Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

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. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, has rightly reminded us tonight of the events of 9/11. I think all of us remember the time that we stood together singing ``God bless America'' on the steps of this Capitol, unified in recognizing that what is involved here is bigger than us as individuals or as political parties, and how we joined with near unanimity in supporting the President on the war on terrorism. Thanks to the good efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we did this once again about 10 days ago, when he offered his resolution, H.J. Res. 27, ``commending the continuing dedication, selfless service, and commitment of members of the Armed Forces and their families during the Global War on Terrorism.'' At that time I rose, along with many colleagues, to support that resolution honoring our service members and to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for an effort that brought us together, rather than splitting us apart. I doubt that we can offer too many resolutions for our servicemen and servicewomen, so I understand the gentleman's interest in offering a further resolution tonight. I would like nothing more than to see a similar unanimous vote in support of that resolution. I would ask the gentleman under my reservation, since we have not yet even had this resolution printed for our review, if he is familiar with a resolution commending our troops that was authored by Senators Frist and Warner and Senators Daschle and Levin, and which was passed unanimously today in the United States Senate?

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

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. Yes.

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. 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, 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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if the enemies of America had a plan to slowly undermine our country and sap our economic vitality, I think it might look a lot like the plan that underlies this resolution. With bombs dropping, missiles flying, and America's brave sons and daughters in the desert preparing to march against the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, the Republican leadership buries its head in the sand, offering a budget that does not even include the costs of this war or the rebuilding and occupation, which may go on for decades, in a land as volatile as the oil beneath it. I spent more on a cup of coffee this morning than the Republicans have included in this budget for the war--a war that every American is watching and praying about and that is unfolding as we speak. Of course, the last Republican to estimate the cost of war, the President's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, was fired for his efforts, even though he gave a low-ball figure of a mere $200 billion. This represents part of a deliberate strategy by this Administration to hide from the American people the true cost in blood, money, and insecurity of its reckless, new, preemptive-strike policy. The deliberate choice to ignore the war in this budget is similar to the President's decision to ignore the last war in the budget he just proposed to us. He forgot to include any money for Afghanistan this year, absolutely nothing. Yesterday's priority and headlines, are today's forgotten footnotes. It is not that the Republican leadership is intentionally harming our people. It is just that they are so blinded by their rigid ideology and lack of new ideas that all they can offer our people in this hour of need is more tax breaks for the few. How else can we explain the recent declaration of the Republican leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), that ``nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' Today with so many staring death right in the face, is there really nothing more important than cutting taxes? While our Defense Secretary may deride our traditional allies as ``old Europe,'' some of us yearn for the old America, an America that when it confronted war understood the importance of shared sacrifice from all of our people, that did not say to some, go risk your life in defense of our country, and to the rest, you risk having to get a bigger pocketbook for more tax breaks; an America that did not say, we will borrow all of the money from those who pour in their Social Security and Medicare tax dollars, we will borrow from them in order to grant tax breaks to a few. This is a Republican leadership that is AWOL on observing the duty to pay for America's needs. It is our children who will suffer from it.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offered President Bush, as did so many others here, immediate bipartisan support for the war on terror, but regime change in Baghdad, rather than disarming Iraq, represents a diversion from that bipartisan effort. Not only do we have continuing concerns about Osama bin Laden, but also we have grave concerns about the looming nuclear threat from North Korea, which does have long-range missiles. This threat was deliberately hidden from this House until after our vote on Iraq. The Korean peninsula crisis worsens by the day with Administration mismanagement and neglect heightening the far greater danger from this xenophobic, despotic regime. The Administration has a ``Don't Talk, Don't Tell'' policy that is steadily narrowing our options and increasing the risk of what could easily become a devastating conflict. Just yesterday, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned that North Korea could be headed toward ``serial production'' of nuclear weapons. I believe that the Administration's fixation with regime change in Baghdad is diverting precious intelligence and