Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in a little over three months, my wife, Libby, and I will celebrate our 34th wedding anniversary. But I recognize that not every family in this country and every individual in this country has been as fortunate as we have. Some have had their marriages cut short by war. Indeed, the very disparity in the Tax Code that is currently called the marriage penalty originated when a World War II widow, who had lost her husband in the defense of our country during the great victory in World War II, came to Congress and said: ``I lost my husband. Why should I have to pay higher taxes than those who did not lose their husband and remain married?'' She said, ``This constitutes discrimination against widows.'' In response, the Congress tried, though not with great perfection, to correct that penalty. This is not a debate about the marriage penalty. I have yet to meet a Member of this Congress, in any of the several sessions we have taken up this measure, that has not voted in one form or another to correct the marriage penalty. This is totally about distraction from the ineptness of this Congress. Now, the specific proposal that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is advocating is very relevant to our current time. Because, clearly, since Americans will have to do almost all the dying in the war that the Administration wants to start against Saddam Hussein, we will have more war widows in this country. And under the proposal of the gentleman from Illinois, he proposes that those war widows and widowers will have to pay higher taxes than married couples in the same situation. Additionally, if a woman leaves her husband because she has been battered, she will have to pay higher taxes than a similar woman in the same situation who remains married. If one chooses to be single for whatever reason that individual also will have to pay higher taxes than those in a similar situation who choose to be married. This is a single person's discrimination act. It does not maintain neutrality without regard to marriage, as it should. That neutrality concept is the one that I favor for our tax code. There is one aspect of this tax program that has been completely effective, and I think credit is due to the gentleman from Illinois, the Republicans, and the Administration for its effectiveness. If you are an investor and you are getting your third quarter statement about now, you show only losses, no gains. These folks have given you a 100 percent tax cut with this Bush stock market because you do not have any investment income on which to pay taxes. So that aspect of their program has been very effective in cutting taxes. If you are one of the more than 2 million people who have lost their job since the beginning of last year, you have no earnings to report. Republicans have provided a 100 percent tax cut for you. This economy and the whole legislative process related to it, have been very effective in reducing the taxes for some Americans. Unfortunately, because Republicans, through this and related resolutions, focus on what might happen in 2011 instead of what is happening in 2002, this has left many Americans behind; many Americans with empty pockets. So these Americans will not be paying any taxes, but they will not have any income either.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia for his help on this legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the committee, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chairman who was very helpful to us during the subcommittee proceedings on this legislation, which has now been appended to some legislation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). Mr. Speaker, I would also want to recognize the contribution of Mayor Gus Garcia of Austin. He ably presented the city's case for this legislation in his first testimony before the Congress as our mayor. After witnessing the catastrophic floods that struck central Texas earlier this year, many people may wonder why we need to conserve water. But, in fact, though we have some mighty powerful rivers, we also have a mighty thirsty State. Austin is a city that has been blessed with many resources. We believe that by conserving these resources in part through this bill that we will have an ample water supply in the future. This legislation will enable the city of Austin, with the assistance of the Bureau of Reclamation, to conserve our water supply through planning and development of a project to reclaim and reuse treated wastewater. The initiative will reduce demand on Austin's water supply and conserve water for human consumption. It is estimated that the project can save as much as 9 billion gallons of water each year. Austin is already a recognized leader in water resource planning, and with this Federal legislative backup, our community can further address water conservation and sustainable development. The growth of the city of Austin has been tremendous in the last decade and has presented us with challenges, one of which is planning for our water needs. This legislation will help assure that. The water reclamation project will provide assistance to beneficiaries as diverse as the city itself, from municipal parks to schools to industrial facilities. Indeed, our high-tech manufacturing plants are major water consumers and with this legislation they are assured not only greater water availability, but water at a lesser cost, which is very important to them. Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Ben Franklin who said, ``When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.'' Fortunately, there is no danger of the Colorado River running dry, but there are many demands on water rights from that river, and it is well that through this legislation we move forward progressively, working with the Federal Government and the Bureau of Reclamation to assure that we have our water needs met in the future.