Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, what happened in Tulia was a true disgrace. It is not an isolated example. While most of our law enforcement officers and prosecutors do a fine job and we support them, the type of information that this amendment would gather can only be helpful to them and effective law enforcement, and will do more to protect innocent victims like those in Tulia. A gubernatorial pardon or a damage award, do not satisfy the full concerns of those who were injured in Tulia.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentlewoman from Texas for her leadership on this issue. I believe that getting additional information can only be helpful to the many law enforcement and prosecuting agencies that are trying to do an effective job of protecting our families. We have had now two instances that are publicly known in Texas of prosecutorial abuse concerning the investigation and enforcement of our drug laws, and they were really outrageous examples--so outrageous that a Republican Governor pardoned all the people involved in the Tulia incident. There have also been civil damage awards. But the damage done to a family by what wrongdoing can occur is serious, and a pardon and a damage award is not enough to make up for the harm to that family. Getting the information will help prevent these incidences from happening, allow effective law enforcement, and appropriate protection for individual rights. We must not let racism contaminate our law enforcement.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chairman, some folks will get a lot of mileage out of this bill, but it will not be the hard-working Americans who have to pay more and more at the gas pump as a direct result of the policies of this Bush administration. When the same collection of fossil fuel dinosaurs and tax loophole lobbyists come here and order Congress to ``fill 'er up,'' with special favors, they seldom go away on ``empty.'' National security demands a balanced energy policy that encourages more new energy technology and renewable alternatives. But in this bill, security is sacrificed at the altar of whichever lobbyist had the biggest limousine. Our families' health depends on clean air and water, but this collection of tax breaks, loopholes, handouts and waivers ensures only continued healthy profits for some of the worst polluters in the world. And this bill is not just about more smoke in the air, it is about more smoke and mirrors. Take, for example, the synthetic fuel provision that I tried unsuccessfully to strike in the Committee on Ways and Means; it is really about tax dodging through synthetic accounting. Unscrupulous companies get what some estimate to be up to $4 billion a year by spraying starch on coal or pine tar on coal. This does not add to the energy capability of the coal. It does not cause the coal to burn in a less polluting manner. Its sole purpose is to generate significant tax dodging. That is why Enron was about to embark on this gimmick that so many companies have abused, and which this Committee on Ways and Means refuses to end. This energy bill is not just about over-reliance on fossil fuels. It is about fossilized ideals. It is about a lost opportunity for America to be the world's leader in energy technology. With our security at stake, when so much of the world's oil is located in areas as inflammable above ground as the fuel they hold underground, with our families' health dependent on not letting the quality of our air and our water deteriorate even further than it has under this Administration, this energy bill is the latest example of spending today, while the future will be billed in dollars, safety and health. That bill will be due and paid by our children and our grandchildren, like my new little Ella.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest Republican assault on Social Security and on fiscal sanity. At a time of apparently unending war and the largest budget deficits in American history, our Republican colleagues are intent on solving a crisis that does not exist. As the President wastes millions of our taxpayer dollars crisscrossing this country to declare that there is no Social Security trust fund and questioning the full faith and credit of the Federal Government, his Republican allies here seem intent on actually making his dire and inaccurate statements a self-fulfilling prophecy. Today, what they propose is to borrow from the Social Security trust fund and to borrow from the Medicare trust fund in order to give more tax breaks to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent of the people in this country. That is borrowing from Social Security for purposes that have nothing to do with the Social Security system because they think some rich folks in this country do not have wallets that are fat enough. It is taking from the hard-working employees and employers who are paying their Social Security money and transferring that wealth over to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. They call it the death tax? I think that is a good name. If they keep pursuing bills like this, it will be the death of Social Security and Medicare, as sure as I am standing here. Like most Democrats, I have voted not once but a number of times to repeal the estate tax for most Americans and to see that it is done right away, now, not postponing it for years as the Republicans propose to do. There is another Democratic substitute coming out today that is going to exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from this tax, and only cover the richest .3 percent of the wealthiest estates in this country. That means you are not going to have a small business in East Austin or West McAllen or a family farm in Karnes County that is covered if they are even covered now, which the vast majority of them are not. Why do they keep talking about family farms since it is irrelevant to this debate? They keep talking about the guy in the pickup who is working extra hours to try to make ends meet. They keep talking about the little family business that with good reason wants to be able to pass that enterprise on to the next generation of that hard-working family. The reason they talk about those folks is that Steve Forbes's family is not quite as sympathetic. The family of Enrons Ken Lay, not quite as sympathetic. They cannot defend transferring money from the Social Security and Medicare trust fund to Ken Lay's family, to Steve Forbes's family, to Ross Perot's family, because it is totally indefensible. Their goal is to ensure that the richest of the rich are rewarded, as if they have not rewarded them enough for the last few years that they have controlled this Congress. Social Security is not in crisis today, nor is Medicare, but if you keep passing bills that drain $750 billion from the Treasury at the very time more people are retiring, you will have a crisis. It was back almost a century ago when a Republican, a fellow named Teddy Roosevelt, said that ``inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government.'' It is still inconsistent. Would that we had even one Teddy Roosevelt Republican today to put a stop to this nonsense.