Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

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. 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. 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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, like a preacher welcoming every convert to the fold, we welcome all converts, no matter how belated their interest in controlling corporate corruption. To date, this Administration's ``See no evil, hear no evil'' approach has produced and condoned a steady stream of corporate misconduct in this country. So long as more special-interest lobbyists are appointed to fill key regulatory roles and the Administration continues to conspire with House Republicans to undermine every genuine reform that is proposed, the President's newly professed concern amounts to little more than a fresh coat of paint on rotten wood, very rotten wood. The American people can see right through the thin paint and see the damage that is caused to retirement savings, to investors' earnings, and to taxpayers that are cheated by corporations that use accounting tricks to avoid paying their fair share. Our patience has been exploited and our trust has been taxed by the culpable inaction, indifference, and complacency of this Administration and its House Republican allies.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of September 11, there is even more interest than usual in rushing legislation through the House. Certainly all of us respect the time, effort, and expertise of this subcommittee in trying to develop the best bill. There is not a Member of this House that does not want to provide every dollar that is essential to securing the future of America and of every American family. But I believe it is appropriate, as is happening here on the floor of the House today, that we at least devote as much time to this expenditure of $354 billion of taxpayer money as we normally allot to a bill naming a post office. I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his courage in advancing these amendments, because the most recent sequel of the Administration's Star Wars plans is considerably similar to the most recent sequel of the Star Wars movie. It depends in the main on gimmicks and special effects. One of our colleagues has told us today about the success of one of a number of tests that was done with a bullet hitting a bullet. If my colleagues believe that our adversaries will choose a clear night, will announce the launch time to us, will ensure there is good weather along the full route of the missile, and, in addition, they will place a homing beacon in the missile they are firing at American cities, then, perhaps, with those disclaimers, this is a system worth considering, with one major exception. Because even under those circumstances, even under the best-case scenario, I have yet to hear a single official or a single advocate who has any knowledge about this system who is willing to say that it will be 100 percent successful. Indeed, most people who have explored this realize that the whole Fort Greely plan is based on the premise: ``Build it and it will work''. And when it works, it will not work 100 percent of the time. Well, consider with me again the tremendous horror that we all feel as we reflect on September 11, the damage, the destruction, that gouge in the earth that one can see at Ground Zero in New York City; and think for a moment how much worse it would have been if it had been a nuclear device and how many more tens of thousands of families would have suffered, as so many have already suffered from September 11. Are we to accept as a security system for American families a system that can permit just one New York City or one Chicago or one Austin, Texas that was 85 or 95 percent effective in stopping most of the missiles from coming in? I suggest that is like going out in the rain with an umbrella full of holes. It is better to consider whether there is not a better way to stay dry than to use that kind of leaky umbrella. It builds a sense of false security. It encourages adventurism. It encourages a foreign policy that promises the American people 100 percent security when, in fact, experts agree we are going to expose some Americans to a nuclear catastrophe to an extent that we have never seen in the history of the world. It would make a Hiroshima or a Nagasaki look like a small disaster in comparison. I would suggest that, there is not an expert around that does not think if we build at Fort Greely and begin this kind of effort that we will not have more missiles designed to be targeted to the United States by our potential adversaries. If the Chinese build more missiles, and there has been a suggestion that they would as a result of this kind of construction at Fort Greely, what impact might that have on the Indians who are a little closer than San Francisco to China? If the Indians begin building more missiles because the Chinese are building more missiles, what impact might that have on the Pakistanis right across the border? And if the Pakistanis build more missiles, what impact might that have on the Iranians, with whom they have had some competition in Afghanistan? And if the Iranians build more missiles, what impact might that have on Israel? And if Israel builds more, what impact might that have on Egypt? What we are looking at in Fort Greely is the beginning of a system that will lead to destabilization and to an arms race, the ultimate effect of which will be jeopardizing the security of American families. It is because we share a commitment as deep as the advocates for this bill in the desire to defend our country that we speak out today against Star Wars and in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, because we believe the true security of our Nation rests on stopping the false security of this phony Star Wars system.