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, tonight at 6 o'clock at Freedom Plaza at 13th and Pennsylvania, a number of area religious leaders will gather in a prayer vigil for peace. This afternoon, several of the victims from 9/11 will be here to affirm that they think peace is the better course, particularly since there has been a total inability of the Administration to connect the terrorist events of 9/11 with Iraq. I believe that Americans must pray and must petition their elected representatives here in the Congress to be more than a speed bump on the fast track to war in Iraq, a war that will take thousands of lives, a war that will take hundreds of billions of dollars from American taxpayers. Now is the time to speak out and speak out firmly in favor of the security of our country and our families, and doing it in a constructive and reasonable way, not by launching a war against a despot in Iraq.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Members of Congress must thoughtfully reflect on their neighbors' concerns and not serve as a mere speed bump on a fast road to war. This Administration has failed to provide evidence to us here in the Congress, either secretly or publicly, that Saddam Hussein, a despicable dictator, represents an imminent threat to Americans, that he had a role in the tragedy of 9-11, or is in any way directly linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network, or that his danger to the world has significantly changed since 9-11. If such evidence exists, the President should come forward and ask for a declaration of war. Instead, the President has today submitted to the Congress the draft of a sweeping resolution that would, if approved and implemented fully by the Administration, commit thousands to death and extract billions from the pockets of American taxpayers. It is interesting to contrast this resolution with that enacted in August of 1964 upon which the Vietnam War was fought, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. At minimum, this Congress would do well to narrow the President's request today to the overly expansive language of the Gulf of Tonkin, which did at least limit the Commander in Chief ``to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.'' The resolution also provided that we would react if a member state of a particular defense treaty of which we were a member was ``requesting assistance in defense of its own freedom.'' President Bush is seeking much, much greater authority than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I believe that it is very important for Americans to realize that launching a war against Saddam Hussein, despot that he is, will entail costs far beyond the battlefield. In addition to questioning why young Americans will be almost alone to die in order to win this war, there will be extraordinary costs that will touch the lives of every family in America--costs that will certainly require reaching into the pocket of every taxpayer in this country. This week on the front page of no less a publication than the Wall Street Journal, President Bush's top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated that the cost of waging this war in which this Nation is about to embark may rise as high as $200 billion. That is ``billion'' with a ``B''. That is billions that take away the hopes and dreams of so many of us for the opportunities that this country could afford. That is $200 billion with a ``B'' that could be available to ensure a life of dignity for many older Americans; and provide economic security, healthcare, prescription drugs, and strengthen Social Security for our baby boomers. That is billion with a ``B'' that will not be available to assure the educational hopes and opportunities of a generation of young Americans. It is billions with a ``B'' that will be spent on war in Iraq, instead of being spent to address our many other types of security needs here at home. The $200 billion estimate, as high as it is, may be misleadingly low. We do not know whether this includes the prolonged occupation of Iraq and all of the associated costs, which Vice President Cheney has admitted are an essential part of this war; the rebuilding of Iraq, installing a new regime, wherever that might come from, as well as, of course, the much higher prices all of us can expect to pay as a result of increases in the price of oil. According to the same Wall Street Journal article, other Administration economists say their main fear is that an Iraq war could lead to a sustained spike in [oil] prices. This estimate also does not include the cost of the war widening if, for example one of our few allies decides to become involved, and as a result other oil suppliers no longer supply that oil and there is additional regional conflict. ``Whatever the bottom line,'' the Wall Street Journal reports, ``the war's cost would be significant enough to make it harder'', much harder, ``for the Bush Administration to climb out of the budget deficit hole,'' which, I would add, grows deeper and deeper. So I would urge our colleagues to review this resolution very closely, offer their ideas, informed by their constituencies, and seek to work with President Bush to bring us together in favor of effective international arms inspection, instead of leading us into a war that cannot be justified based on present evidence.