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget that we are considering assumes funding for the Community Development Block Grant Programs that for this coming year is $1.5 billion below last year's level adjusted for inflation. And while it may be reassuring to some to hear the words of the chairman of the Committee on the Budget tell us that they like local control of Community Development Block Grants, they seem to like it $1.5 billion less than they did last year. And when they tell us that they like Community Development Block Grants so much that they are funding it more than President Bush proposes, that just means they are poking it with one fist instead of with two, because his is a really draconian cut, and they have made it just a little less painful than what he proposes to do. Community Development Block Grant is a mouthful, but in a little town like Freer, Texas, it is concerned with holes, the holes of abandoned septic systems where several children have drowned, and they do not have a reliable sewer system there, so they have used the Community Development Block Grant Program for the health and safety of that community. In McAllen, Texas, in Austin, Texas, it is the principal source of funding to help with affordable housing for seniors, for those with disabilities, for poor people, to have a chance to share in rehabilitated housing, some new housing. In many of these communities, the dollars are going to food banks, they are going to assist in a variety of social programs that are stretched and strained that municipalities could not do without Community Development Block Grant projects. The reason we are faced with this kind of challenge, as with the other challenges in this budget, it does not have anything to do with Osama bin Laden; it has to do with the decisions that were made down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue and that were implemented by this Republican Congress. Indeed, with the budget that we are considering tonight, this administration says to those who are poor, who are uninsured, essentially what Leona Helmsley said, that only the little people pay taxes. Well, this administration thinks that only the little people, like the folks in Freer, Texas, only the little people ought to bear the burden of its fiscal irresponsibility. We have never had a more fiscally irresponsible administration than the one we have in office today, that has driven the deficit to the highest level in American history and then turns to poor people in Freer, Texas, to kids that are trying to get a decent education, to our veterans, and says you bear the burden. You dig us out of this hole we dug into with your little shovels to make up for the big shovels where we shoveled out all the revenue to those at the top of the economic ladder. It is unfair, and that is why this budget ought to be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the REAL ID Act is a real travesty. It has little to do with homeland security, and it represents just the latest in a string of anti-immigrant proposals so unfortunately popular with certain of our Republican colleagues. Instead of putting the safety of our families first, these are the same folks that would have turned our emergency room doctors into border patrol agents; who would have cut the funding to cities that did not conduct immigration raids; and who would interfere with the people with whom our private banking institutions could serve and encourage instead an underground, black market financial system. This same anti-immigrant fervor continues to fuel this bad bill. The REAL ID Act is designed to make our roads real unsafe. Undocumented workers will be on our roads. That is why the Austin Police Department believes that Texans would be safer if the law allowed all drivers to obtain licenses. As Assistant Police Chief Rudy Landeros testified, ``In allowing the community the opportunity to obtain driver's licenses, they will have to pass a driver's test, and that will make them not only informed drivers, but safer drivers.'' The Texas legislature, in a bill by former Representative Miguel Wise, wisely recognized that requiring all drivers to obtain licenses would make Texas families safer. Had it not been for the veto by Texas's myopic governor, this common-sense call for public safety would be the law in the President's home state. Legal immigrants could also be denied a license. Paula Waddle, an immigration attorney in the Rio Grande Valley, explained that her clients are having delays of as much as 15 months in getting their legal permanent residency papers because of confusion at the Department of Homeland Security. If these legal immigrants do not have sufficient paperwork to prove their legal status, they will be caught up in this same web of anti-immigrant fervor and denied the opportunity to obtain insurance and drive. Ironically, consideration of this bill coincides with the release this week by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. This proposal would worsen the plight of those whose conditions were the subject of investigation by that commission: asylum-seekers who already face deplorable conditions, who are often treated like common criminals and thrown into jail with common criminals, and who are subject to strip searches as well as solitary confinement. But since current law already bars those who presnet a secruity risk from getting asylum, the additional restrictions in this bill would not make us safer. We must not sacrifice our democracy in a misguided attempt to save it. This bill strikes the wrong balance. Anti-immigrant hysteria cannot be permitted to drive an agenda that makes us less safe, less healthy, and erodes our civil liberties while failing to address real terrorist threats. The REAL ID bill ought to be really rejected fast by this Congress.