Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Of course we have the tragic history of Watergate that led to the departure of a President and growing disrespect and cynicism of our people as a result of the Watergate scandal, the misuse, the invasion of people's personal information, the misuse of Federal law enforcement services. That has been one of the concerns that people have had as we have given more and more power in our desire to combat those who would threaten our families, but giving more and more power to John Ashcroft and the people over at the Department of Justice. That is why we all write and ask to be assured that they are doing everything possible to see that there is no Federal tax dollar involved and that there is no diversion, but there would appear that there has already been some activity in this area.

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the action of leaving the State of Texas and going from Austin to Ardmore, and I have yet to find anyone in Austin that goes to Ardmore for a vacation, but I am sure it is a nice place, and I know it has the Gene Autry Museum and other fine attributes; but they did not go up there on a lark. They took this extraordinary action because, as our colleague from Marshall, Texas (Mr. Sandlin) pointed out, they had extraordinary intimidation, they had extraordinary arrogance. But the point I want to emphasize, when we hear these attacks made on these brave Texas legislators, remember who their pal was just a few years ago. That was Governor George Bush. That is where he chose to introduce himself to the Nation. I would just urge again tonight that the President consider the problems that are being caused in Texas by this kind of extremism, and that if he is a uniter and not a divider, though we have not seen a great deal of evidence of that, that he unite the Texas House; that he go right to the place where he kicked off his Presidency and work to bring people back together. Because we cannot go on in this fashion. There is a second aspect to this that is very troubling, and the gentleman from Marshall made reference to it, and that is the involvement of Federal resources. It is one thing for a colleague to proclaim these extreme views, and it is one thing for the very Texas legislators that our colleague is talking about to basically concede that redistricting in Texas is of, by, and for Tom DeLay. In fact, not only are they not denying it, I think he is kind of proud of it, that he can go down there and kind of throw his weight around and tell people where to draw the lines and which communities to cut up. But it goes beyond that, that kind of arrogance, that kind of intimidation when you begin to use taxpayer-financed resources to advance that agenda and when you pull in institutions from Federal law enforcement and try to convert them into your private police force. That is why, as the gentleman from Jefferson County and from Harris County and from McLennan County and from all the Texans that are here, we have joined today in a statement and in a communication to Attorney General John Ashcroft, to Secretary Tom Ridge at the Homeland Security Department, and to Director Robert Mueller of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because we are most alarmed that yesterday Tom DeLay himself indicated that he already had a United States Attorney, a taxpayer-funded employee of the people in Texas, researching how they could employ Federal resources to bring these legislators, who have committed no crime and certainly there is no Federal offense involved in staying there and working in Ardmore, Oklahoma, until the Republicans in Austin decide to play by the rules. We also read from today's press that Tom DeLay told reporters the justification for this, of bringing in U.S. marshals or the Federal Bureau of Investigation is because redistricting concerns a Federal issue. And a spokeswoman, according to another publication in the U.S. Attorney's office in San Antonio, Texas, said she had no official comment; but a source confirmed that an unidentified person had called to inquire about federalizing the arrest warrant. That is taxpayer resources. That is using the Federal Bureau of Investigation in much the way that Richard Nixon did in Watergate. And there is another aspect of this, a further report. How did they happen to find these Texas legislators at a Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Oklahoma, of all places? Well, it did not just happen by chance. According to today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, one Federal agency that became involved early on was the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center based in Riverside, California, which now falls under the auspices of the Homeland Security Department. The agency received a call to locate a specific Piper turboprop aircraft. It was determined that the plane belonged to former House Speaker Pete Laney, Democrat, of Hale Center, and I would add parenthetically, who just happens to be the same Pete Laney that was introducing President Bush to the Nation in the House of Representatives' chambers in Austin that is locked down tonight. The paper goes on to report the location of Laney's plane proved to be a key piece of information, because Craddick, that is Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick, said it is how he determined the Democrats were in Ardmore. That is a use of Federal resources. We have had ample reason to be concerned in recent months about whether the Federal law enforcement services would be used with reference to our private lives, and we have ample reason to be concerned when a powerful figure like majority leader Tom DeLay is involved with these Federal agencies when the Federal agencies from Homeland Security are out there tracing a plane operated by an elected official in Texas to give clues as to where these legislators are.