other resources that we need to protect American families from what is a very genuine threat. Despite its clever marketing campaign, and it has been clever indeed, attempting to link 9/11 with Saddam Hussein, as of this very moment, the Administration has not offered one shred of evidence to make that connection stick, nor has it demonstrated why Iraq represents any greater danger of attacking our families today than it did on September 10, or since the time we were supplying them aid. Today, we have crisscrossed Iraq with weapons inspectors. It does not even pose such a threat that its next-door neighbor, Turkey, is willing to challenge it. The Central Intelligence Agency, in reports that we forced out of the Administration, has indicated that the real threat to our families would come with an invasion to Iraq and the danger that any weapons of mass destruction might spread and affect us. Overthrowing a single tyrant, in what many will perceive to be a crusade against Islam, will ultimately jeopardize families across America as we create a generation of terrorists. Further attacks will only reinforce those here in America, who are determined to ensure our safety by trampling our civil liberties. Attacking Iraq is apparently the first step in implementing a dangerous new security policy that dramatically alters a half century's bipartisan reliance on containment that has served to protect us from villains as bad as Saddam Hussein. America will now attack first with preemptive strikes in what could spiral into wars without end because other countries are likely to copy our model. Fighting wars as a first choice, not a last choice, is a formula for international anarchy, not domestic security. A quick draw may take out the occasional tyrant, but it comes at the cost of destabilizing the world, disrupting the hope for international law and order, and, ultimately, it makes all of us unsafe. True security certainly requires a strong military and a willingness to use it. We are strong enough to conquer Iraq and others, but we must be wise enough to rely on our many other strengths to rid the world of dangers. Ultimately, imposing our will by force unites our enemies and divides our allies. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld may dismiss our major partners as ``Old Europe,'' but many yearn for ``Old America'' that collectively and successfully worked to prevent and remove threats to peace and ensure the safety of our families. This is not a choice between ``war'' and ``appeasement.'' Rather, the better alternative is to isolate Saddam Hussein and unite both his neighbors and our allies behind an aggressive inspection and weapons destruction program. We know that the real cost of war is paid in blood. But Americans are already paying for this war at the gas pump. And with so few allies, hundreds of billions of our tax dollars that could be spent on the needs of Americans will be spent abroad. A robust debate in an elected Congress on whether war should be waged with Iraq is the sign of a strong democracy. Unfortunately, this year, that debate took place in Turkey, not here in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what began as the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act'' for those bravely serving around the world, a bill to ensure that their families would not be taxed on the small, $6,000 death benefit payable to those families when someone is killed in conflict, that bill has now been totally perverted. The Republican leadership has desecrated the noble purpose of this bipartisan legislation. In addition to the tax-free winnings for foreigners on horse races that was already in the bill, last night, in a truly shameful act, the House Republican leadership insisted on including in this military tax fairness bill an amnesty provision for corporate tax dodgers for the ``ex-patriots'' who have renounced America and planted their mailbox in the sands of Bermuda, even following the horrible attacks of September 11, in order to avoid paying their fair share of our military and other needs, the Republicans want to grant them amnesty. While Americans are concerned with protecting their families, they need to know that the leadership of this House has launched a sneak attack to protect the corporate expatriates who have renounced America, and they do so in a misnamed bill, the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying that I find the comments of the last speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), to be very troubling. Each of the three organizations that he identified, the Association of Professional Texas Educators, the Texas State Teachers Association, and the American Federation of Teachers, oppose this bill. They have submitted written testimony when at least one of those organization's representatives was stranded in Austin because of an ice storm. It is fine to talk about teachers; this Republican leadership though has a chance to act. Today they talk about leveling the playing field. It is just that they want to level the playing field down instead of leveling the playing field up. The Texas teachers who have tried to protect themselves from this terrible government pension offset have confronted a Republican leadership that has been in control here for the last eight years. What have they done about the windfall elimination provision or the government pension offset during that time? They filed a bill that a lot of us have cosponsored. They could have had a hearing in the subcommittee last week on that bill. But what did they choose to do? They took a bill that passed unanimously, that I voted for, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) voted for, that every Member of this Chamber voted for last year, and they added a provision to it, on page 70 of the bill, section 418, a provision that is not even clearly identified