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, certainly we need more incentives to recruit and retain the best public school teachers possible. The many who currently are underpaid and overworked need additional incentives. We need incentives to help our children prepare to achieve their full potential. Children confronted with schools that are in disrepair or have inadequate technology and other equipment are deprived of an educational environment where they can strive and thrive. As a product myself of the Austin public schools and the father of two children who are successful graduates of the Austin public schools, one now a teacher herself in public schools and the other a physician, I welcome a debate on incentives to improve our schools. Unfortunately, this is not that debate. This debate has little to do with public education and everything to do with political theater. We have soaring deficits as a result of the fiscal mismanagement of this country. And the solution that is offered today is to dig the hole just a little deeper by providing even more tax breaks to favor those at the top and adding that to the huge deficits that we already have. While the President some time ago adopted the slogan of the Children's Defense Fund: ``Leave no child behind,'' unfortunately, his budget this year leaves quite a few children behind. He committed to a 15 percent increase in federal education funding to address these very real needs in our public educational system, and instead he has proposed less than 3 percent. We do not need to wait for the appropriations bill to know that the President's budget leaves too many children behind across this country, and instead of addressing that today, what is proposed in this bill is that we make permanent a provision referred to as the ``Coverdell Savings Account.'' But, in fact, this is not a savings provision, it is a looting provision. It provides tax breaks equivalent to vouchers for private schools. That is what this all about, just another way to voucherize and separate and divide our public education so that we help a handful of children and we leave all the rest to suffer without the incentives and the support that we need to genuinely leave no child behind. Mr. Speaker, undermining public education undermines America. And in a democracy where the government is only as good as the people, a poorly educated populace threatens our way of life. Only an educated, informed citizenry can hold their leaders accountable, can hold their Members of Congress accountable, when they offer expensive, election- year giveaways like this bill to a select few at the expense of millions of children across this country.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, overshadowing all of our hopes and dreams for our families and for our country is the daily talk of war. This Administration's apparent intent to launch a go-it-alone invasion of another country is unprecedented in American history, it is unprecedented in ignoring the warnings of military experts, it is unprecedented in rejecting the advice of our allies and, most importantly, unprecedented in the dangers posed for the safety of American families everywhere. At one time ``regime change'' was the now-abandoned goal of our foreign policy toward an island 90 miles off our shores. Immediate success is even less certain for a regime on the other side of the world through a means uniformly rejected at present by the countries of the region. Of course, Saddam Hussein is a menace, as was Libya's Muammer Qaddafi, as was Josef Stalin. But able policymakers of both parties found ways to contain such threats without starting what could become another world war. Mr. President, unite our country and the world to eliminate weapons of mass destruction; do not divide us by making war the first instrument of your foreign policy.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. How very disappointing this afternoon that the leadership has chosen to reject a successful bipartisan initiative by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) that has already been endorsed by a number of major corporations. It seems to me that public safety should be the first, the last, and the only goal of this Homeland Security bill. Yet with this last-minute legal loophole that has been tacked onto the bill, the goal is clearly to rid corporations of responsibility for the harm their products cause. If the wrongdoer does not bear the responsibility, then who will bear the responsibility? Well, the decision the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has made is to place all of the responsibility for wrongdoing on the victim. This is basically a ``blame the victim,'' ``let-the-victim- bear-the-full-cost-of-the-wrongdoer'' approach. And the timing is so strange not only the last-minute way in which it was slipped in after the Committee on Government Reform approved the bipartisan, moderate approach, but strange timing that in a year when so many retirees, so many workers, so many investors are paying the very painful cost of corporate irresponsibility, that this Congress would say, ``let us have a little more unaccountability.'' The Reserve Officers Association, certainly no group that has been involved in any of these high-profile debates over tort issues, has stated its unqualified opposition to the special exemption that this legislation provides, noting that even unscrupulous government contractors guilty of willful misconduct will be let off the hook when they provide anti-terrorism technology to our American troops. This is not a debate about liability limits. It is a debate about corporate accountability limits, a debate about corporate responsibility limits. And I do not think we ought to limit that responsibility, particularly at this time in American history. Clearly, there are no limits to the willingness of this leadership to provide backdoor favors to their friends. Protecting Americans working at home and fighting abroad means holding corporations responsible for their misdeeds. That is what we need to do, instead of blaming the victim, instead of saying that it will be the soldiers, the fathers, the mothers, the children and other innocents, all the victims, that must pay the price for corporate misconduct. We need to make a firm statement in favor of a reasonable, bipartisan approach that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) advances.