Mr. DOGGETT. In addition to those very persuasive statements from Republican leaders in Texas, is the gentleman aware of where President Bush, after he had been declared the President-elect by the Supreme Court, where he had his initial speech to introduce himself to the Nation as our President-elect?

Mr. DOGGETT. That would appear to be the report not from me, but from this morning's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a very credible newspaper in our State. It is the Air and Marine Interdiction and Coordination Center. I would suppose that is the same entity that is supposed to be monitoring any airplanes that might be coming this way and placing American citizens again in harm's way, but they apparently had time, according to the newspaper report, and citing as apparently a source they talked to, Texas Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick, that they had time to provide him with key information. It is unusual they would be following a plane from Hale Center, Texas, in the Texas Panhandle to Ardmore, Oklahoma, but apparently they had time to do that. As the gentleman knows full well as being one of the signatories of this letter, our concern is that there is a war on terrorism, and that resources would be diverted by Tom DeLay or other people away from the war on terrorism, away from fighting crime and into politically motivated activity of this nature.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, the gentleman's position is very well founded, trying again to tie themselves to our sons and daughters who stood in harm's way in our American military, proudly, for our country. But right, at that very microphone this morning, our colleague from Houston, Mr. Culberson, stood up and compared the same Democrats George Bush had his arm around and claimed they were like suicide bombers. When I hear that kind of extremism, I think whether it is in Texas or up here, that is a fellow that has been spending too much time around Tom DeLay. It kind of rubs off. And while we need to tolerate that point of view, as extreme as it is, we do not want everybody in America to have to be just like Tom DeLay. Was he not the same fellow who said that Baylor, up in your town, that he thought you could not get a Godly education at Baylor or Texas A&M?

Mr. DOGGETT. First, I would say that it is really important to the future of our democracy that we permit diverse points of view to be heard. I believe that our country is stronger when we respect and show tolerance for opposing points of view. And the idea that everyone in Washington and in Austin has to follow lockstep behind Tom DeLay and his extreme point of view, and I believe his point of view needs to be represented here, but I do not think all the rest of us have to agree to it. And that is really what this is about. Now, President Bush told our country again and again and again that he was a uniter, not a divider. He said that he could work with the Texas legislature, and he pointed to people like Pete Laney and said what good friends they were and how cooperative they were. In fact, he bragged on most every one of those Democrats that is up in Ardmore tonight and said what great people they were.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, I think the gentleman himself had some years over at A&M. And I can think, as a Longhorn, of a lot of reasons people ought not to go to A&M, but not getting a Godly education there was never real high on anyone's list until Tom pronounced it. Now, I just want to conclude this part, if the gentleman will continue to yield to me.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. A distinguished predecessor as President of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower, pledged, ``I shall go to Korea.'' To achieve peace, why don't you simply pledge, ``I shall go to Austin.''