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those proposals that is perhaps best considered very late in the evening when the cover of darkness can attempt to hide the shame of the proposal. This bill is about creating the appearance of doing something when it does nothing to improve the lot of our seniors. When we get right down to it, despite the charts, the Republicans have no plan. All they offer is a placebo based on privatization. I suppose we can call it a Swiss cheese plan, but seniors get all of the holes and no cheese. There is no guaranteed deductible, no guaranteed premium, no guaranteed benefit, and there is no insurance company that has ever offered a plan of this type; and most have said that they will not be able to provide a plan of this type. It all centers on the Republican ideological insistence that we must privatize Medicare, and that is not a prescription for reform; it is a prescription for disaster. This very day, one of their top leaders called the plan that Lyndon Johnson signed into law and upon which millions of Americans have relied, had the audacity to call it a Soviet-style plan. They did not like Medicare then. They have never accepted it, and they are determined to use this device to privatize it. Further, we find in the fine print of the plan in the paragraph called noninterference, a specific command that the administrator of this program cannot act to reduce costs. This figure of $18 billion has been pulled out of the air by a Republican Health and Human Services administrator. It has no basis in fact. Rather, with this bill, the Republican leadership has once again pledged its allegiance to the pharmaceutical manufacturers whose price gouging forces our seniors to pay the highest prices of anyone in the world. Little wonder that those same manufacturers are continuing to pay for ads all over the country telling people that the Republican partners are great people for obstructing the help that our seniors so desperately need.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that the President's budget, a new feature of it, was to give a performance grade on all the different agencies in government and that on the very issues that the gentleman from Ohio is talking about, the Office of Management and Budget itself gave an F, a failing grade, to the Department of Defense? If the gentleman could answer on that and if you could tell us how the security of our men and women in arms, in harm's way, is advanced by the kind of accounting failures that would test even the talents of Arthur Andersen to justify.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) think it would be better if we gave them more money to manage?

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

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this month, like thousands of proud parents from around the country, I attended the graduation ceremonies for my two daughters, one an educator, one a physician. As I watched my oldest prepare to return to our hometown with her physician husband, both of them to care for people there, I was mindful of the guidance given to doctors from as far back as we can remember: ``First, do no harm.'' I think that the Administration and supporters of this bill would do well to heed this cornerstone of medicine as they continue to pursue an insular defense policy--without the agreement of many of our allies, and without truly the consent of this Congress. This misguided policy emphasizes nuclear missile defense from space and abandons the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which has played such an important role in keeping nuclear Armageddon at bay. The Administration has also abandoned the wisdom, extensive writing, and testimony of Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist at the University of Texas at Austin, who concludes that this system will ``harm our security,'' not strengthen it. There is no shortage of reasons why a space-based ``Star Wars'' sequel is undesirable. It targets too many of our resources toward the least likely threat. We all know and are reminded each evening on the nightly news that terrorists have many other ways to deliver destruction to our country and threaten the security of our families. Perhaps the least likely way is some type of missile that would be clearly identified as to its source and which could be the target of a space-based missile defense system. The Star Wars plan diverts billions of dollars that we need to meet the obligation to our children, to our seniors, to our families, and to address other more immediate homeland security needs. Of course, NMD also requires the technology to hit a bullet with a bullet, to distinguish the bullet from the decoys, and to target bullets that come in a wobbly