Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted further clarification as to whether the plan remains that, as announced by the majority leader here about 10 days ago, that we would have essentially an open rule on the $87 billion to assure that all Members could advance their ideas?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I appreciate that. I had planned to ask that question for clarification directly to the majority leader, but I understand he has really got great affection for my hometown of Austin and he has pretty much moved down there for the time being to try to reshape these districts.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. There are effective dates throughout the bill. There is one effective date that applies on February 13 of this year. They are all specific dates on transactions this year with the exception of the last one, which is totally retroactive. The very last one on page 121 is totally retroactive and copies, as I understand it, verbatim language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) introduced last year in his international tax bill. It was not, apparently, ``fundamentally unfair'' last year when you introduced it. There is one thing that is consistent because whether it is retroactive, prospective, past, present or future, the indifference of the Committee on Ways and Means to corporate tax abuse is consistent.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentleman for purposes of a colloquy on my time. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman intended no deceit of the House in complaining of one of the 16 effective dates listed in the bill, the only one of the 16 that has a date that is retroactive; isn't that correct?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt there are many good features of this proposal. That is why so many people support it. Perhaps the benefits are a bit exaggerated in the suggestion there will be $40 billion or $50 billion in additional money motivated by tax considerations instead of the heart. That probably overstates the case. But the important argument in favor of the Democratic substitute is that this proposal is presented as just another free lunch, like so many other allegedly pain free measures that keep rolling through this House. As proposed, this bill will add to the burden of our children and our grandchildren billions of dollars that could and should be paid for now. That is why one of the cosponsors, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), has said he supports the substitute. He is ready to pay for his bill, he has that much confidence in it. The only argument against paying for it was the unusual suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) that it would be ``difficult.'' I agree, it has proven very difficult for the Committee on Ways and Means to do anything about corporate tax cheats. They have known about this problem since at least 1999, and they have chosen to sit on their hands. Most people have heard about something called Enron, a Texas corporation. The Committee on Ways and Means was afraid though to look under the rock for all the Enron dirty tax secrets, about how much it avoided paying of its fair share of taxes, for fear of what Republicans might find, and they have still not, until this very day, found it possible to overcome what they call the ``difficulties'' of dealing with the Enron tax transgressions, nor those of any other corporation. Pay for this bill. The Democratic substitute does.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I believe there are three very important issues in this debate. First, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has proposed a bipartisan initiative to complement the good intention of the sponsors of this measure to help children, especially abused children, in the State of Texas. This proposal was good enough for every one of our Republican colleagues across the Capitol to support as a part of this bill. It was in the bill when it came from the Senate, and it is being stripped out today in a way that I think is indifferent to the needs of many children and many others who the sponsors of this bill say they want to help. The second issue is: is the bill good enough to be paid for? When this bill arrived from the Senate it was paid for. It was a fiscally- responsible bill, and that responsibility has also now been stripped from the bill. How will our children and our grandchildren pay for the debt to which this bill contributes, piled upon, more debt atop even more debt? Our Nation is headed in the direction of the economic disaster of Argentina. We are mortgaging our prosperity--leaving our children and our grandchildren the hope of holding out a tin cup and begging for charity themselves to pay off this National debt unless we pay now for proposals like this. Mr. Speaker, that is why the bipartisan sponsor of this measure, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), says he is ready to pay for it. That is why Mr. J.C. Watts, the Republican sponsor of this measure in the last Congress, told our committee he was willing to pay for it. Why do today's Republican sponsors of this bill not put their money where their mouth is? If they are so concerned about charity, how about financing this bill instead of shifting more of the burden to future generations? And the third equally important issue: we can pay for this and at the same time correct a gross injustice in our tax system. In 1999 an Austin constituent drew my attention to Forbes magazine. It prouldly bears the title proudly ``The Capitalist Tool,'' and it published this cover story, ``Tax Shelter Hustlers, Respectable Accountants Are Peddling Dicey Tax Loopholes.'' In 1999 after I introduced legislation and we had a hearing great sympathy was expressed by the Republican members of the Committee on Ways and Means, but no action. Absolutely nothing was done about a problem that one Texas multinational told my office was receiving at one point a cold call every day trying to con them into these abusive corporate tax shelters. It had become an industry for major accounting firms like Arthur Andersen to engage in promoting these corporate tax shelters. With the passage of several additional years and one corporate scandal after another, still no remedial action in the House, there has been some hope that this problem might be addressed