who responded too late and too little. His indifference to the health crisis now is hardly surprising given his indifference then. The Republican prescription drug plan, the largest entitlement increase in recent history, is a study in how to let Medicare ``wither on the vine'' at the time they inject waste, fraud and abuse into the system. Now Republicans are using every available obstructionist tactic to block our reforms, to curb their own excesses, such as their lavishing billions on big insurance companies. Despite their professed interest in controlling entitlement spending, only two of their 21 committee amendments would have reduced spending and the vast majority would have increased spending on borrowed money. Their sermons about Medicare insolvency are betrayed by their insistence on undermining it, and their silly claims of ``socialized medicine'' are belied by the bill's endorsement by the American Medical Association and the AARP. Approve this rule and afford seniors and children the health care that Republican obstructionism would deny them.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. None of it has been used. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DOGGETT. How much does the gentleman from Louisiana have?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, could you give us a time report? How much time remains for each?

Mr. DOGGETT. Surely if Lance Armstrong can overcome mountains in France, we can overcome the mountains of obstructionism and of excuses to provide our children and our seniors the health coverage that they need. By including significant portions of two Medicare bills that I filed, today's legislation supports grandparents as well as grandchildren. All seniors would get preventive care, and many of the 3.3 million poor seniors not receiving any help today would get the extra help for which they qualify. Today, those seniors most in need are often least aware that help exists. We must identify and notify those entitled to extra help with prescription drugs and simplify the application process. We also ensure that drug coverage is not lost by our seniors who saved a small nest egg or receive help and groceries from their children--behavior that we ought to encourage, not punish. Importantly, we mandate that patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, and mental illness receive access to life-saving medications. Without this protection, vulnerable patients are held hostage by ``cost cutting decisions'' by private insurance companies. While Lance inspires us to live strong, we can ``vote strong'' and improve the lives of children, seniors, and Americans fighting to get well again. Approve this important legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy that throughout this debate not one company anywhere in America has come forward and said ``if you pass this bill, you raise my taxes,'' because the vast majority of foreign companies and no American companies are impacted whatsoever. Today, we must choose who to stand with. We choose to stand with the farm and ranch families that need this assistance and the small American businesses that are paying their fair share of taxes. We reject the notion that the only way you can lure a foreign company to come to America is to tell the foreign company that they should pay less taxes than Americans. It is a clear choice. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. New York Times, June 18, 2002. ``There would be no effect on legitimate multinational corporations like DaimlerChrysler that have not used a haven to avoid American taxes.'' Yesterday, 2:41 p.m., letter from Unilever Global Affairs vice president. He says that his company, which owns Ben and Jerry's, would not be affected by this bill. What we've heard is nonsense. It's not evidence. Claims, not evidence.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, farm and ranch families deserve a safety net, and fiscal responsibility demands that we pay for it. We pay for this farm bill, every penny of it, and some of it is done by stopping one group of multinational corporations from dodging their United States tax liability. For too long they have enjoyed a free ride from these Republicans, at the expense of other American taxpayers. It is wrong, and we are putting a stop to it. Our target is very narrow: No company headquartered in the United States of America will have its taxes go up one penny, nor will it have any significant impact on any foreign corporation with whom we have a tax treaty, as we do with most developed countries. Indeed, 90 percent of the revenue, according to the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Tax Committee, comes from companies that have tax hideaways with these countries down in the Caribbean that have no tax treaty and no corporate taxes or little taxes. And the remaining 10 percent of revenue from their proposal, most of it is going to be simply a matter of shifting taxes between countries in tax credits. I have listened to these Republicans identify one company after another that they cried big crocodile tears about, and I haven't heard them identify a single company that is likely to have an increase in its taxes as a result of this proposal. There are others hiding in the shadows that know they have no justified case. And they have some of their friends out front, including one company that I read an e-mail from yesterday saying they don't like my bill, but it doesn't affect them a penny. That is the people that own Ben and Jerry's. Well, today the Administration may be teaming up with those willing to kill this farm bill by defending these foreign tax evaders, but that is not the tune they were singing 5 years ago when in this Treasury report they said ``an appropriate, immediate response, an immediate response, should address the U.S. tax advantages that are available to foreign-based companies because of their ability to reduce the U.S. corporate tax on income from their American operations.'' Mr. Brady says Treasury did something about it? They sat on their rear and didn't do anything about it. And if you need any proof of that, gentleman, turn to the President's budget 5 months ago. He turned to this same source of revenue and all this job-killing tax proposal you are talking about. How many jobs did his $2 billion proposal that he put out here 5 months ago in February kill? Well, you haven't suggested there are any, because even this President, President Bush, admits there is a problem here that needs to be fixed, and this committee gets about fixing it. You talk about jeopardizing 5 million jobs. What a lot of nonsense. That is all the jobs of all the foreign subsidiaries in the United States, the vast majority of which are corporations that are not touched by this proposal. Your problem isn't jobs. Your problem is you never met a tax loophole you didn't like. You never met a tax dodger you didn't want to help. You have done a good job of doing it, and it is time we fix that. I don't know why it is that a farm and ranch family in High Hill, Texas, or a drugstore on the main street of Bastrop, Texas, ought to have to pay higher relative taxes on their earnings than some multinational with a fancy CPA and a law firm and a hideaway in Bermuda. It is wrong, and each of us must stand to choose between the two. Point of Order