fashion and a nonwobbly fashion. Doing all of this requires what I suggest is truly a ``faith-based initiative,'' because it takes immense faith to believe that such a space-based system will even work. But chief among the reasons to oppose this plan and to support the Tierney amendment is that admonition to our physicians: ``First, do no harm.'' In working to build a world worthy of our children, the false security of space-based missile defense is far outweighed by the warning of former defense Secretary William Perry, that ``even a relatively small deployment of defensive weapons could trigger a considerable nuclear arms race.'' With all of the recent loose talk in Washington about first strikes, about increased reliance on nuclear weapons and new ways with new weapons, this is not talk and this is not a system that adds to the security of our families; it jeopardizes that security. Intercontinental ballistic missiles are hardly America's greatest threat. The most serious nuclear threat we have is that there are so many weapons here and abroad that remain on hair-trigger alert and the risk that some nuclear device will be smuggled into our country on a truck, in a boat, or by some other means that could expose us to danger. Now, the Administration and this bill seek over $44 million for space-based boost interceptors. The sky is the limit. This is part of a broader package where we spent billions of dollars already and billions more are being requested over time. I think we need to draw a line at the heavens. If wisdom's price is suffering, we cannot afford to belatedly learn that proceeding unilaterally with Star Wars is going to get the job done. It is not enough to learn by and by if the system works. It is not enough to let ``by and by'' be the words to spend more and more taxpayer resources on a system that does not work. The modern version of the Hippocratic oath states, ``A prevention is preferable to a cure.'' Instead of spending billions to try to build a shield to blunt the sword, our focus should be on the resources, on the diplomacy, to keep that sword from ever being forged or drawn in the first place. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Tierney amendment. I believe it will add to the security of American families.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it was only a few months ago that Republicans were telling us we would not need to touch this debt ceiling until 2008, and frigned concern that we would probably pay down so much debt that we would hurt the economy. Well, we know that in the meantime much has happened, but one of these developments is the impact of one tax break after another for their wealthy Republican friends and another is that corporate tax abuse has been totally ignored to the extent that some corporations in this country actually have the arrogance, at a time of national security need, to renounce their citizenship, move their mailbox to Bermuda or some other foreign island, and evade their United States taxes at the same time our deficits continue to mount. It is not just a spending issue, though there have been plenty of spending bills in this House that I have voted against. A loss of tax revenues also contributes to the deficit and a total disinterest and disregard for this aspect of the problem by the Republican leadership. I do not believe there is a carpet big enough to sweep underneath all the mess that Republicans have made of our budget. After a few years of paying down the deficit, when Americans enjoyed the benefits of lower interest rates to purchase homes and cars, we now face a return to years of one deficit after another. How incredible that at the offer of a unanimous consent resolution to at least say, can we not agree in a bipartisan fashion that by the year 2007 we will be off this deficit financing and we will have a balanced budget, their answer is no; to object, to refuse to consider a commitment to having a balanced budget by at least the year 2007. We do have a default issue tonight, not about the debt. Rather it is a default in leadership; it is a default in responsibility. We have heard so much talk lately about intelligence failures, but one of the most obvious is the inability to grasp that when the elite do not pay their fair share, like these corporations that are heading offshore, the rest of us have to pick up the tab. Then Republicans come, as they are tonight, and ask to use our Social Security cards as their credit card for more spending and more tax breaks.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, today Republicans refuse to permit consideration of a prescription drug plan for our seniors on the very same day that one of their leaders condemns the basic Medicare program as a Soviet-style program. The Republicans have no prescription drug plan, only a scheme to privatize Medicare and to protect prescription drug manufacturers. They want to turn seniors over to HMOs with no guaranteed deductible, no guaranteed premium, and no guaranteed benefit. Some plan. The House Republican leadership has once again pledged its allegiance to the pharmaceutical manufacturers who are the price gougers that forcing our seniors to pay the highest prices of any people in the entire world. Little wonder that these same manufacturers are already on the airwaves across America paying millions for ads to defend their Republican House partners who are trying today to deny our seniors the relief they so very desperately need.