in the summary of the bill. This bill has the effect of taking away a right that Texas teachers and teachers in other parts of this country have utilized and which they enjoy a perfect right to utilize. It is legal and proper for teachers to do this, and the reason they must act for themselves is that this Congress, under Republican leadership, has failed to act for them. This self-help should be of little surprise when all they hear is talk up here and when the Republican leadership will not even set this for a hearing. Yes, they had a hearing on a bill that passed unanimously last year. They just tucked in a little provision they did not tell us about that hurts the teachers of Texas and many other States. Then what did they do after they held a hearing when our teachers were stuck in an ice storm but they were so eager to move forward that they would not wait for them to get to Washington? Did they bring it up for a vote in the subcommittee? No, they did not. Did they bring it up for a vote in the full committee on Ways and Means? No, they did not. Instead they brought it directly to the floor today in a surprise move announced only a couple of legislative days after this was taken up in committee. Now they propose to bring it up under a procedure where debate is limited and we cannot even offer an amendment to take out this offending provision. Yes, I think we should do something about felons getting Social Security checks. I am ready to vote for that. But why do we have to treat our teachers like felons and deny them the benefits that they have rightly earned? The loss of a spouse is difficult enough to bear. But when a widow or a widower has devoted their lifetime to public service as a teacher often at low wages, they get another cruel surprise. When these former educators lose their husband or wife, the Social Security Administration does not send them a letter to console them in their mourning, it reduces the spousal Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the teacher's pension. That is what these teachers are concerned about. To the average retired teacher in Texas, or anywhere else, this means a loss of about $360 a month. For an elderly retiree, you can call it an ``offset,'' but for them it is mighty upsetting. Confronted with this unfair offset and the technique that teachers have had to rely on as self-help to fix this injustice, the Republican leadership has not been willing to correct the problem. Instead, they want to target the cure. What a contrast, too, with the rest of their legislative package. The Republicans could have fixed this injustice in a separate bill or they could have fixed this injustice in the bill that they are going to be taking up tomorrow, that began as a very appropriate, unanimously supported bill much like this one. It is called the ``Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act,'' and it is designed to treat our Armed Forces fairly as they serve in harm's way throughout the world. But what began as a bill to help our Armed Forces has been debased with measures that would allow foreigners to bet on horse races tax- free, certainly good news to the Turks and the French; it would exempt fishing tackle boxes from an excise tax; and exempt bows and arrows from a similar tax. I support tax fairness for our military because they secure our country. But I also support retirement security for our teachers because they build the foundation upon which our democracy rests. The Republican leadership is today tackling the issue of tackle boxes, but it tells our teachers to ``Go fish.'' They will cut bow and arrow taxes but put a bulls-eye on teachers. Surely we can also fix the injustice that this offset inflicts on America's educators. We ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill and we have a message to this entire Congress that has not been heard, apparently by even some of our own representatives, but certainly not by the sneaky tactics that got this provision in the bill. That message, is, ``Don't mess with Texas.'' [Doggett holds bumper sticker] Don't mess with Texas teachers. Vote ``no'' on this bad bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this Administration has refused to account to the American people for the probable cost in both blood and money of a massive land invasion of Iraq. One of the most bizarre aspects of events in recent weeks has been the bazaar that has been going on in Turkey, where the Administration has sought to buy a ``coalition of the willing.'' This bill appears to be a part of that effort. The Turkish provision, which I questioned last year in committee because the same treatment was not being accorded to Armenia, has, according to the chairman, been dropped from this bill. Apparently, action on trade with Turkey has little to do with what is good trade policy, but everything to do with what constitutes good policy to create a ``coalition of the billing.'' When Turkey was to be a member of that coalition, it was in the trade bill. Now that its parliament has voted to deny the use of its land for an invasion of Iraq, when over 90 percent of the people of Turkey oppose that invasion, the provision has been unceremoniously stripped from the bill. Indeed, more and more Americans watching this, and perhaps it is not a very good play on words, are asking, ``How much gravy does Turkey really need?'' The trade benefits that were in this bill are in addition to what is apparently $15 billion to $30 billion of American tax dollars that will be given to the Turks. Surely if we had $15 billion to $30 billion we could apply it to strengthen our veterans' health care system. Could we not take some of that $15 billion to $30 billion and use it for the $9 billion on which the President broke his word when he said he would provide full funding for the ``Left No Child Behind Act'' and now says we lack