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise to join my colleagues in paying tribute to an extraordinary human being, Bob Matsui. Like so many others across this country, the celebration of this new year was for me shaken by the incredibly sad news of Bob's demise. I awoke this Sunday expecting to be consumed with the challenges and work of the new year, only to be stunned to learn of the passing of an old friend. Libby and I had only a couple of days before shared the beauty of Bob's family that he and Doris send out each year at this time, reflecting on the last time we shared a meal with them, only a couple weeks before at a dinner table here in Washington, knowing of the pride that Bob felt in Doris' professional accomplishments and how often he mentioned Doris and Brian and his family in conversations on subjects here in Washington. There is a Greek proverb: ``The measure of man is what he does with power.'' By this measure, or really by any measure, Bob was indeed a great human being. Although he had significant power here in Washington as a senior Member of this House, he was viewed as a soft-spoken advocate for the things that he believed in and the people he represented. And yet on more than one occasion I have seen his temper flare at injustice. Bob was a great and principled policymaker. He gave a great deal of thought to the issues and the decisions before he spoke, and often took positions that were not popular but that represented his principles. He also was willing to grow and adjust those principles, certainly being committed to more trade, and yet over time he recognized that trade was more than just counting how many widgets crossed country lines, but how that trade affects people. He was committed to not only Social Security but to retirement security, and took a very forceful stance in this House about the concern that we do more to help those who have no retirement, not just to add to the retirement of those who already have much. It was my good fortune to serve with him on the Committee on Ways and Means, to come on that committee as a new member and find Bob as someone that I could turn to when I had a problem for personal advice and always get a thoughtful hearing and sound advice. While his passing is most premature, we can only seek to renew our strength inspired by his very strong example, to remember the causes that he championed and how he championed them, and to be strengthened in our efforts by his spirit and his fight for fairness, to stand up for what is right for the American people. It is fitting for us to honor Bob with our words, but certainly we must honor him in this Congress with our actions, to continue to champion the causes that he would champion and had so often, from this very microphone. Certainly that is true with regard to Social Security, as he stood up to those who would destabilize, privatize and piratize it. Without our ally, our work will be harder, our burden will be greater, and our responsibility will also be greater. As the Los Angeles Times editorialized about Bob recently, ``He epitomized an ideal of public service that has largely vanished in a partisan Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, we salute Bob by our deeds as well as our words tonight.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a new report indicates that 275 giant, multinational corporations have been paying taxes over the last 3 years at an effective rate which is actually less than the marginal rate, for a family making $35,000 a year. Over this same period, eighty-two companies paid zero or they got a refund in federal income taxes in at least 1 of these 3 years. These giant, multinational corporations are paying less than an insurance agency on East 7th in Austin, Texas; they are paying less than a used car dealer on South 23rd Street in McAllen, Texas or a cafe on Cage in Pham, Texas. They are paying less than hardworking families across this country trying to make a go of it, but having to bear much more than their fair share of the Federal tax load. But as if that were not outrageous enough, tonight, this Congress is about to pour more largess on those same multinationals that are not paying their fair share. Let me give some specific examples. Exxon Mobil down in Texas: Exxon Mobil received $4.3 billion in corporate tax subsidies over the last 3 years, yet they stand to share in something like ten times that much in this bill. About a third of the cost of this $140 billion corporate tax bonanza will reward companies like Exxon Mobil for moving more jobs overseas. Of course, they are a key part of the lobbying coalition that produced this bill. And at the top of the list of that lobbying coalition is General Electric. General Electric has done pretty well under the federal tax system. They have had profits of nearly $12 billion over a 3-year period. In 2002, it paid zero federal income taxes. Instead, it got $33 million back in a refund check, a little bigger than that small business or that family with $35,000 a year is likely to get when their refund comes, if it does. But General Electric has added new meaning to their motto ``We bring good things to life.'' In this bill those ``good things'' are billions in tax breaks for GE-- the top recipient of tax benefits from this bill. One after another these multinationals are being rewarded in a bad corporate grab bag bill that is being pushed through here at the last minute. What is happening here gives new meaning to Leona Helmsley's infamous comment that ``only little people pay taxes.'' The ``little people'' of America are the ones being left to pay the taxes when bills like this are passed that allow those at the top to dodge their fair share of taxes. In addition, these same corporations will use the benefits that they get out of this bill to just export more jobs overseas. There are 24 separate provisions in this bill that deal with offshore operations by multinationals. We have, therefore, a bill that is tragic in both