Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I put this bill in in January of 2003 because we knew that not every American was at equal risk, that the wealthy would not go, and the war would be like all the others. But no one wanted to talk about it then. They buried it over in the Defense Department. We have not heard about it until this very day, on the day the Vice President is going to get up and debate tonight. We will see. Now, why are we here today? We are here because you are afraid. You are afraid that the young people of this country are watching television. You are afraid that they do not believe the President, they do not believe Mr. Rumsfeld, they do not believe Condoleezza Rice, they do not believe anybody who tells them there is not going to be a draft, because they see what you are doing to the Guard and what you are doing to the Reserves and what you are doing to the individual Ready Reserves that you are pulling back in. They know you are not telling the truth. Now, these kids may have funny hair and they may look odd and have rings in their nose and whatever, but they know the truth, and they are on the Internet blogs and the telephone. Every time the President denies it, the phone calls pour into our offices: When is it going to happen? Now, we know that if Mr. Bush gets reelected and he comes up here and asks you for a draft, we have got to have more troops and we are going to do it this way or that way, you will roll over for him like butter in the hot sun. There will not be anything left of you but a puddle of butter, because you know that you will not be able to stand up to him. And the fact is that the kids have got it right, and now their parents are listening and are saying, Oh, my God, there might actually be a draft. It would not be hard to do. Let me tell my colleagues how it works. Just announce that there are not going to be any loans for college. You can get $80,000 if you enlist, but if you are not going to enlist, you are not going to get to go to college on government money. Rich mommies and daddies will take care of their boys, but poor ones will have to go to the military.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather unusual that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and I are all up here today talking about the same issue because I really think it is time to get some real value out of the administration's color-coded warning system. It is time to declare a code red on the Nation's debt crisis. The front page story today, which has been alluded to, from USA Today analyzed the financial obligations facing Americans because of government debt. USA Today called it the hidden debt, and it totals a staggering $53 trillion. That translates into $473,456 per household. This money we need right now to meet the future obligations for programs like Medicare, Social Security, and government pensions. It grows by $1 trillion a year as long as this administration's budget binge continues. The bills come due in earnest beginning in 2008. That is not very far away. It is a blink of an eye in real terms. So far, the answer out of this administration seems to be a strategy of letting the financial crisis reach epic proportions and then renege on the promise that the country has made to the greatest generation. And that, in my view, is not right. When Americans need their government most, at retirement, the administration has not put forth a credible plan to honor our commitment to senior citizens. When Americans are most vulnerable, entering retirement after a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice, this administration is budget binging and simply cannot go on. What will they say to seniors? Well, we would not do the math. Or we did the math and left it to the next administration to be responsible. The road the administration has put this Nation on is a fast track to catastrophe. This is far from a dire warning. Economists and other experts on both sides of the aisle know the consequences of what USA Today is reporting today. The nonpartison, independent CBO looked at the President's budget. The CBO concluded, ``These long-term budget projections show clearly that the budget is on an unsustainable path.'' That is not rhetoric. That is a dose of reality about where this administration has taken the country. It gets even worse if a major disruption in oil supplies or another terrorist attack shakes the world's confidence in America. There is a major crisis at America's doorstep, but this administration serves up anecdotes instead of answers. America's national security cannot be separated from America's economic security. And knowing that this Nation faces a looming debt load surpassing $53 trillion, the administration simply denies the crisis and keeps rewarding the rich with increasing tax cuts. Every day that the administration pretends everything is rosy is another day closer to a crisis when decisions will be forced, not made. That is because America is being run on borrowed money as much as borrowed time. America is increasingly dependent on foreign governments to finance the U.S. Government spending. Is that the administration's idea of how to keep America secure? The way the administration is going, our insatiable appetite for foreign capital to keep the United States going will match our insatiable appetite for oil. Dealing with one is bad enough. Dealing with both is downright scary. What happens when foreign countries decide to push the limit and demand more and more of us, not in dollars but in policies? If anyone doubts that carrot-and-stick approach, I would say look back on our own recent history. How many times has the United States tied economic assistance to another nation for concessions on something we want in return? The answer is, too many times to count. National security depends upon