enough money to fund? I think when President Kennedy talked about ``paying any price in the defense of liberty'' in his inaugural address, he did not have in mind this bill and the bidding at the bazaar in Turkey, and in other countries, has been about. It seems to me that the ``shuttle diplomacy'' in which the first President Bush worked so effectively to build an international coalition against Iraq (even though he stopped short) in the first Gulf war seems to have been replaced with ``checkbook diplomacy'' and bills like this. If only the American people could learn how much of our taxpayer dollars are being diverted from education and veterans' health care and other needs within the United States to give it to the Turks and the other people who vote on the U.N. Security Council. I wish we knew those totals. We cannot find out the cost of the war in either blood or money. We cannot even find out the cost of the bribes that are being paid to get a coalition to join us. So, I will vote for this bill, but I think the Turkish provision ought to be considered on its merits, rather than unceremoniously dropped for reasons that have nothing to do with good trade policy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, with one voice we unite to thank, bless, and pray for America's sons and daughters in uniform who puts themselves in harm's way for our country. For their sacrifice, for the sacrifice of their families, no mere resolution is sufficient to express our gratitude. In our democracy, our military is ultimately led by our elected civilian leaders and this division of power is one source of our country's strength and stability. I have no disagreement with our service men and women who obey their duties and carry out their orders. My only disagreement, my very strong disagreement, rests with President Bush over Iraq, not with those who bravely execute his commands. Last month at the Texas Capitol I spoke to 10,000 of our neighbors who joined me in seeking a solution without war. My previous speech at that spot was to honor our veterans' service in defense of freedom, the very liberty that allows us to express our dissent. Saluting our military is not the same as saluting the civilian decisions that heighten the danger to our soldiers, while diverting the resources needed to protect Americans from genuine threats. As we praise America's young men and women who do their duty, we in this Congress should dedicate ourselves in doing our own duty--working to bring them all safely home. And I would add that I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) because this is the type of bipartisan resolution that rightly brings us together as Americans, instead of dividing us with inflammatory rhetoric and tearing us asunder. I hope we have more resolutions in this spirit in this House.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, for over 25 years, a concerned group of Austinites now operating as SafePlace have delivered invaluable services to victims of domestic violence. Special thanks go to Kelly White for her leadership and to Laura Wolf for her development work during these tough economic times. I joined them yesterday here in the Capitol to hear the moving words of Kimberley Wisseman and announce the involvement of SafePlace with the Office for Victims of Crimes in expanding services across the country at 10 different sites, from Tucson to Worcester, to assist individuals with disabilities, who have about twice the rate of victimization from domestic violence as those who are without disabilities. Despite our concerted efforts to address domestic violence, the Department of Justice reported just last week that there were almost 600,000 cases of violence against women in America during 2001. Of these, at least one in five involve domestic violence. That is why it is so very important that we here in Congress act to provide full federal funding under the Violence Against Women Act to support local efforts like SafePlace, to give them the resources to both counsel and assist those who are victims of domestic violence, but, equally important, to prevent it in the future.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be clear on H.R. 743. Does the Chair have us for a record vote? If not, I will ask for a record vote at this time.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, an old maxim ``the more you know, the better your decision,'' underlies my introduction of the ``Corporate Accountability Tax Gap Act.'' We need this legislation because of the growing gap between what corporate America claims as giant profits to lure investors--called ``book'' profits and what it reports as little income to the Internal Revenue Service--called ``tax'' profits. While not compelling closure of this gap, this bill would require publicly traded corporations to report, and in some cases, to explain the discrepancy. Like the canary in the coal mine, a little bit of transparency in accounting would be a ``WorldCom,'' ``Enron,'' and all those other corporate scandals ``early warning system'' to avoid a repeat of this past three long years of stock market losses and to root out abusive tax shelter schemes. To those who say ``what you don't know can't hurt you,'' I submit as Exhibit A a new 2,800-page report on the Enron scandal that has been reviewed before the Senate Finance Committee. Those 2,800 pages represent essentially about 2,800 reasons why ``trust'' is no longer a substitute for ``verify'' when it comes to corporate income. This report on Enron's financial and tax shenanigans is longer than any Charles Dickens novel but no less bleak. This report released by the Joint Committee on Taxation documents that in four years Enron glowingly bragged of $2.3 billion in income to its shareholders, while at the same time it was reporting $3 billion in losses, not income, to the IRS. The $5 