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, how many times will this Congress need to relearn the very basic lesson that an unaccountable government is an irresponsible government? When we confront difficult problems, we can either work to try to solve them, or we can seek to hide them. Without the amendment that is being advanced at the moment, it is the latter choice that is being made. Exempting so much of this new bureaucracy from the Freedom of Information Act and denying basic protections to whistleblowers is a true ticket to trouble for America. It is a ``kill-the-messenger'' and ``hide-the-body'' approach that tries to sweep all problems, including ones that endanger basic public health and safety, under the carpet by increasing the power of self-appointed censors and denying whistleblowers protection from retaliation. The only lesson that some people have learned from Enron is the value of secrecy. After all, who exposed Enron's misconduct? A whistleblower named Sheeron Watkins. Certainly no one in this Congress exposed it. Indeed, some are still trying to ignore the causes of what happened at Enron. Meanwhile, with this Administration, this is not the only place where secrecy is beloved. Just ask Vice President Cheney about his ``Energy Policy Development Group''. We can ask, but he will not tell until a court makes him do it. Congress should not shield unscrupulous employers who wield the powerful weapon of the pink slip to intimidate their workers into silence in order to conceal and perpetuate activities that endanger America. These are citizen crime-fighters, who deserve the protection that we provide crime-fighters, not our scorn. I have confidence in the power of courageous individuals to make lasting contributions to our Nation--to improve our private and public institutions. Congress should advance that interest by building in government accountability and by ensuring that our government is as open as possible, where employees are encouraged to fix security problems, not to hide them. Vote in favor of the Schakowsky amendment.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, motions like this are routinely condemned with the throw-away claim that they are ``partisan.'' Well, tonight, let us be American partisans. Let us be partisan to the loyal businesses that stay and pay their fair share to keep America strong at her time of need. Corporations that have renounced America have been lobbying overtime all over this Capitol complex this week to stop this motion. They will not pay their fair share, but they are sure ready to take their fair take of government business. American companies that stay and contribute to building this country, to keeping her secure at home and abroad, they deserve a level playing field on which to compete. If a Bermuda-bound company does not have to pay taxes on some of its income, of course it can underbid those who stay loyal to America, pay their taxes, and work here at home. We should send those who come here packing when they seek Federal contract dollars, and yet will not contribute to the security of our country. I recall a communication from a company in Houston that had this very type of situation where a competitor exited, while it remained based in Texas loyal to all of us here at home. Tonight, let us together send a bipartisan message that if companies want a slice of the American pie, they had better help bake it.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the logical extension of a very bad idea of spreading secrecy throughout our government. It would enlarge a giant black hole. You pour taxpayer money in one side and out the other side, the only thing that comes out are the government-approved leaks. For over 2 decades while the Soviet Union existed and the Berlin Wall divided Europe, the Freedom of Information Act maintained a careful balance between the public's right to know and our national security. Why today then have some leaders lost confidence in this landmark law? Well, apparently, the answer is found in the language deleted from the bill that we are now told amazingly is ``redundant''. Language that clearly assumed that lobbying contacts would be revealed has been removed. And so the clear legislative history of this bill is that when lobbyists are seeking special treatment from this new bureaucracy, no one but them and their benefactors will know it occurred. Where our public safety is at stake, when we begin by burying secrets, we will end with burying bodies. This amendment ought to be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, surely it is a true mark of success when the same Republican leadership allows this bill to reach the floor after they refused to respond years ago with genuine change, and, even after the Enron fiasco, they rejected strong new laws, and who only a few hours ago this very week were trying to mangle the determined reform efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and Mr. Sarbanes. ``Success,'' by this measure, yes. But for those who are about to retire and now see their retirement account vanished, for those who saved to support a young person obtaining a worthwhile college degree and now have only worthless securities, for those who labored in their jobs and find themselves jobless, this success comes a little too late to celebrate. They cannot even afford the champagne cork to pop. For thousands of Americans, an ounce of prevention from Congress that would have truly ensured a vigilant public watchdog instead of a toothless lapdog for corporate wrongdoers would have been worth much more than this belated pound of cure that comes long after so many have suffered so very severely. They can justifiably ask this Congress, ``Where were you when we needed you?''