because this year, not in a Democratic bill, but in the tax bill that President Bush offered, the Republican Members of the Senate added essentially the same tax shelter language that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I are offering today in that tax bill. The Republican Senate passed it overwhelmingly. Yet it was stripped out by the same House Committee on Ways and Means that has consistenly turned a blind eye to this abuse since at least 1999. So the Senate put it in again in this charitable giving bill to pay for it--to be fiscally responsible. They sent legislative language over here similar to that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I are proposing, and today we hear Republican colleagues in the House tell us that although it was good enough for all of the Senate Republicans it is not good enough for us. ``We think it is difficult.'' ``We think it is challenging.'' ``We think it is confusing.'' Well, it is not ``confusing'' to anyone other than to those who are the so-called respectable accountants, who choose to use challenging, confusing tax gimmicks so their well-healed clients can avoid paying their fair share of taxes. This unfairly doged ``fair share of taxes'' is believed to run as high as $10 billion a year. When one of those corporations does not pay its fair share, the rest of us have to pay the difference and this is wrong. We can correct this abuse today in the same way that the Republican Senate corrected it, and on behalf of all honest taxpayers, I hope we will.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on January 29, 2002, President Bush stood at this podium, and he told this Congress and the Nation ``our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' He had hardly gotten out of the room before the deficit began soaring, soaring so much that this year, we have the largest deficit in the history of the United States. Soaring so much that over the course of this year and next year, we will probably exceed $1 trillion in additional national debt. Any honest projection shows that these deficits will continue rising throughout this decade. We have the largest fiscal reversal in the history of the United States, if not the history of the world, moving from the surplus the Bush Administration inherited to the unending debt with which we are now being burdened. We begin to understand why they call this a ``faith-based'' initiative because despite this devastating fiscal record, they ask us to have faith that somehow their speeches will balance the budget even while they continue depleting the national treasury with one good cause and some not so good causes after another, taking out $10 billion here, $20 billion there, $50 billion some other place. If you have faith in the bill that you are advancing today, have the good faith to deal straight with the American people instead of just giving them another IOU. And I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for having the courage to support the substitute paying for this chartible giving initiative to which I know he is so committed. The Republican sponsor in the last Congress of this measure (Mr. Watts) was willing to do the same until he found out paying for it requires more than a speech. We can pay for this initiative today, and then some, by correcting a considerable inequity in our tax system. The Founding Fathers believed that there should be no ``taxation without representation,'' and certainly we all agree. But some taxpayers, as a result of the inaction of the House Committee on Ways and Means and the leadership of this House, are today turning that on its head. They believe that we should have no ``taxation through misrepresentation.'' Too many corporations have misrepresented to their shareholders, their investors, to the tax collector the true nature of their income. They give new meaning to Leona Helmsley's claim that ``only the little people pay taxes.'' And today my colleagues talk about charity. Charity is when Congress ignores $10 billion a year, according to some estimates, in losses due to sham corporate tax shelters--shelters that are abuses of our current legal system. Charity is when the Republican leadership persists turning a blind eye to that abuse. Since 1999, we have had a way to solve this problem. We have been asking for approval of a tax shelter measure that has had broad support in this body and is so ``controversial'' that almost every Republican Member of the United States Senate has voted for it. It passed 95 to 5 as a part not of some other bill, but of this very chartible giving bill. So what happens when it gets to the House Committee on Ways and Means? The same people that have been protecting these corporate tax abusers all this time have again offered them a little ``charity'' by removing all of the tax shelter language. They stripped out the ``pay-for'' in this bill, a ``pay-for'' that brings equity to our tax system, that ensures that these corporate tax abusers get a little fair treatment. When such tax evaders dodge their taxes, guess who has to pay for national security and homeland security? All of the small businesses and large businesses and taxpayers large and small, who are already doing their fair share, already paying their fair portion of taxes. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today through the Democratic alternative to end this abuse of corporate tax shelters and at the same time pay for this charitable bill giving instead of incurring more public debt.