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, George Bush made his first address to the Nation as President-elect from the chamber of the Texas House of Representatives. Today that same House is in lockdown. He was introduced by Democrat Speaker Pete Laney. Today, Mr. Laney is at work with 50 courageous colleagues in Ardmore, Oklahoma, while some Republicans outrageously call them ``fugitives'' and ``criminals.'' Throughout his campaign, Mr. Bush professed to be a ``uniter, not a divider.'' If that quickly-abandoned moniker is ever to achieve any meaning, perhaps home in Texas is the best place for him to practice what he preached. Mr. President, tell Karl Rove to stop messing with Texas. Mr. President, tell Tom DeLay to withdraw his redistricting plan that slices and dices communities across our State. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. To those who say that these Texas State representatives essentially ``took their marbles and went home,'' remember that this game was fixed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) before these folks ever had a chance to play. To our colleague who dared mention the heroes of the Alamo, (Mr. Johnson of Texas) it takes far more courage to put your political life on the line than to follow like sheep. And how ironic, it was William Barrett Travis who drew that line in the sand at the Alamo, and it is the county named for him that is being sliced and split apart like never before in the history of our great State. Desertion, yes. The people of Texas were deserted when Tom's buddies refused to have redistricting hearings around the State and listen to the people and when my neighbors in Travis County were locked out of those hearings and then ignored. That is the real desertion that these brave Texans--Dawnna Dukes, Eddie Rodriguez, Elliott Naishtat, and their colleagues are fighting in Ardmore, Oklahoma, this morning.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to turning around this economy, assisting the many who have lost their jobs since President Bush got his, this Administration does not have a clue. With a deficit larger than a fleet of aircraft carriers, these Republicans have no idea how to bring our struggling economy in for a soft landing. As always, their snake oil cure-all is the same old ``Dr. George's red-ink elixir.'' No matter how irresponsible, no matter how many lives are endangered, they award more tax breaks to the fat cats, and if you are not among the elite few, than, frankly, my dear, they do not give a flip. With the largest deficit in American history adding to a national debt spiraling to almost unimaginable heights, extremists borrow more from us all in order to give tax breaks to a few, and the funds they so freely loot are the very hard-earned dollars we contribute for our Social Security and Medicare. In Texas, we are suffering a freeze on hiring teachers, no new textbooks, and meanwhile while the President breaks his promise to fund $9 billion of the ``Leave no child behind'' law. This revenue depleting vote is the major education vote of the year. The bill does not raise all boats. It hangs an immense anchor of debt on the necks of our children to whom it denies opportunity.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, when we think of Texas stereotypes, we think of cowboys and oil wells, longnecks and roughnecks. While we are proud of our past south of the Red River, the future of Texas increasingly lies, like the future of this country, with technology. That has been central to the development of our economy in central Texas. Now the Clean Energy Incubator and the Austin Clean Energy Initiative are attracting national attention to our community. We are on the cutting edge of a new Texas that is creating jobs and helping preserve our precious natural resources with renewable energy solutions. That is why, as the poster of the armadillo and the State capitol shows, it is Austin and the Texas hill Country in the ``Journey to the center of the sustainable Earth''. One would think, given the tremendous cost, not only in money but in blood, of having an energy policy that can keep our economy going, that someone at some time would begin to focus on sustainable energy and a new national energy policy. This bill pays some pretense to supporting renewable energy, but the focus is not on conservation or sustainable energy. The focus is on the same type of oil-polluting industries where we have put most of our resources in the past. Energy security is national security. It is time we focused on renewable energy. Instead, this bill is not so much an energy policy as it is a collection of unjustified tax breaks, loopholes, and dodges masquerading as an energy policy. Nowhere is that more apparent than in this whole area of how we will treat those corporations that loved America so much that at a time of great national concern after the events of 9-11, a few corporations loved America so much that they left America. They refused to pay their fair share of the cost of our national security and homeland security. Those fleeing corporations, where do they go for protection? Naturally, to the House Republican leadership and to this bill, a so- called national energy bill. What does it do for those corporations that abandon America at a time of great need? It grants them amnesty. It says ``go right ahead, do not pay your fair share of taxes on your American income. You do not have to do anything or rely on the Bermuda military for your protection.'' It says ``let those businesses and neighbors here in the United States that pay their fair share of taxes pay for those corporations that run off to Bermuda or Barbados.'' In this bill, even worse than their last bill, they moved the date for amnesty up a full year, from March of last year, and they grant that amnesty, interestingly enough, until just after the next Presidential election when they are going to ``explore'' this issue some more. This is one of the most outrageous of many outrageous provisions in this bill. At a time when so many Americans are sacrificing, these corporations are heading for the sands of Bermuda to plant their mailboxes firmly there, while our flag is planted in sands elsewhere.