billion Enron credibility gap is not unique. In the last year for which we have data, there was an estimated $159 billion gap between book earnings that corporations report to investors and taxable earnings reported to the IRS. Too often investors read a rosy earnings report, while at tax time, Uncle Sam hears only regrets written in red ink. In the words of Wall Street Journal columnist Alan Murray, ``it's increasingly clear that lying to shareholders and lying to the IRS are just opposite sides of the same coin.'' The ``Crooked E'' had many enablers, but ultimately much of the blame belongs right here in this Congress, which was unwilling to make the changes necessary to prevent Enron-type debacles. Last year, the Senate Finance Committee demanded the Enron report and held hearings. In the House, unfortunately, the Committee on Ways and Means washed its hands of the entire matter. It was not interested in inspecting the Enron reports. It refused to hold a hearing, much less report a bill out of committee. The Republican leadership feared that if we lifted that rock just a little, the public would be outraged by what crawled out concerning corporate misconduct. I ask today that my colleagues help me lift the rock, just a little, by supporting the ``Corporate Accountability Tax Gap Act.'' In this Enron report, one tax promoter touts itself as an ``Architect of value.'' This architect, though, only built facades, created only virtual value to defraud investors and the government alike. This report shows that Enron patterned some of its tricks after what other corporations were doing. Indeed, in only the last few days we have had a spate of corporate scandals, including the grocer Ahold and the phone company Sprint, which indicates that much more work remains to be done. Certainly not all of the book/tax gap comes from accounting gains, but a Harvard Business School study last year determined that more than half of the gap could not be explained by common tax deductions. Tricky leasing games and off-balance sheet transactions can hide financial difficulties while artificially inflating earnings. If a corporation's biggest profit center is its tax department, the investors need to know it. Under my bill, publicly-traded companies would disclose the bottom- line net income tax that they paid as well as the federal income tax expense they reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The gap between the two would be exposed for all to see and to explore. Continued secrecy is not in the public interest. A host of Enron executives have demonstrated the truth of former Chief Justice Earl Warren's remark that ``it would be difficult to name a more efficient ally of corruption than secrecy.'' Finally, my bill would commit the Treasury Department, working together with Congress, to report promptly on a study of this troubling book/tax gap and recommend further appropriate changes. The scope of the problem and the harm it can inflict on hard-working investors, especially seniors with limited retirement income, have motivated strong public interest and an endorsement from Citizens Works and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Allowing a few to dodge their fair share of support for our national security and other needs means increasing the burden on honest Americans. Restoring investors' confidence in the market means arming them with more than glossy, self-serving, shareholder reports. Protecting hard-working Americans' investments means approving the ``Corporate Accountability Tax Gap Act'' to assist the public in deciding whether financial reports are based on facts or fairy tales.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of a broader, tragic political agenda to stymie good science with scare tactics. It fails totally to distinguish between cloning or reproducing human beings--a frightful prospect that all of us reject--and therapeutic cloning, which someday could save the lives of millions. The therapeutic form, the transplanting of a patient's DNA into an unfertilized egg in order to grow stem cells, could cure devastating diseases. The promise of this technology would be that the patient's body accepts the cells from transplantation without immuno-suppressant drugs. These cells are not transplanted into a woman's womb. In what is deliberate overreaching, this bill bans somatic cell nuclear transfer, which produces only stem cells, not babies. First, we Americans were told to use duct tape to seal up our rooms. Now, with this bill, the Republican leadership places duct tape over the microscopes of dedicated medical scientists who are leading the effort to find the cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, cancer, spinal cord injuries and cystic fibrosis. At a time when we are alarmed daily by the possibility of biological attacks from afar, this bill represents a very real and present biological attack on the victims of these tragic diseases, diseases that strike Americans down in a nonpartisan manner. They deserve a nonpartisan solution. For most parents, it is traumatic enough to take a child to the hospital for a tonsillectomy or a broken bone. How cruel that for lingering diseases that can slowly drain the happiness, the energy, and the life from a child, one of the best hopes for treatment that we have would be completely denied by this bill. I think of the Austin mother who wrote to me about her diabetic five- year-old. She told of her baby who suffered through 4 to 8 insulin shots a day. Now, as a toddler, she undergoes 10 to 15 pricks a day to test her blood sugar. Her mom wrote: ``Our daughter is a lively girl who is optimistic by nature. We would like to see this horrible disease cured before her optimism fades.'' Let us not put politics over life-saving science. The restrictions in this bill are truly unprecedented. It bans private as well as public research. It says even to the victim of disease, ``if you go abroad,'' where medical science will certainly move if this tragic bill is adopted, ``you are not only getting treatment, you are getting a jail term, because you are a criminal under this bill for seeking a cure or treatment for your disease.'' Restrictive federal regulations already deny sufficient stem cell lines to conduct essential research. This bill does more than tie the hands of our best scientists; it steals precious time that victims do not have; it robs them of hope; it is, for too many, a death sentence. Those innocent victims are not criminals; this bill is. Do not make Americans choose between health and their homeland. Vote to end suffering. Vote for hope. Vote ``no.''