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, each morning these recent months we are awakened with the disturbing news that one, two, perhaps three, young Americans have been killed in Iraq. Our tours of duty for the National Guard and for the Reserves are being extended with great complications for many small American communities, and certainly for many American families. It was just back on March 16 that Vice President Cheney declared to the Nation that the most important rationale for war with Iraq was the fact Iraq had all of these weapons of mass destruction. And I think as the weeks go by and as the lives of young Americans are lost, that more and more of our American families are asking: Why is it that each morning we hear that the body of another young American has been found, but we hear nothing about the location of any weapons of mass destruction? In fact, that term has almost been banned now from administration speeches justifying the war in Iraq. So desperate is the administration to make the claim about weapons of mass destruction that incredibly, yesterday, Secretary of State Powell went to the scene of a horrific crime involving weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it was a crime that happened 15 years ago, in 1988; and no evidence was provided suggesting any weapons of mass destruction had been located that would justify the loss of the lives of our sons and daughters in Iraq. Now, surely, with thousands of people being paid by American taxpayers at this very moment to comb Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, sooner or later they will find at least a trace. But an honest assessment of this whole weapons of mass destruction question requires asking whether this third-rate tyrant, Saddam Hussein, unable to effectively defend himself and his own family, really ever had the capability to pose an imminent threat to our families here in America. Meanwhile, Americans continue to do most all of the dying, and American taxpayers are asked to continue to do most all of the paying for the cost of this administration's war justified by weapons of mass destruction. In view of this, more and more Americans are contacting us here in Congress about the weapons of mass destruction question. Many of these people have done so through the organization called moveon.org, a citizens' organization to advance concerns in a way that I think is very healthy. I just want to share with my colleagues tonight the thoughts of some of those people from central Texas who share my concern about the rationale the administration used, how quickly it is walking away from that rationale, and the tremendous cost in the meantime, not only in dollars, but in blood. Glee Ingram. Glee is a small business owner in Austin, and she writes: ``I strongly support an independent investigation of the claims that were made by the Bush administration as a prelude to declaring war on Iraq. Using deception to create support to go to war is absolutely unacceptable. We, the citizens who must reap the consequences of this decision, are due all honesty,'' and indeed they are. And it is particularly questionable why this administration that made such bold claims about how weapons of mass destruction posed a danger to our families now resists a complete investigation of why they have been unable to find them. Chantal Tetreault, who is a University of Texas student, contacted me saying: ``Please support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. My confidence in the government is shattered and will only be restored if the American people are given the truth about government intelligence prior to the Iraqi war. Innocent Americans have died and continue to die, along with many Iraqi civilians in this war.'' I think she raises some important questions, as does Kathy Goodwin, who is an Austin social worker who contacted me saying: ``I firmly believe that when we witnessed the bombing of September 11, people everywhere shared our grief and millions in the United States and all over the world have since come to the conclusion that war will not solve all our problems. The terrorism that caused 9-11 will not be stopped through a war with Iraq. We need the truth.'' And that is what an independent investigation of the whole WMD controversy would get to. I believe the voices of these Austinites and others across the country should be heeded. We need action now to find out why and what occurred here.

Mr. DOGGETT

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I understand Houston is a very special place, but is there some reason why it is so special that it is apparently the only city in the entire 50 States, in the entire United States, that has been singled out for this special treatment?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, there is a group down, I think, in San Antonio but they are just against all public transportation. They have an ideological commitment that they do not believe in public anything, I think; but they certainly do not believe in public transportation or public rail transportation. They are just against it as a matter of principle. If we had one of these extremist groups come in, could they use this as a precedent to apply to Beaumont and to Austin and to other cities across Texas and across the United States?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of this bipartisan initiative and commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for offering it. He came personally, at the invitation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), to central Texas last December and saw firsthand a variety of our pressing transportation needs with highways and public transportation, but also had a chance to see the important role that enhancement projects play in our community. Unfortunately, there are some in this Congress, in the State transportation bureaucracies, and some of the trade associations and lobby groups who think if it is not asphalt or buying something to put asphalt on it is merely a transportation frill. In central Texas, we certainly know that this is not true. Transportation enhancement projects are, as the very name suggests, designed to enhance economic development and to enhance the quality of our lives. In our community, they have done both of those despite significant intransigence and disinterest by the Texas Department of Transportation, which has put one roadblock after another in front of our local enhancement proposals. In Austin, Texas, for example, we have Plaza Saltillo, which would not exist were it not for enhancement funding. Many of us will gather there soon for the Diez y Seis celebration. This has been an economic development magnet. It has had a multiplier effect for small Hispanic businesses in the area, and now we are seeing a number of developers, Hispanic and non-Hispanic, develop a wide range of residential housing in this transportation corridor. This enhancement project not only improves the quality of life for all in the neighborhoods who celebrate this important Hispanic holiday, but it has proven to be a key factor in the economic development of the East Austin community. It is certainly true in terms of the quality of our cycling and pedestrian trails throughout central Texas. These trails enhance the