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the last speaker raised this issue of corporate loopholes, because it is the same crowd that stood in the Committee on Ways and Means repeatedly and on the floor of this House and has defended corporations that renounce their citizenship and head off for tax havens like Bermuda. They say that this is fine, that this is legal, and that we do not need to do anything about it. As to the Government Pension Offset and the issue of the alleged ``loophole'' in Texas, what the gentleman failed to mention is that we offered in committee to close the alleged ``loophole'' for Texas teachers, but to do it in connection with reforming the GPO problem that they have consistently refused to correct all this time. Fix the two together. We make them that same offer today. This is not about gimmicks in Texas, it is about people that file bills, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has done, that they never intend to move through the Congress; file bills they do not even get a hearing on, and say they are on the side of the firefighters, police officers, and teachers while doing nothing for them.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, about 200 of us have regularly signed on as cosponsors to the legislation of our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), to repeal the Government Pension Offset. In the Committee on Ways and Means, a more modest proposal would simply cut the government pension offset in half. It is authored by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and was joined by a number of Republicans on that committee. In the committee, we sought not to leave some special provision that Texas teachers have used to protect themselves. We said instead, ``solve that problem.'' We did not use our language to correct the government pension offset; but we took verbatim the language of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), his words, joined by four or five Republican members of the Committee. This motion would permit us to go back and get the correction that all of us have said we want. I do not believe those who suffer from this offset want merely a promise in every pot. They do not want just a committee hearing; they want action. With this motion to recommit, we would get that action and get it promptly for all the firefighters, police officers, and teachers in all the 50 States who deserve to have that done.

Mr. DOGGETT. What a truly disappointing presentation. Mr. Speaker, this is not about ``gimmicks,'' and it is not really even about Texas teachers. It is about whether this Congress will have on the floor of the House its first ever vote in recent memory on correcting the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision. Last year, when the constituents of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) contacted him about this, he said that these provisions seemed to be ``most unfair.'' He pointed out, quite correctly, that ``about 40 percent of the total number of affected beneficiaries are widows and widowers''; that ``240,000 affected beneficiaries are women.'' I think that we need an opportunity in this Congress to address the Government Pension Offset. When the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) released the GAO report to which he has referred today, although he and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) use terms like ``fraud'' and attack the professional associations of our teachers in Texas, although he even has the audacity today to invoke our soldiers overseas against our police officers and our firefighters and teachers who deserve a GPO correction, when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) introduced the GAO report, he said ``The apparently growing use'' of what he calls a loophole ``is only a symptom of general concern about whether the GPO itself is fair. . . . That is why my plan . . . would reduce the Government Pension Offset.'' [Aug. 15, 2002 press release] His plan that he refers to is the one that he and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) voted against when we presented it in the Committee on Ways and Means. It is the plan which the Committee on Rules made out of order today. Not Texas teachers, not ``gimmicks,'' not the Texas Federation of Teachers, but police officers in New York City and firefighters in San Francisco, and everyone in between who has been a public servant and who has suffered as a result of this Windfall Elimination Provision, they are the ones that they are standing against today. ``GPO'' stands for ``Government Pension Offset.'' It cuts into the retirement security of dedicated public servants, like firefighters, police officers, and teachers who provide us physical and economic security and who need retirement security. ``GPO'' really means ``gouge police officers,'' and it gouges our teachers and firefighters seeking their well-earned retirement security. GPO also stands for ``good photo opportunity.'' That is what is involved here. Whether it is police officers, firefighters, or teachers, Members are eager to stand with them and get their picture taken. But when it comes time to vote with them and protect their retirement security, they come up with one excuse after another. This provision dealing with the self-help provisions that Texas teachers have used, and used in accordance with the letter of the law as written, specifically as written by this Congress, was buried on page 70 of the original bill. They did not even have the courage to bring it up for a vote in the committee at that point, or to wait until our Texas teachers could be here. An apt analogy to what is happening here today is to find oneself driving down a highway and seeing a senior citizen, a retired teacher, pulled off