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, with so much attention devoted to Iraq, money is now being diverted from quality child care as well. The Republicans' own Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the next 5 years, for every dollar that is required for child care and other associated costs of the goal of moving people from welfare to work, this Republican bill will provide one very thin dime. This leaves a gap, a ``window of vulnerability'' of 90 cents on that dollar. In Texas alone, we will require $688 million that this bill is not providing to meet the needs of our children and to fulfill the work requirements of this legislation. It does not take satellite surveillance photos to see the irrefutable proof in our own neighborhoods that too many children will not have the child care or the child protective services that they need and will be left in neglect. This is a ticking time bomb in our own country, not on the other side of the world, and it can be diffused by providing the essential dollars that even their estimators say will be required to ensure quality child care and to get people to work. Otherwise, these families already rowing hard against a severe current of trouble, are now told that they will be left without a paddle. This Administration and its allies here in Congress are all too willing to raid Social Security and Medicare to build smart bombs, but what about smart kids and opportunities for them? The gap between this Administration and its Leave-No-Child-Behind policy and the reality of leaving scores of children behind is a scandal. Only in the sense that every child today will be forced to pay off the huge public debt have we left no child behind. As my friend and State senator from Texas Eliot Shapleigh said, ``In a society that values tax breaks over kids, ultimately it is the kids, their education, our prosperity, and America's ability to compete that will pay the price.'' Inaction is not a solution. We cannot sit here doing so very little to meet the needs of our next generation of Americans. What we need is a coalition of the willing, a coalition of the willing to vote ``yes'' on a meaningful Democratic alternative to ensure that our youth are given a chance to become productive members of society instead of a burden to America.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do find most objectionable a procedure that brings up important legislation after many Members have departed. It is particularly ironic that this bill which has not been before any committee of the House or voted upon by any Member of the House up until tonight and which deals with open government should be brought up in this manner. A genuine commitment to openness and public participation requires applying these concepts to more than just the bills that one may not like or be opposed to. The need for a more complete discussion of this particular bill is all the more apparent because of the extended history surrounding it. This bill seeks to correct a problem that was produced by a process not unlike that we are having tonight. In other words, the error that this bill seeks to address is the result of a hurried-up process that did not involve full participation by all in this House. This measure concerns the first substantive reform of our campaign laws that occurred during the period from 1979 all the way up until the year 2000. And in the spring of 2000 it became apparent that the use of stealth PACS, that is, a form of political action committee in which the donors and the expenditures would not be known, so-called 527 committees, might become a significant factor in the political activity of that year. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation in the spring of 2000 to put a stop to this, and sought unsuccessfully on at least two occasions in the Committee on Ways and Means and here on the floor of the House to correct this problem but was blocked on the floor at least by fairly narrow efforts in getting those reforms adopted. Finally, after months of delay, the House Republican leadership reversed course and brought up a 527 bill for consideration in this House, but it did so late at night, even later than tonight here in Washington, with the bill text presented essentially as the floor consideration got under way. No amendments were permitted and the debate was truncated. Because this process occurred in this way and because the bill was presented rapidly, it was also presented sloppily. And as a result of the sloppy way in which it was presented, some problems were created. During the full Committee on Ways and Means consideration of this issue, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) and I had offered a comprehensive alternative. That was an alternative that recognized that State and local elected officials were already filing some of these reports and that they ought not to have to pay the price for the need to reform at the Federal level by having to make duplicative filings. None of that language that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) and I proposed was included in the