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. With heavy hearts, the thousands of Texans who participated in memorials to Lady Bird Johnson, especially those who filled the streets of Austin, Dripping Springs and Johnson City, attest to our affection and respect for her compassion, warmth and leadership. And with unusually heavy rainfall this year, Texas is literally alive with her legacy, the beautiful wildflowers along our roadways, and filling the photo albums and scrapbooks with children smiling in a bed of bluebonnets or Indian paintbrush for one family after another. She knew a better America was one that gives all of its citizens an opportunity to succeed. And with the reauthorization this year of Head Start, more young Americans can access quality early education, ensuring that no child starts behind. When my predecessor, Representative Jake Pickle, spoke on this floor after the death of President Johnson, he said that Mrs. Johnson was her husband's ``wisest adviser'', and that her daughters, Lynda Bird and Luci, had brought ``so much credit to their family and to our country.'' Of her many gifts, perhaps her most meaningful legacy is her spirit of giving that lives on in her children and grandchildren. In Austin, her daughter Lucy and her grandchildren, Catherine Robb and Nicole Covert, among others, give their time, support and leadership to causes such as SafePlace, Seton, the University of Texas, and the Children's Medical Center Foundation. Mrs. Johnson promoted native species. They have strong roots and improve and beautify our land. The same, and more, can be said of the human legacy that she leaves.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we were reassured that ``progress'' was being made in Iraq 500 deaths ago, 1,000 deaths ago, 2,000 deaths ago, and 3,000 deaths ago. Like the boy who cried wolf, this President cries ``progress.'' What progress? With all this talk about benchmarks, I think it's time to get off the bench and bring our troops home now, with an immediate, responsible, and safe redeployment. President Bush says as we approach five years of being in Iraq, he says ``listen to the generals.'' Well, we've listened to them, and his top general says if we followed his course, if we stay his course, we'll be in Iraq fighting for another five to ten years. Real progress would begin by adopting today's very modest proposal and moving forward united so that our troops are not caught up in a final disastrous position in Iraq, and that we responsibly redeploy to protect our families, rather than generating one generation after another of jihadists.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, Lady Bird Johnson cared for all that is beautiful and vulnerable in the world. I think every child in a Head Start program, every wild flower gracing our highways is testament to her service. In Austin we think of her years as well as after the White House, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, our Town Lake Trail, which families enjoy as a result of her concern. Our thoughts and prayers are particularly with her daughters, Lucy Baines Johnson and Lynda Bird Robb, their children, who are themselves a testament to her tradition and public service. And at an appropriate time we would like to ask that the House observe a moment of silence.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, for over five years I have attempted to close a gaping loophole in the Lobby Disclosure Act that has permitted various lobbyists to form over 800 stealth or hidden coalitions to avoid the requirements of the act. That effort had been met with nothing but indifference. Finally we now have a new Congress and a new direction. Under the legislation Mr. Conyers offers today, we incorporate the provisions of that Stealth Lobbyist Disclosure Act. Here is how it works: A lobbyist for an unpopular cause, like those who would avoid their taxes by renouncing their American citizenship and moving abroad, or by those who would deny climate change, instead of indicating who they actually represent, those lobbyists claim they represent a ``coalition'' of two or more individuals and avoid any indication of the true parties in interest. When deep-pocketed interests spend big money to influence public policy, the public has a right to know. Even a little light can do a lot of good. If wealthy interests want legislators to sing their tune, the public has a right to know who is paying the piper. Of course, President Harry Truman said, ``The buck stops here.'' But with stealth lobbying we don't know where ``here'' is or whose buck it is. This stealth lobbyist disclosure provision helps close this loophole. The bill amends the definition of ``client'' to require the disclosure of the members of a coalition or association so that a small number of people or corporations can no longer operate under a shell group and destroy the intent of our lobby disclosure laws. Combining ``wealth'' with ``stealth'' is a recipe for unaccountable government. After years of indifference, we have a new Congress dedicated to open government and the pursuit of the public interest. This rule and this legislation should be approved.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, year five of blunders, that is a true slow- bleed policy in Iraq. Defeatism? Well, that is an Administration that lacks the courage to admit its failures and which pays for those failures with the blood of the brave, the blood of someone else, and with $10 billion of your tax money every single month. Gimmicks? Gimmicks are what got us into Iraq in the first place. It certainly wasn't the ``war on terrorism.'' You can make all of the excuses that you want for continuing to embed our troops in a civil war, but a vote today for the Iraq Redeployment Act is a vote to end endless war. It is a vote for a fully funded, safe, and orderly redeployment that allows us to refocus on the war on terrorism, which is a threat to our families, rather than the civil war in Iraq, which is not. It is not the enemy that has us pinned down in Iraq today; it is this Administration's unwillingness to admit its mistakes and its lies. The intervention in Iraq was this country's largest foreign policy blunder. Now it is time for Congress to intervene. With this war in its fifth year, for Congress not to act now is for Congress to become an enabler and an accomplice to the Administration's errors. Vice President Cheney rightly complains about the Iraqis proposing to take a two-month vacation. But what is really at fault here is Mr. Cheney and this Administration's four-year vacation from reality. ``Victory'' is improving our families' security. Pursuing policies contrary to that objective, committing the same error over and over again, that is defeatist.