along the side of the road with a flat tire. The reaction of most folks is to stop and help. Well, the Congress comes along and it stops to help. It tells the retirees, ``You cannot fix this problem yourself,'' the way our Texas teachers have done, ``that is our job.'' Then, while the senior waits for help, the Congress gets back in the car and drives off, leaving them stranded beside the road. That is exactly what has happened here as this Republican Congress refuses to address the problem that our Texas teachers and our firefighters are rightly concerned about. Instead, they pick up a tire iron all right, but they are using it on our retirees, not the flat. The GPO bills introduced and never set for a hearing or never voted on will never provide retirement coverage, only political coverage. When Members pose with public servants for a good photo opportunity, a ``GPO,'' they hope those employees will not notice that: When they smile, the real message is, ``I am standing with you, but I am not voting with you.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what is happening here this morning provides yet another example of the complete indifference of this House Republican leadership to the retirement security of millions of older Americans. Like their pseudo-prescription drug plan, which is not a plan to help seniors but only a scheme to subsidize HMOs and deny seniors their choice of doctors; like their persistence in seeking to privatize and undermine our Social Security system and end the basic guaranteed retirement upon which so many Americans have relied for the last seven decades. Today, Republicans reject the pleas of firefighters, of police officers, of teachers, and of the other public servants who have asked this Congress for years to correct the government pension offset that cuts into their retirement security after they have served America, often at very low wages in very critical jobs. The Republicans' refusal to permit debate on the amendment that I offered or the amendment that our colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) offered can only add to the cynicism of those who have strived for so long to have their voices heard in this Congress on this matter and who have yet to even get a vote on the floor, much less passage, of this measure. Almost 200 Members of this House, including a substantial number of Republicans, have signed on as sponsors to a bill to repeal the government pension offset. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culbertson), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), Republicans all, and proud of it, sponsored last session and again this session a more modest proposal: Just cut the government pension offset in half and provide half a loaf to those firefighters and teachers. That proposal has been filed again this year as H.R. 75. Now, for some unknown reason, though he is chairman of the subcommittee with the sole jurisdiction over this matter, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has never even bothered to ask for a hearing on his very own proposal, much less ask for a vote on it, much less bring it to the floor of this House. So I acted in a very modest way, joined our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) in committee when this measure was forced back to the committee for its first-ever vote, and we offered the bill for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). We were prouder of it than he was. We asked for a vote from him but, more importantly, for the millions of Americans, retirees, near retirees, who serve the public, who are counting on these Republicans to address their retirement security issues, we asked for a vote on their proposal, written not in our words but in the Republican author's words. And what happened? Well, these Republicans who did not have the slightest intention of ever advancing the proposal that they offered, they all voted against their own proposal. And so in the Committee on Rules, quite naturally, they said they do not want to bring these amendments out here to the floor, because the Republicans will vote against the very proposals that they have been writing to their constituents about and that they are sponsoring. This kind of total contradiction is what makes so many Americans question whether this institution, this House of Representatives, is the people's House and whether it is doing the people's business. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that though he has been largely in charge here for the last eight years, our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, now the Republican majority leader, says he agrees with our position, not their position. He wrote one constituent recently: ``I strongly believe that the GPO is an unfair and misguided piece of legislation. It undercuts the people who have spent their entire working life paying into the Social Security system by denying them their fair share of the hard-earned money they contributed. Married couples should be able to share those benefits with their spouses.'' I could not have said it better myself. But words will not solve the problems of these teachers, firefighters, and police officers. This House can solve the problem. This House can solve it by voting today to support the previous question so we can get action on the floor. Words will not make any difference to the people out there who are counting on us. Letters and e-mails to constituents will not make any difference. A vote on the House floor to correct this problem, to adopt verbatim the Republican legislation and do it here on the floor of the House will respond to the needs of people across this country. Mr. Speaker, there are those who help us provide security, security for our families, and they deserve a little retirement security. The Republicans know how to fix this problem; they have war-gamed against the enemy that undermines the retirement security. All they have to do is pass the relevant provisions of the Shaw bill and we want to give them that opportunity to pass a Republican piece of legislation. For once, a piece of legislation that will strengthen retirement security instead of undermining it like their prescription drug and privatized Social Security schemes. We ask them to join with us today in a key vote, the first vote on the government pension offset by supporting the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) on the previous question. We will provide real retirement security coverage to the people of this country, not just political coverage, which is apparently all the authors of this legislation originally had in mind.