economic security and is not built on top of an international debt or a mountain of international IOUs. We owe the greatest generation something more than a than an IOU. We owe the next generation something more than an anvil of debt hanging around their necks. We owe it to ourselves to face the reality that is facing us this day. Here is the scale. America is the greatest economic engine on the face of the earth. Last year, America's entire economic output was $11 trillion, as has been mentioned before. That was the total gross domestic product. As impressive as that is, the GDP pales in comparison to the $53 trillion coming due. Last year's entire economic output of the greatest country on earth is a mere one-fifth of the debt load America faces. Common sense ought to tell us where math like that gets us. The war on America's debt is going to challenge us in ways we have never seen before. The danger is the economic policies set in motion by the current administration will pit one generation against another; the seniors against the folks in our age group against our kids. Every day the administration denies the problem is another day the war on debt becomes harder to win. We can act while we are still responsible to make choices. Or America can wait until we make or are forced to make draconian cuts. The Greatest Generation made the greatest sacrifice on behalf of every generation. America owes them a debt of gratitude, not a mountain of debt that imperils everything they fought for. It is time to put the common good ahead of uncommon gain in this country. We have done it before, and we can do it again. I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) ought to be commended for coming out here and raising this issue. At 10:30 at night, the people of the west coast are still watching, and I am sure people in Tennessee are watching, and people in Texas are watching, and they have got to think about this. This is not being discussed in this campaign. But George Bush has run us off the road. So my hat is off to the gentleman for coming out and talking about this.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, who is financing it?

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

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to join with me to recognize and honor 86-year-old Carl Ostrom, from Seattle. The nationally acclaimed non-profit ``Experience Works,'' which recognizes outstanding contributions by seniors in its annual Prime Time Awards Program, selected Mr. Ostrom as their 2004 Outstanding Older Worker from the State of Washington. It is an honor well deserved. Mr. Ostrom helps to make the world a better place through his leadership at the University District Food Bank in Seattle, which assists 800 families every week. Mr. Ostrom serves as the part-time operations manager, overseeing the critical work of delivery and distribution of food. Remarkably, Carl Ostrom has been involved with the University District Food Bank for 17 years. Carl's unselfish deeds and extraordinary commitment to give back to his community are an inspiration. Carl Ostrom proves, again, that senior citizens can make lifelong contributions to their community and their country. I congratulate Carl Ostrom for being selected the 2004 Outstanding Older Worker in the State of Washington, and I look forward to his continued role in making the world a better place.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the Vice President had it right on Iraq the first time, and now we know that because of the Seattle Post- Intelligencer newspaper columnist Joe Connelly. The Vice President was Defense Secretary during the first Gulf War. Mr. Cheney told a Seattle audience in 1992 that it was folly to spill American blood to try to get Saddam or try to govern Iraq. This column ought to be required reading before the Presidential debates. These are Dick Cheney's exact words in defending the first President Bush's decision to leave Iraq and Saddam Hussein: ``And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we had achieved our objectives and we were not going to get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'' I am entering Mr. Connelly's column in the Record. It is seattlepi.com. Read it. Mr. Speaker, they may call it swagger in Texas, but we call it truth in Washington State. [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 29, 2004] In the Northwest: Bush-Cheney Flip-Flops Cost America in Blood (By Joel Connelly) As George W. Bush has lately shown, the tactic of successfully defining your opponent is to political conflict what occupying the high ground is to waging war. The Bush-Cheney campaign has gleefully labeled John Kerry a flip-flopper. But what of Bush-Cheney flip-flops? They're getting a lot less ink, but America is paying a price in blood. Little noticed, and worthy of lengthy consideration, is a speech delivered by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1992 to the Discovery Institute in Seattle. The words of our future vice president--defending the decision to end Gulf War I without occupying Iraq--eerily foretell today's morass. Here is what Cheney said in '92: ``I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. ``And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casaualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. ``And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.'' How--given what he said then--does Cheney get off challenging the judgment and strength of those who argue that we are bogged down and shedding blood today? Is Sadddam worth the lives of 1,046 (at last count) dead Americans, and 7,000 injured Americans? Dick Cheney posed the hard-nosed questions that should be asked by a president in time of war. George Bush is out on the campaign trail boasting he's hard-nosed because he didn't ask how a ``Mission