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule damages our environment. I am all for trade, but trading clean water for sour, pure air for fouled, open justice for star chamber proceedings, that is not a good trade. Free trade is not ``free'' when it comes at the expense of such imperatives. My concern about the failed Chapter 11 NAFTA model that this proposal endorses is similar to my concern about the mismanaging of this fast track trade debate. Both result from a secret, closed-door process, both ignore the Sierra Club, Consumers Union and others concerned with our sovereignty, our environment, and our health and safety; and both relegate important decisions to a self-selected few, although the burden will be borne by many. They violate the whole spirit of our Texas open-government laws. We could use a little Texas sunshine in on our trade policy. The only thing transparent about this fast track process is the heavy-handed, insular way that it has been handled by the Chairman since day one. A ``no'' vote is a vote for openness, a vote for the democratic process, and for our environment.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, several of our Republican colleagues have said quite forthrightly this morning that this bill has nothing to do with Enron, that it has nothing to do with those corporations that renounce America and move off to Bermuda. They are absolutely right in those statements. That is what is wrong with this bill. That is why we have a substitute, and every reason to vote for this substitute is a reason to vote against the underlying bill. It is strange that Congress would meet today to solve a problem that is alleged to exist for people on New Year's Eve of 2010, instead of dealing with the problems that American families face today in 2002. But I think there is a friend of mine down in Austin, Texas, who understands why this is true. His name is Willy Nelson. He sang a song that goes, ``If you've got the money, honey, I've got the time.'' Let me tell you something: the people that ``got the money,'' they are the people who are running this Congress. They keep setting an agenda to help the privileged few at the top and ignore the corporate misconduct that has occurred in this country, much of which would never have happened had they not enabled it to happen with the bills they passed and the bills they held up in committee. This Democratic substitute addresses a real 2002 problem, not some mythical concern out in 2010. It deals with those companies like Stanley Works, that my neighbor says ought to be called ``Stanley Flees.'' It deals with Fruit of the Loom, that runs off to the south, and we lose more than our shorts out of the deal, because they are dodging their taxes. And yes, it provides this Congress and every Member in it the first opportunity to have a referendum on the words of the Republican majority leader this very week when he compared those corporations that renounce America to the ordinary taxpayer, and said, ``it is akin to punishing a taxpayer for choosing to itemize instead of taking the standard deduction.'' It is that kind of callous attitude that we need a referendum on today--whether we are going to defend those corporations that renounce America and refuse to hold up their responsibilities at a time of national need or whether we are going to protect employees.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is said that a rising tide lifts all boats. Certainly this tide lifts some boats. The yachts do pretty well. Over three-fourths of the tax reductions in this bill go to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans. Almost half of the tax breaks go to the wealthiest 5 percent. The other 95 percent, most of whom are in rowboats, they remain anchored at the bottom. The ``Savers' Credit,'' targeted at low-income workers and the working poor who earned $30,000 or less, is the only provision that will not be permanently extended. It expires on New Year's Eve of 2006, sooner than the provisions that are being extended. But for some unknown reason, we are told we need to study the working poor who lack retirement security now and do not have adequate retirement savings. We are going to study that and not extend it, but the yachts at the top, they get their benefits made permanent. Under this bill, companies even get a tax incentive. That is right. Uncle Sam helps them with their taxes if they stuff their retirement plans with more company stock, the kind of problem that capsized the Enron employees. As if there were not already enough incentives for companies to put their stock into company plans, they get more in this bill. What happens to the 95 percent who are anchored in the rowboats in a rising tide? Well, they get swamped; and it is the richest who already have some retirement plans who get to bailout. There is a word for this, and it has multiple meanings in this context. It is ``dinghy,'' and this is ``dinghy'' to extend this program on a permanent basis. There are good provisions in this bill. There are so many such provisions in the bill that I voted for it when it was up for consideration in the last Congress. Some of the provisions