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it being apparent that the decision of 99 Members of the United States Senate is inadequate for some in this House, that they will not accept even placing in the Record at this point, at a very appropriate and proper point, the resolution they offered us, which treated the troops almost as an afterthought, since the goal was not to applaud the troops but the President; and recognizing their refusal to let us approve now unanimously what we all agreed to, that the Members of the Armed Forces and their families deserve commendation, even if we disagree with the civilian, political decision to institute a new first-strike policy, which will actually endanger our families, I recognize little ability to reach unanimity; and I will raise the rest of my concerns about the Administration's unfortunate new policy, which places so many in harm's way, in the course of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DOGGETT. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, this type of unanimous consent request, which seeks only to place in the Record the draft of the resolution we Democrats were asked to concur in this afternoon, that it might be made part of the record so all could see it.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. For the sacrifices of our sons and daughters in uniform and that of their families, no mere resolution or series of resolutions suffices to express our gratitude. Because the support for our troops is so very strong and the justification for the administration's reckless first-strike doctrine is so very weak, this resolution relies on the pride that all of us feel for our troops in order to carry this weak policy, this faulty and unworthy policy that is so faulty it cannot stand on its own merits, it has to be clumped with the sacrifices of the men and women who serve America tonight in the Persian Gulf. Just as this administration has failed completely to provide the slightest link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, this resolution mistakenly links the invasion of Iraq to the war on terrorism. I support that war. I recognize that containment and disarmament may not end all wars, but they are clearly superior to the new first-strike policy that risks wars without end. This resolution could have been the one the Senate adopted today by 99 votes. It was good enough for Majority Leader Frist, it was good enough for John Warner, but it did not go to the extremes that our colleagues want. We could have all accepted my request that we approve by unanimous consent support for our troops and families, but they did not have that in mind. They want this back-door approval. We will not be intimidated into silence. If we were to do that, we would be abandoning the very democracy we are pledged to serve and that they tonight defend.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman. Continuing under my reservation very briefly, it just seems to me we have heard so much about the need for us to speak with one voice that we could speak with one voice and do it promptly by taking verbatim what was good enough for Senators Frist and Warner. But let me ask the gentleman one other question, since he talks about acting with unanimity. The gentleman has three enacting clauses in his resolution. Clause two commends the Members of the United States Armed Forces; Clause three commends their families. I think there is unanimous agreement for both of these. Would the gentleman be open under his unanimous consent agreement to our proceeding now by unanimous consent to approve those two clauses, so that we could concentrate our debate in the only area that we have any difference, which are the words that the gentleman uses to approve the President's action with his first-strike policy in clause one?

Mr. DOGGETT. Just one final question. The draft of this resolution, and I know there have been changes going on all night, but the draft that we Democrats were asked to approve late this afternoon was a little like the President's recent budget on Afghanistan, which he forgot to fund. The resolution draft we were offered as praising the troops largely forgot the troops. I was wondering if the gentleman would have any objection to my putting into the Record the resolution draft that we were given this afternoon and asked to approve, which did not include in the ``whereas'' clauses much of anything about our servicemembers other than the first and last paragraphs. Most all of it seems to be about the President.

Mr. DOGGETT. Let me just ask, and then I will be very brief, because I know it is late and the gentleman wishes to proceed. The Senate, I am sure, acted, and not every word did I agree with, but they did act unanimously. It was good enough for the majority leader, Senator Frist and Senator Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Could we not dispense with this debate and simply take up, with the gentleman's approval, the entire Senate resolution and adopt it, and have every one of us saying not only the same thing in this House chamber but saying the same thing throughout the Capitol, that with one voice, we, the House and Senate, approve and applaud and support our troops?

Mr. DOGGETT. Added at our request, for the troops.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I will save the rest of my remarks for the debate.