its gross size and in its encouraging even more jobs to be shipped abroad. It outrageously shifts yet more of the tax burden for our national security and our homeland security to the small businesses across America that are the focus for growth in our economy and to the working families of America that cannot hire a bevy of lobbyists and a fleet of limousines to come to Washington and do the things that are necessary to get the kind of special treatment that is being rewarded here tonight. And there is another great example. The $10 billion ``buyout'', as they call it, of tobacco farmers. Yes, it is a buyout that does not buy them out of anything, since they can keep producing just as much poison as they were before they were bailed out, which is what this bill really represents. The true effect of the bill is to reward big tobacco with cheaper tobacco with which to entice and addict even more of our children. With one horrible giveaway provision after another, this bill must be flavored before it can be swallowed. For the folks in Texas and several other States that flavoring is a short 2 years in which they can deduct their sales taxes. I am all for that; I have voted to make such deductibility permanent. But when somebody is putting a dollar in one's hand, you need to consider whether they are swiping the wallet out of your back pocket. And that is exactly what this bill does. It is a very very high price we are asked to pay for too modest of a benefit. Indeed, this is the very kind of bill that causes Americans to become cynical about the legislative process and to feel their government is failing them because tonight it certainly is.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I am pleased to join in support of this resolution. The All-America City Award is the oldest and most prestigious community recognition program in this Nation, and I am particularly pleased that this year one of the cities chosen, the only city chosen from the State of Texas, is right on our U.S.-Mexican border, and that is the city of Hidalgo. Hidalgo is quite literally a representation of America's future. With a population that is nearly 98 percent Hispanic, Hidalgo is at the forefront of a demographic that is occurring rapidly in many of our Nation's cities. Also, with nearly half of its residents in elementary, middle or high school, Hidalgo is today comprised of the youth that will be the leaders of America tomorrow. Hidalgo is one of the oldest cities in the State of Texas, and it started as a small trading post and ferry landing opposite Reynosa, Mexico, many years ago. Over the years, it has grown to the fourth largest U.S. port of entry, a major entry point for trade and commerce from throughout two continents and a city that is intimately involved with our country's relationship with Mexico. Hidalgo is often the first taste of America for many visitors to this country. This, combined with the fact that it is one of the country's southernmost cities, makes it not surprising that Hidalgo is sometimes referred to as being ``where the U.S. begins.'' The city has flourished under the leadership of very committed city council members Alvin Samano, Dan Dillard, Pedro Fonseca, and Siglinde Franz. Their hard work and dedication to serving the people of Hidalgo has contributed much to the community's success. Hidalgo works because Hidalgo works together. Unfortunately, as a gateway to the United States, many people have seen Hidalgo only in traveling through it. Now, the people of this fine city have done much, through innovation and hospitality, to make Hidalgo a destination. Project: Tour Hidalgo, a comprehensive and collaborative initiative that focuses resources, ideas, the spirit of volunteerism and community outreach, has increased tourism, tourism that focuses on the culture of Mexico and the United States, on ecotourism, a number of hike-and-bike trails to be built along the border and, of course, the many other aspects of the city that come alive during the holiday season. I remember last year at the great Posada, with the Grammy-award- winning Hidalgo resident, Ramon Ayala, that we had around 7- or 8,000 spectators. It was quite a happening, and it drew people throughout Texas to share in the joy of the holiday season. Borderfest also pulls in not only Texans but winter Texans from all over the country for a 4-day festival in March. Last year, about 50,000 people participated, five times the population of the city. It begins appropriately with an abrazo at the international bridge between the mayor of Hidalgo and the mayor of Reynosa, indicating the close relationship between the two countries. In the 1980s, when advancements in technology made the city's old irrigation pumphouses obsolete, it was preserved as a museum that is now recognized by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. With a sense of humor to accompany the other pleasant qualities of this community, when a few years ago it was noted that Hidalgo was the first place that the Africanized honey bee came, instead of avoiding this apparent bit of trouble, the city created a 10-foot-tall, 2,000- pound, full-color statue of the feared killer bee, and since that time the killer bee statue has become a tourist attraction. The Killer Bees became the name of the professional hockey team at the far southern edge of the United States. That is one winning team. At the same time, Hidalgo has made substantial and impressive efforts to improve the standard of living for its residents. Almost half of all the families in Hidalgo are sustained on incomes below the poverty level. It has been a long-time goal of the city to attract industries that will provide its citizens with a living wage. That is why the city created Team Hidalgo, a program through which the city and private businessmen and -women work with economic development experts and nonprofit groups to improve the economy of the area. To date, Team Hidalgo's greatest achievement has been the development of Dodge Arena, the spectacular 7,000 seat facility that is now drawing people throughout south Texas not only to the winning Killer Bees hockey team and an arena football team, but to a number of high-profile entertainment activities. The students of Hidalgo spend their days in schools run by two separate and quality school districts, the Valley View Independent School District led by Superintendent Leonel Galaviz and School Board President and the Hidalgo Independent School District, led by Superintendent Daniel King and School Board President Noe Reyes. These are school districts with leadership on their boards and in the administration that devote their efforts to educational excellence. The city is one that I hope to represent beginning in January. It is a place that I have visited a number of times and with whose leadership I have continued to work on a number of local projects. It is wonderful that the National Civic League has recognized these fine attributes of the community by naming it an All-America City. As the city said in its application, despite being closer to Mexico than it is to many other cities in the United States, Hidalgo is truly all-American.