that were less publicized and never noted in debate in the fine print of this extended bill, like the tax incentive for companies to put more of their own company stock into the company plan, were not publicized and were not well known, and a vote in favor of them is certainly not a vote to be proud of. But I do not know many people that are now planning their New Year's Eve party for this coming year. Yet the sponsors of this legislation, they are already thinking about New Year's Eve in 2010, because if we take no action today, on New Year's Eve of 2010, all of these benefits will be gone. Of course there are a few Congresses that meet between now and 2010. And there are some problems that exist right now that cannot wait until 2010. There is the Enron problem where the people at the top are selling their stock through their stock options while at the same time they are telling the employees to keep the company stock and put more of it into the plan. That is what happened at Enron. What does this bill, or anything else this Congress has done, do to remedy that? Absolutely nothing. There is the problem of three out of four people in this country who earn less than $25,000 according to the Consumer Federation who do not have an adequate retirement. Yet this bill refuses to continue permanently their benefits. Today is the longest day of summer, and the lobbyists are here telling us that they want to ensure that the sun never sets on the privileges they gained in this bill, but they do not care, about extending benefits to the people earning under $30,000. Do not be fooled. This is not about sunshine. The Members have been left in the dark about many features of this bill. It ought to be rejected.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, the arguments of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), need to be emphasized, because before voting on this or any other matter, no matter how worthy, we need to consider the fiscal consequences. I think another way of putting it is that we have to evaluate each of these pieces of legislation, like the one in front of us, to decide whether we think it is so vital to spend that money that we are willing to borrow payroll taxes paid in for Medicare and Social Security and use them for a different purpose. That is a pretty heavy test to meet, and I do not believe this piece of legislation meets it. Let me say, I think there are some very good provisions in the law that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) sponsored last year. That is why I voted for it. I was among the many Members of this body who felt that adding a little money to IRAs and 401(k)s, the portability provisions that let workers take these pensions from one place to another, were sound provisions. They were the highly publicized provisions by which this bill won the support of many people here and in the United States Senate. The less publicized provisions, the fine print of that bill, contain the problems. It allowed more discrimination by the people at the top of pension plans against those at the bottom, the people who need retirement security assistance the most and who have done the least retirement planning. The fine print in that bill allowed some companies to stuff retirement plans with their own stock. And as if not enough of that were happening already, like at Enron, it actually provided them a tax subsidy to overfill plans. Those less publicized provisions are problematic and troublesome, and I wish I had been able to vote for a bill that did not have these problems, and I do not want to make those misguided provisions permanent. But even if you think those bad provisions are good and you like the Portman-Cardin legislation exactly as it was passed last year, what do you think will happen if today's bill is defeated? Absolutely nothing. Those provisions will be the law of these United States until New Year's Eve 2010. The reason that we are taking up a bill today to affect something that will not make a bit of difference, however you feel about this bill, until New Year's Eve on 2010, is because this Congress has little or no interest in standing up to special interests and doing anything about real retirement security. We know that one executive after another is walking off with not a golden, but a platinum, parachute; meanwhile, many other people without a retirement plan are left to take the fall. This bill that passed last year did something for those people. It gave them a small ``Saver's Tax Credit.'' This credit expires on New Year's Eve 2006. Is the benefit for the average worker extended? Is it made permanent in this bill? No. We had to extend the provisions that help those at the top that expire in 2010, but we are not extending those that expire in 2006. If you look at this piece of legislation and you ask, ``will it do anything to protect retirement security and prevent more employees being victimized, just like those were at Enron?''--the answer is ``it does absolutely nothing.'' It ought to be rejected. It is fiscally irresponsible, and it does not improve retirement security for those who need it the most.