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the misconduct at Enron was apparent as this House met not this morning, but at the beginning of the year. Yet, as in previous years, the House Republican leadership avoided doing anything meaningful about it. Finally today, we have overcome their continued obstructionism to take up the Sarbanes-LaFalce bill, the first genuine action to stop corporate wrongdoing. How tragic that so many investors and so many hard-working employees had to suffer while this leadership protected Kenny-boy and its other corporate pals. And even as we gather today to take our first action, this same crowd that would yield on one reform after another is now trying to misuse the Homeland Security bill to offer new ways to protect corporations who wrong people in our communities across the country, and even to go so far as to authorize government contracts to be issued to politically powerful corporations who abandon their American citizenship and leave our country. We must prevent this misconduct from happening.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, we approach the midnight hour here in Washington, in our Nation's Capital. This bill was first noticed for consideration by the House less than 3 hours ago. One hour ago copies of the bill were not available for Members to review, and, in the time since then, there are fewer Members present here tonight than there are members of the National Security Committee. Any bill that authorizes the expenditure of $10 billion of taxpayer money for any purpose, no matter how worthy or important to the Nation, deserves better consideration than this. It is outrageous to be taking up such a matter under these conditions. Seldom has a day in recent weeks gone by without some administration official or commentator suggesting that the salvation for our Nation's security lies in expanding use of nuclear weapons, or that our Nation should alter its traditions by launching a surprise attack, or just a simple but dangerous cry, ``on to Baghdad.'' Each of these alternatives would do more to undermine the security of American families than to assure that security. We need a full and complete debate about such a major change in our national defense policy. No administration official has been able to connect a regime in Iraq, that all of us despise, to the terrorism of September 11. If they could, they surely would have done so by now. I am pleased that no one here tonight speaking in support of this bill claims that this bill is anything more than what I would term an attempt to put some limits, however modest they may be, on what otherwise would have been a $10 billion slush fund that the administration requested. If the administration wishes to make the case that it should invade Iraq, or any other country, for that matter, not connected to the events directly of September 11, it needs to come to this Congress and come to this country and make its case, not at midnight, but in the full light of day.

Mr. DOGGETT. Which is a very narrow resolution tying it to the events of September 11?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, so do I understand that this in no way authorizes the expenditure of monies for any attack on the nation of Iraq?

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this week, with the support of over 60 of our colleagues, I am introducing major law enforcement legislation both to prevent crime and to promote the health of Americans and people around the world. The Tobacco Smuggling Eradication Act seeks to slow illicit trafficking in tobacco, the world's most widely smuggled legal consumer product. Across America this year alone some 17 States have already approved cigarette tax hikes. Increasing the price of cigarettes is one of the most effective ways of discouraging children from a lifetime of nicotine addiction. While each tax increase advances public health, it also increases the incentives for smuggling cheaper, ``tax-free'' black market tobacco. At a time of tight budgets, State and Federal authorities in the United States are suffering losses of more than $1.5 billion each year in evaded cigarette taxes. By cracking down on smuggling, we can collect this much-needed revenue. With prices rising as high as $7 a pack in New York City, the need is even greater to stop those who offer smokers a nicotine hit without a tax hit. The same incentives that exist here in America exist around the world when American tobacco is exported--from Canada to Iraq, from China to Colombia. Of all cigarettes manufactured within the United States for export, it is estimated that from one in three to one in four of those cigarettes will be sold illegally without collection of taxes. Internal tobacco company documents indicate that big tobacco companies themselves know that their cigarettes are sold to distributors and agents who will smuggle them illegally. In too many cases they have carefully overseen and even directed the actions of smuggling intermediaries, ensuring that customers have access to these lower black market prices. The health consequences of smuggling are severe because the number of nicotine-addicted children and poor increases dramatically with the availability of cheap tobacco. The World Bank reports that within the next two decades, tobacco will become the single biggest cause of premature death worldwide accounting for 10 million deaths each year. That is the equivalent of 70 jet planes crashing every single day, and 70 percent of these deaths will occur in developing countries that are least able to fend off the giant tobacco companies and protect their families. These are unique individuals who will choke to death with emphysema, wither away with lung cancer, or suffer the severe pain of a heart attack. If urgent action is not taken, tobacco will soon end even more lives than the combined total of all to be killed by AIDS, tuberculosis, maternal deaths in childbirth, automobile accidents, homicides, and suicides. In preparing this bill, I have worked closely with Federal and State authorities to develop measures that will help them better crack down on tobacco tax evaders. This bill will enable law enforcement officials to share information with foreign countries about international smuggling and authorize new tools to combat smuggling within the US. To prevent diversion, this bill requires that packages of tobacco products be labeled to facilitate tracing them and verifying their manufacturing source. Packages for export must also clearly be labeled for export to prevent illegal reentry. Additionally, this bill will close the distribution chain and prevent transfers from the legal market by