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) has been given. He has had a family emergency in connection with his father. I know our prayers will be with him.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to honor a survivor, a role model, a real-life American hero and, yes, a proud citizen of the capital city of the Lone Star State of Texas. The name Lance Armstrong simultaneously strikes fear in the hearts of competitors, hope in the hearts of cancer victims, inspiration for survivors around the world and pride in the hearts of Americans everywhere. After winning his sixth consecutive Tour de France, the most of any cyclist in the history of this event, we have special reason to celebrate today with this resolution. For the more than 10 million Americans living with cancer, as survivors, Lance Armstrong is a true champion in a very personal and particularly meaningful way. I believe that we are defined not by our setbacks but by our relentless determination to overcome them. Lance Armstrong offers particular evidence of the importance of that approach. I remember watching in awe as Lance crossed the finish line after winning the first Tour de France, overcoming a grueling battle with cancer and a grueling Tour de France. I was overcome with not just the importance of that moment but with the importance of everything that Lance had accomplished in getting to that point. While his accomplishments on his bike ensure him a place in history, his work as a public health champion right here in the United States Capital, in Austin and throughout the country have assured him a place in the hearts of many who battle cancer and the families and friends who love them. To meet the challenge, to strive to succeed whether in the Tour de France or the fight against cancer, Lance's work shows us the power of personal perseverance. After an early career, Lance was stricken with a carcinoma, a life- threatening advanced form of testicular cancer that spread to his lungs and brain. While his own recuperation was still not finished, he began to worry about the impact of the disease on others. The drive and determination that the world got to see on display during the Tour de France was evident to cancer patients and survivors before he wore the yellow jersey on the streets of Paris. That spirit led him to create the Lance Armstrong Foundation, an organization that has raised millions for cancer research, diagnosis, treatment and after-treatment services. Sales of the group's distinctive yellow wristbands, wristbands that I have seen around the country, with Lance's motto, ``Live Strong,'' can be seen as evidence of the support not only for Lance but for all of those who battle cancer. Not satisfied with being the best cyclist to beat cancer, Lance set out with the goal of being the best cyclist, period. Five years later, he has shown the world again and again, again and again, that determination, character and perseverance accomplish just that. His accomplishments remind us that for more people there should be life after cancer, and it should be meaningful. This proud Texan and cancer survivor, public health advocate, Olympian and, now, six time Tour de France champion has captivated the imagination and won the hearts of my homestate of Texas, our Nation and the world. I believe it is fair to say that nowhere is the enthusiasm greater than in Austin, where you see yellow bikes everywhere. You see yellow jerseys. You see yellow signs, and that yellow, when it comes to the Tour de France, is a sign of the courage of Lance Armstrong with this historic victory. Nothing has been more fun for me, Mr. Speaker, in the last few months, than riding down Congress Avenue toward the Texas state capitol with Lance Armstrong, Mayor Will Wynn and a group of Austin police officers as some 70,000 of Lance's fans gathered to cheer and share in this victory for our community. We can honor Lance's victory by not only this resolution but by supporting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Comprehensive Cancer Control system, which is supported by the Lance Armstrong Foundation. This CCC system is a coordinated approach to reducing cancer incidents, morbidity and mortality through prevention, early detection, treatment and rehabilitation. According to the Centers for Disease Control, implementation of this approach would help to prevent new cases of cancer, detect cancer early, increase public education and awareness about cancer control, utilize state-of-the-art cancer treatments, provide appropriate rehabilitation and support in cancer care and use limited resources for cancer control more efficiently, eliminating duplication of efforts. There is little doubt why the Lance Armstrong Foundation supports this approach, and I hope Congress can do as well. We can also honor Lance's victory by recommitting ourselves and increasing funding for transportation enhancements. As a member of the Congressional Bike Caucus, a bipartisan effort aimed at encouraging cycling, I believe that we have an excellent opportunity through the transportation legislation that is pending to honor Lance once again. We have a great Lance Armstrong cross-town bikeway underway in Austin, but it needs to be connected to trails throughout the community. I am pleased the House has recently approved $9 million to do that in east Austin in this transportation bill. One day we will have the ability for people in central Texas to commute by bike from downtown all the way to the Dell Diamond out in Round