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, many Americans wonder why this Congress has taken no effective action to stop another Enron debacle, and no effective action to prevent one multinational corporation after another from fleeing America in order to evade its taxes. Yesterday, we received the explanation, with all of its customary sensitivity, from the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), who attacked those of us who have initiatives to stop these acts of disloyalty to America by saying, ``This is akin to punishing a taxpayer for choosing to itemize instead of taking the standard deduction.'' Most Americans may own a few pairs of Bermuda shorts, but they cannot become ``Bermudan'' on April 15 and remain American the other days of the year to enjoy the benefits of our American citizenship. I believe this Congress needs to speak and act firmly to prevent those who forget the maxim of Thomas Paine, a great American patriot, who said, ``Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigues of supporting it.'' Those who flee and abandon America, denouncing their American citizenship, are rejecting all our democracy represents.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, September 11 really brought out the best in Americans when all of us are continuing to be asked to sacrifice some for our country, and some have sacrificed their all. Unfortunately, certain of our multinational corporations are offering less, indeed, much less. Over the years, the United States has rightly entered into tax treaties with countries around the world to avoid taxing the same income twice for their businesses, as well as for ours. These treaties are so broadly worded, however, that some corporations can exploit them to evade taxes not just on their foreign earnings, but on what they earn right here at home. These corporations use gaps in the tax treaties to shift U.S. earnings abroad to countries like the Barbados or Luxembourg that impose little or no tax. This income vanishing act occurs through the creation of affiliated foreign shell corporations that make high- interest loans or obtain hefty royalty fees from the American companies. To stop this abuse, today I am introducing the ``No Tax Breaks for Corporations Renouncing America Act.'' This abuse results from the broad way in which our tax treaties test foreign ownership and residency. Before globalization, one could assume that a company with stock listed on the stock exchange was a company from one of the countries with which it was listed, but that is no longer the case. My legislation, by narrowing the provision, ensures that tax treaties are used only for their intended beneficiaries, not for those corporations whose phony claim to foreign citizenship is based on little more than a new mailbox. By exploiting the tax treaty loophole, companies who renounce their U.S. citizenship are reaping a windfall. Corporate freeloaders are taking treaties designed to eliminate double taxation and are using them instead to eliminate all taxation on some of their income. These corporate ``ex-patriots'' are selective in waving the Star- Spangled Banner. Yes, they want to be American to enjoy the protection of our Armed Forces, the protection and reliability of our courts, and to seek business from the Federal Government; but when it comes time to pay, to pay their fair share to keep America strong, Old Glory suddenly comes down the flagpole, and they claim they are foreigners. These fair-weather friends choose to wrap themselves in the flag when that is convenient, and renounce the flag and say they are foreigners and wrap themselves in a tax treaty when that is convenient; we have to put a stop to that. It is time to end the practice of them sending Uncle Sam a postcard that says, ``Sorry, you can find me in Barbados, glad you are not here.'' American executives who want to evade U.S. taxes on U.S. income by moving their mailbox to an island and hold beachside board meetings, are entitled to a tan, not a tax break. Take companies like Cooper Industries and Stanley Tools. They make tools, shovels, and the like; but we might think that when Stanley says it is making something great, it had in mind beach tools like this from its new residency. The way that they are operating inspired one of my neighbors down in Austin to note that Stanley Works ought to be called ``Stanley Flees,'' because it has fled Old Glory and America. A vote for the bill that I am introducing today will send the executives a message: They can play all they want on the beach to avoid taxes, but Congress will not put its head in the sand. They can have fun in the sun, but Congress refuses to let the rest of us, Americans who are working hard to pay our taxes, get burned by having to pay their taxes also. It is the American taxpayer who gets hammered when Stanley Works or one of these other companies heads off to foreign shores and does not pay its fair share for our increased national security needs. And remember, allowing a few unpatriotic corporations to exploit this loophole gives them a competitive advantage over the many American corporations that stay and pay their fair share and are competitors with those who leave our shores. Freedom is not free. Corporate free loaders, Uncle Sam wants you, wants you to pay your fair share to support America. I encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting the ``No Tax Breaks for Corporations that Renounce America,'' act so we can really ensure equity and fairness in our tax system and put an end to those who are abandoning us through reliance on provisions in these tax treaties that were never intended for the purpose for which they are now being exploited.