bill that was rushed through the House late one evening in an effort to prevent broader 527 reform. The bill was quickly signed into law and by September of the year 2000 it became apparent that there was a problem for State and local officials. More and more of them recognized they were now going to have burdensome and in some cases conflicting reporting requirements at the Federal level, in addition to the reports that they were already filing at the State or local level. Accordingly, I introduced legislation in September of the year 2000 to correct the problem that I had not created. I recognized then that while this was not a bipartisan problem, it did deserve a bipartisan solution. Unfortunately, the same people who created the problem refused to correct it in the year 2000. In the new Congress of 2001 I refiled legislation to address this problem and indeed even tried to move it on the Corrections Calendar of this House; but, again, the same crowds expressed their objection to doing so and to correcting a problem for which our State and local officials have had to file duplicative reports during all this time. Finally, in April of this year, almost 2 years after this problem had been created, one got an indication of why it had never been corrected when H.R. 3391 was offered. That was the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act to which at the last minute provisions dealing with 527s were added in the Committee on Ways and Means. I referred then in committee and on the floor to that as a loophole exploitation act because it attempted to undermine the bipartisan campaign finance law called the Shays-Meehan Act even before that law could take effect. In the committee, I offered as an alternative language that Senator Hutchinson from Texas and Senator Lieberman had proposed in the Senate, offered it verbatim to deal with this issue of duplicative reporting without opening new loopholes. That was also rejected in the committee on the same basis that earlier legislation had been rejected on a party line vote. Fortunately, this House on a bipartisan basis rejected H.R. 3391, what I would refer to as the loophole exploitation act. And it is only that action of the House in rejecting that measure that presents us this opportunity tonight. Because as I read it, H.R. 5596 basically takes the language that I offered in the Committee on Ways and Means earlier in the year, language that sought to offer a bipartisan approach to this and builds on it in a couple of ways. It first adds a provision that the public should be made fully aware of that will exempt Members of this House, Members of the House and Senate, Federal, State and local candidate committees and national party committees from filing what is known as the 990 information form. That is information that we would not been required to file in the past. It is information that is really designed for charities, nonprofits, to file. And it is most cumbersome and awkward, as all Members have found when they prepared their 990 forms this year, to apply it to Members of Congress because the IRS has not changed the form to reflect the fact that we are in a different situation and there are different needs for information and the filing of forms for individuals in a political situation than occurs for nonprofits around the country. So many of the questions are inapplicable. It has been a problem for many to complete that form. I suppose that changing this provision is not a great loss, but it is clear that less information will be available than exists under the current law there. And in return for that change made, there are some other changes that I think are positive. These are modest changes, but they are changes that will make more accessible the access to information on Web sites. So that the information as I proposed back in the year 2000 for electronic filing would occur but there would be a searchable Web site. And it is because these provisions seem to have merit and because I have been advised by my colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) who I know has worked diligently to try to bring people together behind this proposal, that I am advised by him that the Senate is ready if we act on this measure tonight in this unusual way to approve it immediately without any language changes before the recess, and that this process will assure that the measure gets signed into law immediately and will accelerate the pace at which this modest improvement in public access to the 527 data begins to occur, that I agree, and only because of that, to this very extraordinary process. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) who I am sure has some words he wants to say about this process.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, hoping that the gentleman from Texas is correct about all aspects of the bill and appreciative of his comments, I remove my reservation.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, to the occasional charge of ``hand- wringing'' and ``weakness'' leveled at the many of us who are voting today against this resolution, perhaps the same could be said of this statement: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.'' But this statement comes from American patriots, our first President Bush and his National Security Adviser General Scowcroft, in explaining why they rejected the approach some urge today. As most Democrats today vote against launching a ground invasion of Iraq, we must candidly recognize that some of the most insightful arguments supporting our position were advanced by Republicans and military leaders like Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf, and Zinni. Party affiliations will not be chiseled on the gravestones of young Americans who die to win this war, nor on those of the American families jeopardized by diverting precious resources from the real war on terrorism, nor those harmed by new terrorists provoked by what too many will view as a new crusade against Islam. Why in the face of overwhelming support do so many of us vote ``no'' today? We respond not just to those we represent but, most of all, because individually we must answer to the face we see each day in the mirror. We must answer to history. We must answer to our children and our grandchildren. When more than one of every four members of this House cast our vote against this ill-considered resolution, we vote not against President Bush, who deserves our support and respect, but aware of the conflicting advice he is still receiving we say: listen to the voices of your better nature. The prudent remains--first, attempt holding Iraq accountable through effective, comprehensive international inspections.