quality of life. They have also become, thanks originally to the work of Lady Bird Johnson and now supplemented around Town Lake, the center of Austin where people are coming to host conferences, conventions, and business meetings. A real factor for many of our tech companies moving downtown is the fact that we have trails people can enjoy jogging and cycling on, and can bring their families to. Some of these trails, frankly, have become on the weekends, and at key times in the early morning and late afternoon, almost as congested as some of our highways. We do not have enough of these projects to meet the needs of a growing community in terms of enhancing the quality of life or enhancing economic development, and we need more. We have had resistance at the State level already. If we turn it over entirely to the States, there will not be a dime coming to provide this key enhancement factor. Looking at the data about transportation, there has been a significant amount of work on the revision of TEA-21 focusing on fairness and parity. The data suggests that about 7 percent of the trips made in this country are not by car or public transportation, but by people on two wheels, on a bicycle, or walking. Yet, less than 1 percent of our transportation dollars are being committed to trail-type projects for cyclists and pedestrians. Now, that 1 percent will not be assured unless this Petri amendment is adopted. We know employers can provide parking spaces, and that many progressive employers are providing public transportation or metro passes. However, for cyclists these days the only incentive is strong legs and maybe a pat on the back. For a clean form of transportation, we need to maintain this bare minimum amount of funding under the enhancement program for cyclists to have a safe lane or trail to travel. Our colleague from Oregon mentioned my constituent Lance Armstrong, and we were so pleased to honor him yesterday with a resolution. In his book he writes: ``I've spent my life racing my bike, from the back roads of Austin, Texas to the Champs-Elysees, and I always figured if I died an untimely death, it would be because some rancher in his Dodge 4x4 rammed me head first into a ditch . . . Cyclists fight an ongoing war with guys in big trucks, and so many vehicles have hit me so many times, I've lost count . . . One minute you're pedaling along a highway, and the next minute you're face down in the dirt.'' For Lance Armstrong, for the leadership of the Downtown Austin Alliance and many people who have communicated from central Texas, let us adopt the Petri amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, we have had a referendum in the city of Austin; and by about a percentage point, a 1 percent point, the idea of a light rail system was defeated, and I am actually interested in seeing what the citizens of Austin think if this issue comes up again; but we do not have any Federal law requirement telling us if we do not approve it again that we will never be eligible for Federal funds, and in fact, we have some Federal planning funds that are in the transportation authorization this last time, and I expect there is a good chance they will be in there again. But this would be the kind of precedent that could restrict people who want public transportation who do not agree with these right wing ideologues and extremists that are against all public transportation. This would be a precedent where they could come in and interfere with the people in my district.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the history of this, this would not be the first time that a Federal-elected official had interfered in the desire of the people of Houston, the support of the business community in Houston to get public transportation; but it would be the first time that instead of just one individual going down and interfering in it, it was written into Federal law where the full force and effect of Federal law would interfere with the will of the people of Houston.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am here this afternoon principally, as with our colleague the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), to honor my constituent Lance Armstrong. I join in offering hearty congratulations to a heroic American, Lance Armstrong. This proud Texan, cancer survivor, public health advocate, Olympian and now five- time Tour de France champion has captivated the imagination and won the hearts not only of Texas, but of our Nation and the world. However, I believe it is fair to say that nowhere is the enthusiasm for Lance's achievements greater than in his hometown of Austin, Texas. We have an old French embassy from the days of the Republic of Texas there, and our relationships with France are good, so we mean no disrespect in saying that among us Austinites we refer to it as the ``Tour de Lance'' because he has had such success in representing our State and our country in this world athletic competition. Lance was in Austin last Sunday night to be honored at the University of Texas Longhorn football game and victory, and he is honored there most every day by his many neighbors who applaud his success. While we are proud to have Lance wear the red, white, and blue of our country and of the U.S. Postal Service team when he is in a race, we prefer to see him in yellow, when he crosses that finish line in that yellow jersey, a sign of courage, a sign of victory. It is appropriate for Lance's team to be sponsored by the Postal Service: while not faced with too much snow, despite rain and considerable heat and gloom of night, he stayed the course as a swift competitor for all of his appointed rounds. Lance is a champion, defined not by his setbacks but by his relentless determination to overcome them. Indeed, this year's victory particularly was symbolic of the often rocky road that Lance Armstrong has ridden. Not until after a painful struggle through searing heat and a frightening crash late in the race did the true fortitude of the real Lance Armstrong emerge for all to see, a familiar grimace on his face, avoiding any obstacle in the way and leaving his closest competitors in the dust. Just as not so long ago when faced with his very steepest climb in life, Lance persevered and pushed himself to beat daunting challenges against long odds. In Austin, we began development of the Lance Armstrong bikeway. This cross-town trail is