Accomplished!'' could unravel. Kerry is taking a pounding from the relentless Republican machine. A GOP TV ad shows Kerry windsurfing, with Strauss' ``Blue Danube'' waltz playing in the background, as the voice-over claims the nominee has shifted positions ``whichever way the wind blows.'' In case the ``mainstream'' media are interested, or Fox News wants to balance its reporting to furnish a few moments of fairness, here are a few Bush flip-flops that might be put before the voters: Nation-Building: As a candidate, Dubya traveled the land in 2000 denouncing the Clinton administration for using U.S. troops in what he called ``nation-building.'' ``I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence,'' he told a rally. ``My view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win wars--therefore, (to) prevent war from happening in the first place.'' What are we doing in Iraq if not ``nation-building?'' Enmeshed in Iraq, are we properly prepared to fight such crazies as the nuclear weapon-equipped ``Great Leader'' of North Korea, Kim Jong II? Our Real Enemy: Two days after 9/11, President Bush declared: ``The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest until we find him.'' Six months later, laying political groundwork for the Iraq war, the President said: ``I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority.'' The 9/11 Commission: The White House initially opposed creation of an independent commission to investigate causes of the 9/11 atrocities. A July 2002 statement read: ``The administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review (to Congress' investigation).'' The administration reversed course five months later. The bipartisan commission, including former Sen. Slade Gorton, R- WA, distinguished itself at hearings and in its findings and recommendations. Homeland Security: In the fall of 2001 Sens. John McCain, R-AZ, and Joe Lieberman, D-CT, proposed creating a Cabinet- level Department of Homeland Security. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer outlined the administration's opposition in October 2001, saying Congress did not need to make the director's job ``a statutory post'' and that ``every agency of the government has security concerns.'' A year later, the Bush administration was flaying Sen. Max Cleland, D-GA--a Vietnam triple amputee--for allegedly being an obstacle to creation of the department. Anti-Cleland ads showing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein flashed across the TV screens of Georgia. Such are this administration's major national security flip-flops. But other flips bear on our safety. During the 2000 campaign, candidate Bush pledged to limit carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. It didn't happen. The President promised to support--or at least sign-- renewal of Congress' 1994 ban on military-style assault weapons. The Bush administration didn't lift a finger to extend the ban, which recently expired. Out here on America's ``Left Coast,'' candidate George Bush proclaimed himself a steadfast free trader. Even today, Republican State Chairman Chris Vance hammers Kerry as a flip-flopper on trade. How, then, to explain the President's 2002 decision to slap tariffs of 8 to 30 percent on steel imports to the United States? (The tariffs were lifted after 21 months.) Answer: The steel-producing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia have 46 fought-over electoral votes in this year's election.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today shame looms over this body. Today you place legislation before us to amend the Constitution to ensure that same sex marriages can never occur in any State in this country. This legislation is all about politics. You know that you do not have the votes to pass this proposal. You have said so publicly. This proposal already failed in the Senate earlier this year. You know you do not have the time to spend on this proposal: the new fiscal year begins tomorrow and the Republican leadership has only managed to get 1 of 13 required appropriations bills passed. But you're going to make time for one reason: to get material for TV commercials. You want TV commercials to run against Democrats. You think that they'll go nicely alongside the Republican National Committee's mailings saying Democrats want to ban the Bible and the ads that say that decorated war veterans are un-American traitors if they oppose the policies of the present occupant of the White House. This vote is about hurting Democrats running for reelection. You want to hurt those of us opposed to amending the Constitution to deny gays and lesbians the rights that the rest of us enjoy, but the real hurt is unleashed on some of our nation's families: the millions of gay couples and lesbian couples, and their children. People on both sides of this issue have sincere and deep feelings that deserve to be taken seriously. But today's vote mocks their concerns: they think you are out here on the floor to discuss who will be allowed to be a family in America, when you are really out here to work on who will be a Member of Congress after the election. Today's vote is about Republicans toying with the emotions of a nation that genuinely cares about commitment, about families, and about the institution of marriage. To the Republicans, our Nation's emotions--our fear and our worries--are to be employed and manipulated for their reelection campaigns. The House of Representatives's rules are governed by the Jefferson Manual, and the majority has the right under our rules to bring this measure to the floor. But Jefferson's greatest manual was the Declaration of Independence, which reads in part, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Exactly how that part of our Nation's creed will play out as our citizens grapple with notions of domestic partnerships, civil unions and same sex marriages is yet to be seen. It will certainly not be decided today. Nowhere in the Declaration does it say that these rights are only for white, heterosexual men. Jefferson opened the doors of liberty to all of us, Mr. Speaker. It's a disgrace that this body is using Jefferson rules to attempt to undo Jefferson's and the Western World's most profound achievement-- acknowledge that we are all equal.