requiring retailers and wholesalers to maintain documents that law enforcement needs to monitor tobacco shipments. Essential Action and other public interest groups indicated in a briefing paper by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance that requiring wholesalers, manufacturers and import-export business to be licensed would be one of the ``most effective interventions against large-scale smuggling.'' With the additional permitting requirements in this bill, the US would meet this objective. While, unfortunately, the Bush Administration has been largely an obstacle rather than a force for constructive international action to address nicotine addiction, I am pleased that next week in New York City, the United States will host the International Conference on Illicit Tobacco Trade. I encourage the Administration to actively support this Tobacco-Smuggling Eradication Act, which the American Lung Association and a number of other major public health groups have said ``makes good sense as a matter of law enforcement, health policy and international leadership.'' We must act now to stop the smuggling and stop the mugging of the world's children through nicotine addiction promoted by big tobacco companies.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I surely hope that the bill before us is a good one, and there is reason for hope, since it is inconceivable that our current pipeline safety regulation could get much worse. When it comes to pipeline safety, ``oversight'' has usually meant ``overlook.'' When it comes to the Office of Pipeline Safety, it has found itself in alliance with groups such as the Longhorn Pipeline that have posed such dangers to my community in Central Texas, and how South Austinites have rightly shouted that they have everything to lose and nothing to be gained by being forced to be a Longhorn partner because of the tragic intrusion on our community by Longhorn Pipeline. The City of Austin has a lot resting on the protections offered by this bill. With an understanding of our experience with Longhorn Pipeline and the lack of protection from the Office of Pipeline Safety, the city submitted testimony expressing its concern about current Federal statutes that restrict municipalities in protecting their citizens from pipeline dangers. It is essential that the Office of Pipeline Safety and other Federal agencies give thorough consideration to the issues faced by those exposed to hazardous pipelines. Hopefully, that will be accomplished by the modest steps in this bill.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is okay for these corporate executives to head off to the Caribbean Isles and get a tan, but not a tax break or a government contract. I certainly applaud the gentleman's leadership and his work to see that this is done. It is not just corporations in the Northeast that have taken advantage of this loophole. We had one down in Houston, Texas that did the same thing, and it was the president of a competing company who recently wrote me to express his outrage, because he is loyal to this country. His workforce is here; his executive offices are here. He is willing to pay his fair share, but thinks it is mighty unfair that this Congress will not stand up and level the playing field and give his company the same fair basis for competing as those who fled and have decided they will not contribute their share of taxes. I think it is also important to note that those who want to hide behind the fiction that this is just to avoid double taxation on foreign earnings need look no further than the prospectus on the Stanley Tool, or Stanley Flees, Company to note that they are planning to save much more in taxes than they pay in foreign taxes. I just really thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. DOGGETT. One of these companies, Stanley Flees is the way one of my neighbors refers to Stanley Tool Company that has left, moved its mailbox from Connecticut to Bermuda, they would be under this amendment in no way restricted from doing business with the government of their fellow citizens in Bermuda or if they moved to Luxembourg or Lichtenstein or one of these other tax havens, you would not restrict them from doing business there, would you?

Mr. DOGGETT. When I offered this same language in the Committee on Ways and Means, there was such concern by the chairman of that committee that he accepted the amendment. He did not want any Republican member on record against the amendment. Perhaps they will try to hide, saying this is a procedural vote, but there will probably not be another vote on the floor of this House other than this vote that is about to occur on which Members can so clearly record their views on whether they approve of corporations fleeing to Bermuda or Jamaica or Barbados. I think there was a Beach Boys song about this some time back, but where they flee to one of these Caribbean islands that they will be able to still do business here on unfair competitive grounds against those companies that have stayed here. There will not be a clearer vote, will there, that we can foresee?

Mr. DOGGETT. Under the amendment that the gentleman is trying to get added that our colleagues, a vote in favor of this rule will be a vote to approve, of course, Pricewaterhouse, now called Monday, and all of these other corporations that will not pay their fair share, if you vote for the rule, you are voting to do that, but under the amendment, the reasonable amendment that you are advancing, that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) have advanced, we do not punish those corporations, we simply say, if I understand it correctly, that they would not be able to seek help from the government and do business with the government at taxpayer expense if they did not want to contribute to the cost of the government.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, next week we are supposed to have completed the work on the new homeland security agency. Is the gentleman aware that there are lobby disclosure reports that have been filed right here in the Capitol by Pricewaterhouse Consulting which declared a new day in the Caribbean by calling itself Monday, has fled, is not paying its fair share of taxes but has filed a lobby disclosure report that it is up here lobbying ultimately for business from the new homeland security agency that we were told originally would cost no new dollars but now is apparently going to cost at least 3 billion new dollars? And apparently though they do not want to pay for our homeland security, they have already got their hand out looking for some business from the taxpayers with that new government agency. Are you aware of that?