a fitting tribute for his accomplishments, and it will be a safe route for community cyclists and pedestrians who want to get off the road when they exercise or commute to work. It is one of the examples of the worthwhile projects resulting from the transportation enhancements program this House will consider this week. Lance has joined with those of us who are members of the bipartisan House cycling caucus on a number of occasions and has been active in promoting cycling. It is not just the people who wear a yellow jersey or race competitively who can enjoy the many benefits of cycling. I hope the House will honor him not only with this resolution today, but by its actions in maintaining our commitment to the transportation enhancement program that will be on the floor on Friday. Lance Armstrong also voices his concern in Austin and here in Washington through the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a foundation that he set up to encourage other nonprofits in their efforts to promote cancer survivorship. They are doing an outstanding job in Texas of raising this issue in cooperation with other health organizations here in Washington, D.C. This Congress can pay tribute to Lance by seeing that we have the resources dedicated to cancer survivorship that are so very important to millions of Americans and adopting legislation to advance this important issue. The Cancer Survivorship and Quality of Life Act expands and coordinates the activities of the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease Control with respect to cancer survivorship research. So to Lance we say thanks for your contributions to our country, particularly to central Texas, and your inspiration to children, to cancer survivors and to athletes worldwide. Congratulations on your success not only on the bike but, most importantly, for all of your successes in life. You have taught us the importance of survivorship; it is that we have so much for which to live.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am pleased to join our colleagues in honoring our former colleague, Steve Horn. It is sometimes said that someone is a gentleman and a scholar. Steve Horn is genuinely both. He contributed mightily to the House and worked with people of both parties, and I am pleased that he is being recognized today.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to question these agreements, reluctant in support, not because my interest in expanding international commerce has waned over the years, but reluctant because of this Administration's consistent refusal to support a balanced, bipartisan trade policy. Like most of its foreign policy, the Administration's guiding principle is not moderation, but arrogance. It pursues go-it-alone, one-on-one trade deals like these instead of reforming the structure that would promote more multilateral world trade. These agreements perhaps represent a perfect fit for this Administration, whose approach toward environmental protection and worker rights ranges from conscious indifference to open hostility, an Administration that apparently views a few attacks on health and safety laws by a foreign multinational investor trading partner as more of a help than a hindrance. All the hullabaloo that we heard this morning about these agreements is more symbolic than it is real. The economic impact of these agreements is minuscule: less than one-hundredth percent of our gross domestic product for Singapore and less than five-hundredths for Chile. Not much to crow about for an Administration whose trade policy has followed rather crooked twists and turns. Its enthusiasm for giant subsidies to giant agribusiness corporations impedes and distorts our efforts to expand world commerce. It cannot even permit trading catfish without demanding that the catfish be called something other than ``catfish.'' And, of course, this very day, efforts are under way to deny seniors in America the right to reimport FDA-approved prescriptions from Canada. Against this backdrop of protection for its buddies, this bill represents the crowning achievement of this Administration in trade, free trade with the important, but tiny, island of Singapore. I am not willing to say ``no'' to this modest achievement, but we should recognize that it speaks more of failure than of success. As a model for the future, the provisions on investor protection, on workers' rights, on environmental protection are a complete failure. Those provisions are not the result of hard-fought negotiations. In the case of Singapore, for example, that country was willing to accept most anything the United States tendered on these issues. And the Administration requested just as little as possible to justify a pseudo-claim that it cared about these issues. As a precedent, these agreements deserve just as little respect as this Administration has now shown toward the stronger, but still very flawed, U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Freeing markets is very important, but so is freeing children from sweatshops. In contrast with its willingness to protect catfish farmers, the Administration is indifferent to the lakes in which those fish swim. These agreements do not guarantee that governments have the right to prevent a public nuisance like pollution of our air or water without paying compensation. The Administration is willing to protect special interests from foreign lumber competition, but not the forests that our families enjoy and the wilderness areas that are so important to our global future. Countries should have the right to insist that electric utilities include devices that reduce air pollution, the right to limit roads into forests, and insist on replanting as a condition to investment. Expanding the investor-state language in these agreements to derivatives, stocks, and bonds raises questions about future demands for post-Enron-type accountability that may well reduce a corporate insider's short-term return on investment, even though the reform increases the security of the public as a whole over the long term. There is a great danger that these agreements will be misconstrued to facilitate challenges to all of these. Bipartisan support for more international trade has been greatly weakened by this Administration's consistent indifference to meaningfully opening up trade to public participation. More is required than allowing a few hand-picked