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There is nothing in today's bill that really helps them at all over the next several years.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is the specter. It is the ghost of relief. It is great for an election year, though. I think they have done a good job of having a good election year ploy. But my concern is that with this basic underlying proposal, there is some discrimination against single parents, against widows; that is what led to this inequity to the code now. We ought not to disfavor them any more than we would disfavor married people. Finally, it is a matter that the children of people--whether family, married, single parent, whatever--we are going to place a penalty on them, and it is a national debt that, if they can implement every one of these permanent proposals, will be $4 trillion higher than if we reject them, as we should.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I just want to say at the outset that the gentleman from Illinois's (Mr. Weller) attack on our colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) with the suggestion that he has never supported correction of the marriage penalty is totally unjustified, and it is factually inaccurate. Indeed, in 1995, when the Republicans under Newt Gingrich had their much-ballyhooed ``Contract With America,'' the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, including the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), proposed to include marriage penalty tax relief and implement all of the provisions of the Contract With America on this subject in the tax bill before the committee. It was the Republicans, on a party-line vote, because they had so many special interest provisions they loaded into that tax bill, who chose to reject marriage penalty tax relief. At every opportunity since then, Democrats have proposed more marriage penalty tax relief sooner than the Republicans have. So statements suggesting that there is some kind of party-line difference over marriage penalty tax relief are absolutely inaccurate. Indeed, there has been, generally, broad, bipartisan support for correcting the marriage penalty. What we have today has little to do with that. Indeed, some people have suggested that the Republican tactic of having a tax cut vote every week, more or less, is just a contrived, election year ploy. Others have suggested that no, it is really just the only subject, cutting taxes, that the Republican caucus can come to agreement on among themselves. And while both of those statements are probably true, I think that the real intention here in offering this proposal today as one element of a $4 trillion tax cut relates to the basic opposition to the preservation of Social Security and Medicare by the Republican Party here in the House. Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House Republican leadership have never really believed in Social Security and Medicare. To use their language, they want to ``privatize'' Social Security. They have a plan to privatize Medicare and encourage people to get out of the traditional Medicare system. There is no way that we can maintain the long-term dependability of Social Security and Medicare so long as we add another $4 trillion of tax breaks, at the same time we are letting corporations flee America and escaping their responsibility to fund national security. There is no way we can have it all. I believe that the disinterest in having Medicare and Social Security as a publicly financed, publicly supported system in which every American can participate, that that lies at the heart of bills like the one we have here today. Now, I have had the good fortune to be married to a great woman for a little over 32 years. My parents have been married for over 56 years. Marriage is a great institution. But I recognize that not every family in America has been as fortunate as I have. Indeed, the reason that this current problem in the Tax Code exists is because a widow from World War II came to the Congress decades ago and said that the law discriminates against me. I am having to pay more than my married friends, and my husband sacrificed his life in defense of this country. The bill that is before us today to make it permanent the way they have written it can just as easily be called the ``Widow Penalty Act.'' It can be called the ``Battered Woman Penalty Act.'' It can be called the ``Single Person's Penalty Act,'' because it proposes to erect penalties in favor of marriage and against those who happen to be widows, who happen to be battered women who have left their husband and, for one reason or another, happen to be single. I believe that our tax laws should be neutral. This is not a neutral law. It tends to give more of its benefits to those who are married.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, they do not even propose to actually implement the marriage penalty under their proposal for several additional years. Now, if we had taken the Democratic alternative that we advanced last year, that would have been more benefical to that family sooner than under their proposal.