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today, we must speak not with one voice, but as one democracy--giving voice to the millions of Americans increasingly concerned with an Administration's deliberate choice to make the terrible weapon of war a predominant instrument in its foreign policy. Among the more than three thousand communications I have received from my neighbors in Central Texas concerned with this rush to inflame a region that is as volatile as the oil it holds, is that of Bill Hilgers, a World War II veteran with 30 bombing missions over Germany and a Purple Heart. He writes, ``No one can foresee the potential damage [to] our troops or citizens. . . . We stake our future on an unprecedented breach of our moral principles . . . and our past commitment to peace. [W]e should . . . use every diplomatic strategy . . . to see that Iraq's weapons are destroyed before [using] military force.'' A more recent veteran, General Norman Schwarzkopf, writing of the Gulf War, was more direct: ``I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit.'' [``It Doesn't Take a Hero, Bantam Books, 1992, page 498] The house-to-house urban warfare that would likely result from a land invasion would endanger our soldiers, detract from our ongoing war on terrorism, and expose our families to terrorism for years to come, in what to many in that part of the world would perceive as a war on Islam. Many Americans are asking, ``how best do we protect our families?'' And, ``do they know something in Washington that we do not know?'' From our briefings in Congress, we do know something about which the public is uncertain and fearful. We have been shown no evidence that Iraq is connected to 9/11. We have been shown no evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the security of American families today. From Central Intelligence Agency reports, secret until very recently and finally released, we know that terrorism, not Iraq, is the real threat. The CIA has concluded that an American invasion of Iraq is more likely to drive our enemies together against us and certainly more likely to make Saddam Hussein use any weapons of mass destruction that he may possess. How do we make our families safe at this time? Certainly, through a military second to none, yes. Through effective law enforcement here at home, yes. But arms alone are insufficient protection, as the tragedy of September 11 demonstrated all too well. True security means working together with nations, large and small. It means that we must be wise enough to rely on America's other strengths to rid the world of Iraq's danger, rather than unilaterally imposing our will by force that will only unite our enemies while dividing our natural allies. Overreliance on packing the biggest gun and on having the fastest draw, will not make us safer. Rather, it is a formula for international anarchy. A quick draw may eliminate the occasional villain, but only at the cost of destabilizing the world, disrupting the hope for international law and order, and, ultimately endangering each of our families. President Bush has correctly said, I would not trust Saddam Hussein with one American life. What fool would trust him? But that is not our choice today. Nor is it a choice between ``war'' and ``doing nothing,'' or between ``war'' and ``appeasement.'' The better choice today is for effective, comprehensive, international inspections and the disarmament of Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that we believe it possesses. The better choice is to follow the prudent, indeed the conservative approach, a firm policy of containment that kept the threat to American families at bay. Abandoning that successful policy, a policy which Ronald Reagan used against another ``evil empire,'' abandoning that policy which avoided nuclear Armageddon, abandoning that policy which we used successfully against Muammar Qadhafi--that abandonment will place America on a truly perilous path. Containment and disarmament may not end all wars, but they are clearly superior to the new ``first-strike'' formula that risks wars without end. America has the might and right to defend itself against imminent threats to its security, even unilaterally. If in fact the quality of the President's evidence matched the quality of his oratory, I would be ``ready to roll.'' The President does not need us to consent to saber rattle, but let him return to Congress if he has any clear evidence, not yet provided, to show us it is time to let the saber strike. With this daily talk of war overshadowing all our hopes and dreams for this country and world, I would address my final remarks to those who are struggling with how to respond. Continue to thoughtfully, respectfully but forcefully voice your opposition. Do not lose hope. Petition for peace. Pray for peace. Do not give up on peace. Let us work together for an America that remains, indeed, a beacon for the world, that joins with its allies in ensuring the collective security of families here and around the globe.