industry representatives with national security clearances in the back door to review documents. When key decisions are being made behind closed doors, shielded from the press, the public, and watchdog organizations like the Sierra Club, we all lose. Reacting to its defeat in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit recently, to force disclosure, the U.S. Trade Representative audaciously began classifying documents, and the Administration issued an Executive Order blocking the public's right to know about what was happening on trade--hardly ``free and open trade'' when it is closed to the people of America, even though our trading partners know what secrets are under way. How trade affects our water, our food and working families should not be a trade secret. America's most important export--democracy--is weakened by ``star chamber'' trade policies. It is possible to promote more world trade, economic growth, and opportunity without undermining our environment and facilitating child labor, but only by pursuing a different course. Open government is not inconsistent with opening markets. It is the only path that will ultimately lead to our achieving that goal.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I join him in this effort to see that the previous question is defeated. Mr. Speaker, last week, America witnessed a vivid example of how tyranny can begin in this country. The same Republican leadership here in the United States Congress that has blocked the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, that has blocked relief for working families on the child tax credit, that same Republican leadership was so eager to thwart the opposition that the chairman of one of the committees called in the police to break up the Democratic opposition organizing some alternatives to an important piece of legislation. This is how tyranny can begin in America, and it is certainly not unique to what happened. This is further evidence of the extremism occurring in this Congress. It is very tied to what my colleague from Texas has been talking about that occurred in the State of Texas. Indeed, it has nothing and everything to do with what happened in the Texas legislature. Nothing, in the sense that all we were trying to do in the United States Congress was not to walk out, but to walk into participation, just as we have done with the child tax credit, to say that working families ought to have an opportunity to get their taxes cut also and get this credit for their children. We wanted to participate, not to walk out. So it has nothing to do with Texas in that sense, where legislators legitimately broke a quorum; but it has everything to do with what happened in Texas with regard to the misuse of law enforcement resources, of becoming a police state. In Texas, what happened is that immediately after this lawful action by the State legislators, the majority leader of the Republican Party, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), here in the House, came out and said, call out the G-men. He opined that this was a proper matter for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the U.S. Marshals Service, for the United States Attorneys Office; and ever since he voiced that opinion that these people ought to be involved in a political dispute in Texas in order to advance his power grab, his political interests, we have been trying to find out from John Ashcroft how much of those resources were allocated. And guess what? We have not gotten one bit of information from them, unlike the Federal Aviation Administration, which has disclosed the truth and revised its procedures, recognizing that the FAA has a little bit more to do with air safety than advancing the political interests of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the Republican Party. The Homeland Security Department provided us a half truth. They only wanted to look at one incident, not how all of their resources were used. But the Justice Department has gone them several better, by providing no truth, no answers with regard to how these Justice Department resources were misused, and that is why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) is advancing this effort today, because we need to know that information. In America, our freedoms will not be taken from us all at once, but they can ebb away; and when we see police-state tactics here in the Congress, for the first time in the memory of this institution; when we see a powerful figure like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) summoning in the G-men to use them for political purposes; when we see the Department of Homeland Security diverted from protecting us against terrorism into using their resources for personal political ends, that is something Americans should be very concerned about. I was pleased to see the Houston Chronicle today editorialize on this very matter [``Not Police Matter: Leave Law Enforcement Out of Legislative Tussles,'' Houston Chronical, July 22, 2003], saying that we should leave law enforcement out of these legislative disputes, whether it is in Austin, Ardmore, or the United States Capitol. By following the lead of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), and defeating the previous question, we will advance this concern; not just fighting amongst each other, but fighting for something important.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take that time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is no small amount of irony that the bill in question before the committee today was H.R. 1776. The democracy that our forebears brought to being in this land requires our continual vigilance. We are reminded of the words of James Madison that there are more instances of abridgement by gradual encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation. Mr. Speaker, a committee chairman today ordered the police to evict Members of this Congress from a committee room on the edge of the markup. When Officer Spriggs arrived in that room, the committee library, he was not looking for the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). He was there, as he said, to clear the room on the instructions of the chief of staff of the committee chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. My friends, this is how tyranny begins. It is our responsibility to stand against a police state, to stand in favor of open dialogue rather than to permit a bill to pass with only the votes of one party and move toward a one-party state.