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

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just add that this bill was considered in at least two committees; and in the Committee on Ways and Means, there was anything but a bipartisan, balanced bill. Indeed, what we did have was a letter from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) assuring our committee that this bill could be passed without taking any money from Social Security and Medicare; and as indicated by his remarks on the floor this afternoon, it is pretty clear that has changed completely. Indeed, much has changed since September 11. This bill was passed before them, before the collapse of Enron, and before the Bush budget sprang a leak of red ink that began with a trickle and has now become a flood. Many things have changed, but one thing that has not is the commitment of some here to a bill that is not so much an energy policy as a collection of unjustified tax breaks, loopholes, and special provisions to aid traditional energy industries. I like the idea of balance in an energy bill, but what we have is some sweet words about the environment, a little sugar coating for new environmental technologies, and most all of the tax benefits going to the same old polluting industries. For the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) to suggest that this has something to do with taking a million barrels of oil a day from Iraq, I think, is really misleading. If this bill passes in today's form, it would not reduce that amount by one barrel; indeed, I would say not one pint. What this bill does is to give more tax breaks to the companies that are bringing in the million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. It does not change or limit their ability to do that. And the suggestion that we would replace that oil by exploiting the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would be a serious mistake that would jeopardize an irreplaceable environment for little real energy benefit.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. If you think that our current Tax Code is just right, that it is fair, that it is equitable to everyone, including the most powerful corporations in this country, that all are being treated fairly and are paying their fair share, and that there are not any lobbyists here in Washington that manage to get special loopholes written into the Tax Code so that they can shift the cost of our national security to you instead of paying their fair share, then the proposal that is up tonight is just right for you. The purpose of this proposal is not tax relief, but to freeze, with constitutional protection, all of the various loopholes and preferences and backdoor arrangements that plague our tax system. The provisions that make our Tax Code more complex and more inequitable so that some are not paying their fair share and those folks that are out there working hard for a living, working with small businesses and farms and ranches around this country, they are having sometimes to pay more than their fair share to make up for those who escape through the loopholes. And so what do we have here? We have a provision that if we attempt to close one of those loopholes, that it will take not a majority, it will take two-thirds of this House. If we could easily get a majority to clean up all the special interest provisions in this Tax Code, it would have been done a long time ago. But Republicans are not satisfied to have a mere majority required. They insist on requiring two-thirds of this body having the courage to stand up to the special interests that riddle our Tax Code with all these special preferences. That will never happen. So many of our Republican colleagues are a little like Will Rogers: they have never met a tax loophole that they did not like. And so what we really have is a measure here that ought to be called the ``tax loophole preservation'' amendment, because that is exactly what it is. My good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) says, not to worry, we have a ``de minimis'' provision in this amendment that will permit repeal of tax loopholes and preferences. But the ``de minimis'' provision is one of the most defective features of this entirely defective amendment. No one knows what ``de minimis'' really means. The tax loophole problem, the abusive corporate tax shelter problem, is not minor, not de minimis. Some have estimated the cost is as much as $10 billion a year. I think that is pretty significant. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) will speak shortly. Some of us share his concern with Stanley Works or, as one of my friends in Austin says, they really ought to be called Stanley Flees. That corporation and others, we have gotten to a point with abusive tax shelters that is so bad that they have the audacity to flee this country, get a mailbox in someplace like Bermuda, misuse our tax treaties and set up a new Bermuda Triangle out to the Barbados. Refusing to pay their fair share of taxes, they shift burden to people in this country that are willing to make a sacrifice after September 11, that feel we have some responsibility to work together as a country and pay our fair share. We will be freezing into law those special provisions if this amendment were adopted. And, of course, there is the fiscal responsibility concern. That is why a group like the bipartisan, nonpartisan Concord Coalition has come out so strongly today against this proposal, noting that it ``defies all notions of fiscal responsibility.'' This is a group that has worked so hard to get us a balanced budget and now sees balances so quickly eluding us in a sea of red ink. This amendment would only make our budget situation worse. Everyone who wants to see our tax system improved, who wants to see more equity and fewer accountants necessary to file a tax return on April 15, less complexity and more simplicity in our system, all of us who want real change, need to vote against this amendment.