Rock and the many trails around the area, similar to ones we have here in the Washington, D.C., area, can be in the capital city of the State of Texas. Well, it is not just that Lance Armstrong has faced difficult circumstances with cancer, he also outlines in his own book the challenges he faced as a cyclist on highways and byways in Texas. Through the efforts not only of Lance but of the Texas Bicycle Coalition and particularly its very effective leader and executive director, Robin Stallings, we are doing much to promote increased use of cycling in Texas for all, bike to work, bike to school and safe programs going to school. Even if it is just going down to get a gallon of milk or a recreational ride, we can do much more with cycling and to honor Lance by continuing to promote cycling as a wise transportation alternative. We must stay committed to transportation enhancement funding that will allow us to do that and ensure that we have many more people who aspire to the athletic ability of Lance Armstrong but also that, for all the rest of us, there are cycling alternatives as well. We have gained inspiration from his work, from the work of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, and I am honored to author this resolution that reflects the House of Representatives' recognition of Armstrong's many accomplishments, both on and off the bicycle.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), for introducing this legislation which was unanimously reported by the Committee on Government Reform on September 15. It enjoys the full support of the entire New York delegation. Sergeant Henry Johnson, an Albany native, served in the U.S. Army from June 1917 until February 1919. As an African American, he was unable to fight at that time in an American combat unit, and therefore, he became part of what was known as the ``Harlem Hell Fighters,'' who fought in Europe under the French flag with great courage and distinction. While on duty, he single-handedly fought off a German raider party of more than 20 troops, and despite numerous wounds, he rescued a fellow soldier from capture and killed several enemy soldiers. As a result of his heroism, as our colleague has indicated, he received numerous medals. When he returned from Europe to a segregated America, he experienced great difficulty and died unrecognized by his own country in 1929. I truly believe that it is never too late to reward a person for service to their country, and for that reason, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) and our other colleagues to redesignate a U.S. postal facility in Albany after Henry Johnson. I urge swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the author of this legislation.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that I and all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives share a profound sorrow and outrage about the tragedy of September 11th and extend our deepest sympathies to the families of the victims and our greatest gratitude for the heroism of the first-responders who risked their lives to save the lives of others. We all honor the sacrifice of those serving in uniform and the sacrifice of their families. I regret, though, that we do not have the opportunity today to a vote on a resolution that would express such worthy sentiments without advancing a partisan agenda. I join in supporting this resolution although I have serious reservations about certain provisions. I am particularly disappointed to see that the misguided invasion of Iraq is linked to the attacks of September 11th. The Administration's mismanagement of the Iraq war continues to divert attention and resources away from our efforts to capture Osama bin Laden, who launched the terrorist attacks of September 11th. It is particularly ironic that this language is offered the very week we mark the tragic loss of over 1,000 brave men and women in Iraq. I would also like to note my strong reservations about the reference to the US-VISIT program in this resolution. Although the Department of Homeland Security has described US-VISIT as ``an important new element in the global war against terrorism,'' a Senate Judiciary report concluded that ``implementing an automated entry/exit control system [such as US-VISIT] has absolutely nothing to do with . . . halting the entry of terrorists into the United States. An automated entry/exit control system will at best provide information only on those who have overstayed their visas.'' US-VISIT is hurting businesses and families in McAllen, Pharr, and La Jolla and other communities along the U.S.-Mexico border by disrupting international trade. Under current DHS policies, Canadian visitors may stay up to 6 months and travel anywhere in the United States without obtaining any visa or enduring any immigration paperwork. In contrast, visitors from Mexico must go through an extensive process to obtain a B1/B2 laser visa (also known as a Border Crossing Card), which only allows a 30-day stay within a restricted zone close to the Mexican border. These restrictions make little national security sense given that the only known entries of terrorist across our land border have been from Canada, not Mexico. Unfortunately, given the disparity in treatment of visitors from our 2 closest neighbors, Mexico and Canada, US-VISIT is more about stopping migration from Mexico than it is about national security. I am also concerned that the resolution does not express the importance of balancing the protection of our country from future terrorist attacks with the need to protect the civil liberties of our citizens. We must not sacrifice our democracy in a misguided attempt to save it. Those who lost loved ones on September 11th, those who came to their aid, and those who serve our country in uniform deserve our recognition and support in a resolution unencumbered by a partisan agenda.