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this important motion to instruct conferees must be considered in context of what has happened here today and what has happened here this year. Today we have seen arrogance boil over with the order from the Committee on Ways and Means chairman to have the Capitol Police remove some of our colleagues and me from a committee room where we were attempting to develop our alternatives to pension protection for every worker in the United States. It is that same committee from which this child tax credit arose. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has made clear that one of the groups that will be most significantly impacted by the decision on this motion to instruct are the children of our military families. In fact, it is a very significant amount. According to the Children's Defense Fund, a quarter of a million children are in active-duty military families who will not qualify for this child tax credit unless the gentleman from Maryland's (Mr. Van Hollen) motion is not only approved today but followed by the conference committee. But this is not the first time that the Committee on Ways and Means, the same committee whose chairman sent the police out after Democratic colleagues on the committee today, has shown disinterest in the plight of our military families. Indeed, there is a bill that has been sitting on this desk since March 27 of this year called the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.'' That bill passed the United States Senate unanimously, 97 to nothing. That bill would ensure that there would be no taxes applied to the small $6,000 death benefit payable to the families of those who are killed in conflict such as in Iraq, and it would provide certain other benefits to military families. When that measure came before the House Committee on Ways and Means, proceeded to do things like stick on an amendment to help foreign gamblers who bet off track at American racetracks, to help companies that make tackle boxes, to help a variety of other special interests, and they loaded it up. And to add the final indignity, they added to that bill called the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act'' a provision to grant amnesty to those corporations that renounced their American citizenship and posted their mailbox in Bermuda to dodge their fairshare taxes to pay for what is happening in Iraq and what is happening in America. That bill, that disinterest Republicans show here against the instant bill we now consider, the child tax credit, and the fact that children in 200,000 military families have been left out by this Republican majority, by their refusal to accept the thinking in the gentleman from Maryland's (Mr. Van Hollen) motion, it is somewhat ironic that this very week when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) makes his motion, I understand that the United States Government has decided that it will expend money to pay about 200,000 to 250,000 Iraqi military officers. The Members heard that right. Iraqi military officers, to pay them 200,000 of 250,000 a stipend, with either our tax dollars or money they find over in Iraq, I guess. Why not do something for the children of 200,000 of our military families who have been left out by the same Republican majority that showed the callous indifference to let the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act sit up here since March 27? Because they want to use legislation like this to advance another agenda. And what is that agenda? It is an agenda that says if we sap the strength of the Federal Treasury enough, we can totally dismantle our Government. We know this week that America has, even according to the White House, the largest deficit in the history of the United States, that we are headed toward a debt ceiling that keeps going up, $10 trillion of debt, and instead of targeting the relief to these military families and to these civilian families that are out there working in our hospitals, in our nursing homes, picking up the garbage, doing the dirty work of our society but working, trying to advance themselves and provide for their children, many single-mother households trying to provide for their children and work at the same time, why do those people get left out? What the Republicans propose at this time is to add to the largest deficit in the history of the United States about another $80 billion to address the child tax credit because they say if we cannot provide most of this relief to the people that make well over $100,000, we are not going to do anything for those thousands of military children. We are not going to do anything for the person who is out working in the nursing home. They do not deserve this benefit. The truth of the matter is it has become very clear listening to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the same person who called out the police today, that he is not really concerned whether this bill passes or not. He made it clear when he talked to the Wall Street Journal stating that ``there are worse things than the [child tax credit bill] not happening.'' There may be worse things than in a single week deciding to pay Iraqi military officers, 250,000 of them, at the same time we deny relief to children in 200,000 military families, but it is hard to conceive what he has in mind.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is an old truism that the best defense is a good offense. We have seen that here this afternoon in a quite effective way because Republicans, unable to defend their misuse of the United States Capitol Police against Democrats meeting in the Ways and Means library, have taken the offense in what I consider a very offensive way against our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). After the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) was told to ``shut up'' by another member of the committee, he responded with an insult, perhaps not appropriate, but certainly after significant provocation. To suggest that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), a man of 72, surrounded by 20-plus Republican colleagues of lesser age, posed any threat to anyone is ludicrous on its face, and though it is not ordinarily done, since it has been done and incompletely by my colleague, the transcript uncorrected though it is, of the Committee on Ways and Means reflects that after the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) was told to shut up and he insulted his colleague who made that comment, that he then proceeded to say, come on, come on over here and make me, I dare you. The transcript then reflects that laughter occurred and that thereafter, after additional comments by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) declared recess is over, the classroom has been resumed. Now some Americans and undoubtedly some commentators will be inclined to trivialize this entire incident as being mere childish behavior, with wrongs on both sides. There were no wrongs on both sides today. The Capitol Police were not called out, as the transcript indicates, as the gentleman from California's (Mr. Thomas) silence indicates, because of anything that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) did, said, or implied. To suggest otherwise, indeed the suggestion of my colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) that the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) instigated this incident is an outrageous slur on the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) who is a person of integrity, even though sometimes of sharply worded comments. The Capitol Police were targeted not on the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), but Officer Spriggs, who came into the library, indicated they were asked to clear the library where the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) was not even present. We cannot allow our Federal law enforcement resources to be diverted for partisan political purposes such as occurred today. Even at this very moment, the Inspector General to the Department of Justice is investigating the misuse of the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Marshal's involvement in tracking down courageous Texas State legislators who made a stand against a similar partisan power grab. Just as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) called the Federal Aviation Administration to track down those Democrats, just as the Department of Homeland Security went after a cotton farmer from Texas to find out about his airplane, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) today diverted the Capitol Police from their important work in preserving public safety here in the Nation's capital for partisan political purposes. This attempt to break up a meeting of Ways and Means Democrats is unprecedented for either party I believe in the history of this Congress. We did not walk out as our Texas State legislative colleagues so justly did. We attempted to walk into the process, having been handed moments before a bill that affects the pensions and the retirement security of millions of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, across this country, but yet as we attempted to walk into that process and develop and present our alternatives, the police were called here in the Capitol to stop us from doing that job. Americans who share the concern of the abuse, indeed of the extremism, of the majority need to be concerned about what happened here. It was not some fight among Members of Congress acting childish was a serious infringement on our democracy. Americans who are worried about us becoming a Nation of citizens who are supposed to choose between saying ``me too'' and shutting up, these Americans cannot afford to be silent. No party, no person has a monopoly on the truth. Dissent is not some inconvenience in this Congress or in this country, and it certainly does not warrant calling out the Feds, whether it is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) calling out for the G-men in Texas or the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) calling out for the Capitol Police in Washington. It is the cornerstone of our democracy that we have dissent and differences of opinion in this country, and yet it is the strength of our democracy. We will not be intimidated. We will not back down. Too many Americans, working families who need our help, also need our voice.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. She is certainly to be commended for the leadership that she has shown on this issue, having originally raised this entire matter before the Committee on the Budget back in February and for bringing up the matter quite eloquently and appropriately tonight. But I would have to say in all fairness the stronger arguments for the motion have been made by the gentleman from California. He has presented compelling arguments in favor of this motion by making clear that the conference committee has not even met during the time that it has been here and by indicating that he considers any nonbinding expression by this body, no matter how many Members there might be who voice their concerns, to be of little interest to him and the members on the conference committee and by suggesting that he thinks that providing the tax credit to working families out there, some of whom are paying a quarter or a half of their income in taxes to Federal, State, and local governments through payroll and other taxes, that they do not deserve any relief. All of those suggest the reason why we should not let a single day go by without raising this issue to the American people. Because at the end of this month, as the gentleman told us a little while before, in an election year, thank God we do not let election year politics get involved in any other tax policy. Everybody else in the country is going to get their tax credit relief, unless they are among the 6 million working poor families in this country, and they will be left out. But thank God the Republicans are only concerned about election politics for other Americans, not for those people who are struggling to make ends meet. The military tax fairness bill has been sitting at this desk, I believe, for 2 months; and among the families that will be hurt by failing to follow the motion to instruct that the gentlewoman from Connecticut is proposing are our military servicemembers who are fighting on behalf of this country right now in a combat zone in Iraq. Those individuals will not get the full benefits of the child tax credit unless this motion is not only adopted tonight, but implemented by the conference committee.