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our colleague and join in offering the amendment by our colleague from California (Mr. George Miller). This amendment follows very closely legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I introduced last year to address this problem. There are at the moment that we gather here in Congress, I suppose, tens of millions of Americans who are out working, trying to ensure that their families have a better future. As they do their work and they look forward to payday to get their paycheck, one of the things they also consider are whatever benefits that they get with their work. For many workers, particularly those that move in their forties and fifties to begin to think about what retirement lies ahead, they have a particular concern with the retirement plan for their company and whether it will, in fact, allow them to retire in dignity and enjoy the fruits of their labor after they have provided for their family and community, to be able to enjoy a decent, dignified retirement. In recent years, American employees, American workers, have had good reason to be fearful that that very significant benefit of retirement that they have worked for, with some companies perhaps for 20 or 30 years, will not be there when they need it in full amount. First there were the employees of Enron. Thousands of them, through no fault of their own, lost their retirement. Then the same thing happened at WorldCom. Thousands of people who had worked for that company almost since its origin losing their retirement future, the hope of a dignified retirement, many of them having to go back into the workforce. Really, when you look back over the activities of this Congress since the Enron debacle, as far as preventing another debacle for employees at Enron and their retirement futures, or WorldCom, this Congress has done next to nothing to prevent other employees from suffering the same fate. As the years have gone by and Congress has been inactive, our economy has struggled, and we have begun to see more major companies, particularly in the airline industry, begin to raise questions as to whether they were going to put their pension plan into bankruptcy, whether they were going to stop making pension payments. This amendment does not solve all those problems. It is a very modest amendment. It simply expresses confidence in the employees, that they deserve to know the same information that their employer is filing with the government bureaucracy. As my colleague from California just pointed out, were it not for the fine print in legislation that was approved in 1994, we would have the right to know this information. This amendment is based on the principle that if the employee has the information, they can choose to go to another employer who has a fully funded pension plan, or they can turn to their employer and ask, why not? Why am I being given a false promise of a secure retirement, when, in fact, this plan is not funded at a sufficient level to assure that all workers who work here and retire will be able to enjoy their retirement with dignity? Of course, there is another public policy consideration here, and that is that there is a government agency, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, that is responsible for ensuring and protecting against those plans that fail. From all of the recent reports about the status of that corporation, we face the potential of something that will make the savings and loan bailout of a few decades back look modest in comparison to the dangers of major pension funds, one after another, going under and placing a burden on this corporation. The Bush administration came out in support of the very kind of amendment that is being offered here today. As usual, once some special interest began to question the wisdom of this provision, they fell moot. But their recommendation is a matter of public policy; it is clear, and it is out there. The Government Accountability Office, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation itself, all of these have recommended that this information that they get be made available to the employee so that the employee will be empowered. This amendment is based on the principle that the workers that are out there deserve the right to know, they deserve the right to be empowered about their pension future, and I can see no good reason not to provide that information. The suggestion by the chairman of the committee that he has a long- term plan to deal with this is great, but it is a little too long for the term of those who are concerned about their retirement safety and, one after another, pension plans failing. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the Khodorkovsky/Lebedev trial resumed on Monday last week before a three judge panel in Moscow. Since the last hearing three weeks ago, the physical appearance of the court was much improved: the courtroom had been air conditioned and the halls outside had been refurbished and painted. Appearances are important, but substance is critical. Respect for the rule of law in Russia is essential for the same reason it is essential in every democratic society--citizens, the press, and the business community must have confidence that the legal system affords them protection of their rights and that everyone is treated equally under that law. In Russia there is a pattern of troubling signs that the rule of law and a free press are threatened. I know a number of my House colleagues share these concerns. Members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, the Helsinki Commission, and the Russia Democracy Caucus are just some of those who have expressed their misgivings. One high profile example of concern is the seizure of the assets of Russia's largest oil company, YUKOS, and the trial of two of YUKOS's largest stockholders, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev. Many Russian and Western observers view the Russian Government seizure of the assets of YUKOS as a result of political motivations. Here are just a few recent statements on these events: On July 7, the Washington Post quoted a senior level U.S. diplomat as saying ``there are increasing signs that destruction of the company is the intended endpoint,'' and that it appears likely that a ``sizeable percentage of the company's assets will move into the hands of the state.'' On July 7, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) called the YUKOS affair ``a case of highly selective law enforcement'' and a case that reveals how ``the courts are often subservient to the executive, while the security services, prosecutors and police remain highly politicized.'' What is now occurring in Russia has significant human, political, and economic consequences. Justice, freedom, and human rights are all directly tied to the rule of law, open and accountable government, and a free press, which are increasingly absent in Russia. There are several disturbing trends that demonstrate problems with the rule of law in Russia. The general prosecutor and courts cannot be merely an extension of the political will and agenda of the Kremlin. In his visit to Moscow earlier this year, Secretary of State Colin Powell was unambiguous in his concern over the rule of law in Russia, saying ``Russia's democratic system seems not yet to have found the essential balance among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Political power is not yet fully tethered to the law.'' Furthermore, the selective and arbitrary use of judiciary power by the Kremlin undermines the rule of law. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, as many observers have noted, shows how a businessman has been singled out for prosecution because his political activities are not appreciated. Journalist German Galkin was thrown into jail and prosecuted for revealing the corrupt behavior of local government officials. His appeal was denied and he was only freed under the weight of international pressure. Aleksandr Nikitin is a former submarine officer and nuclear safety inspector who was pursued relentlessly through the courts by the Russian security service in retaliation for his outspokenness about radioactive contamination by the Russian military. These rulings bear out what prominent legal experts have been saying about the flawed legal system in Russia. More recent events in Russia threaten a free press, an essential element of any strong democracy. We do not know who murdered Paul Klebnikov, the editor in chief of Forbes Russia, who was writing the truth about Russia's dark underside, but the government must insist on a thorough, open, and full investigation of his killers. As one observer noted in the New York Times, ``Twenty journalists have now been assassinated in Russia for their work; 14 since Mr. Putin became president. Not one of the murders has been solved.'' A crackdown of media freedom has resulted in all major TV networks under state control. The last independent TV station disappeared last summer. TV is the number one way Russians get their news. If Russia continues down this path, she will never fully become the peaceful and democratic nation that the Russian people and the international community desire. It is essential that Russia undertake a sincere effort to reform its judicial system and establish the highest degree of credibility for the rule of law and free press, which are essential for a prosperous and peaceful Russia.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment and against the fleecing of the American taxpayer. At this time in our country's history, with soaring deficits, a soaring national debt, and, at the same time, a soaring understanding of the harmful consequences of tobacco, that almost everything tobacco and tobacco smoke touches is harmed, at this time the very notion that the Congress would contemplate taking $10 billion, that is billion with a B, $10 billion of taxpayer money and using it to set up a new welfare program for the tobacco industry would be absolutely ludicrous if it were not being seriously considered in this Congress; in fact, considered so seriously that the House has it tucked away in a piece of legislation that has already passed this body and gone to a conference committee. That is why today's action is so important, because this is the first opportunity that the House has had an opportunity up or down to speak to the wisdom of taking $10 billion out of the taxpayers' pocket, not to improve public health, not to reduce the deficit, not to reach out and quiet the concern of millions of mothers whose children lack health insurance or to provide assistance to millions of young people who, if they had a doubling of their Pell Grant, would be able to go to college. No, to reach out and take that $10 billion not for any of those well-defined and worthy purposes but to take that $10 billion and create a new welfare program. Who will get the benefit of that welfare? Well, there has been a recent study of that, and we learned that 354,000 people who would be eligible for this new benefit would get about $1,000 a year out of the program; but that two-thirds of the benefit would go to 10 percent of those who are eligible. One company in Kentucky would get $8 million. This is a new welfare program where all the welfare goes to the people at the top and the fellow with the beat-up pickup truck, who some have claimed here today will somehow benefit from that program, is not going to get very much at all. Who will benefit from this program before us is the big tobacco companies. Because the big tobacco companies will now have a larger supply of tobacco; it will be grown in any State in the Nation; they will have cheaper tobacco as a result of this. And to anyone who says it is not about smoking, I would say this amendment is all about smoking. It is about smoking a $10 billion hole in the wallet of the American taxpayer that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is speaking out against, and it is about the danger that smoking poses to millions of young people and to all of those around them as they become addicted to nicotine. We attempted to deal with this issue in the Committee on Ways and Means and were denied any opportunity to raise the amendment. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and I offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules and were denied any opportunity to consider this. The only reason that this ludicrous welfare program has gotten to this point is through deceit; and today, this amendment attempts to break through the deceit and get at a new plan, a new entitlement program that would pull billions from the American taxpayers and do harm to American health. The gentleman from Arizona attempts to get at that program and put a stop to it once and for all, drive a stake through this very bad idea in which we get no advances in public health, no increased wealth for the Food and Drug Administration, but simply a draw on the American taxpayer. In short, it is not a job-creation bill for any part of the country; it is a disease-creation proposal that he seeks to put a stop to.