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, so if a speech has been made by a Senator on an issue that we are discussing here, we can use it verbatim from the Senate?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, so anything that has occurred in debate on an issue that is in the body here that has been debated in the Senate, we can bring in the Senate debate?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is rather amusing to hear the chairman of the Committee extolling the virtues of the other body. It is a very unusual occurrence here on the floor of the House in that we should always follow what the Senate does. That should not be, I think, our goal. The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel's) motion is among the most important votes that this body will take this year. In fact, it may be the most important proposals that we have considered since the resolution that authorized the President to send people to war in Iraq. The legislation that passed out of this House and will be taken up in the conference committee aims to raise taxes on domestic companies and lower taxes on firms that move oversees. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to raise taxes on U.S. exporters and lower taxes on U.S. firms with overseas operations. The gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel's) motion will instruct our House negotiators to make certain that tax incentives that exist for corporations moving overseas are not increased. What is wrong with that? I mean what is wrong with that? I am told, Mr. Speaker, that you instructed Republicans to vote against this proposal. You cannot be serious. Our trade deficit reached an all-time high this year. Our country is selling fewer things to foreigners than we buy from them, which explains why the government data says we lost at least 1.5 million jobs due to foreign trade and outsourcing since Mr. Bush took office. Why do the Republicans respond to this news by increasing tax incentives for U.S. firms to move overseas? I mean, I know that the President indicated that outsourcing is good, but does the Congress believe that? Does the House believe it? The Senate voted overwhelmingly. Well, that fixes it. I guess we have got to go along with that. Get your rubber stamp, because if you vote against this motion, we are rubber-stamping the Bush outsourcing policy. U.S. firms are continuing to set up overseas operations because our Tax Code and the Bush administration encourage it. Republicans would have us believe that high taxes, government regulation, and labor unions are making the United States a less attractive place to do business. That assertion is bogus. First, the Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation says that the overall tax burden and the corporate tax burden in the United States are among the lowest in the developed world. Corporate U.S. income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is smaller than nearly every other developed country on the planet, and it is the lowest level since the Second World War. Now, although corporate profits surged last year, the corporations paid significantly less taxes. The United States is simply the tax haven of the developed world. Second, the World Bank issued a report 3 weeks ago entitled ``Doing Business: Benchmark Business Regulation.'' It compares how regulations affect businesses in different countries. The report shows that the ability to obtain credit, acquire capital, register property, hire and fire workers and enforce contracts, in other words, to start and maintain a successful business, is easier in the United States than any other developed country, including India and China. But, nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. firms are relocating overseas to save money. Why? It is simple. The Tax Code encourages it. It provides tax incentives to U.S. firms who set up any kind of operation, from establishing a mailbox in Bermuda or building a factory in China overseas. Take, for example, the article that appeared in Tax Notes on Monday. It shows that companies are using the Tax Code to justify shifting profits offshore. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry, who we gave a huge bonanza to in this body, has alone, since Bush has taken office, their offshore profits have surged 35 percent. I hope the old folks are listening to that. But their offshore activities and assets did not really change. What does this mean? It means that at a time when our country faces the challenge of our generation, at a time when the costs of war are mounting, the Republicans are protecting a Tax Code that rewards corporations for moving profits and jobs offshore. You are not only protecting the current Tax Code, Mr. Speaker, but unless the House votes to adopt the motion offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Republican Congress will worsen the Tax Code by making offshoring and outsourcing more lucrative. Get out your clippers, Mr. Speaker, because this body is considering fleecing American workers and American firms that do business the old- fashioned way, that produce here to export overseas. If John Kerry were President, we could save us from this Congress. He has the plan to remove the tax incentives that reward companies that move overseas. If he were President, he would veto this legislation that this body proposes. But we have got to wait for another 34 or 35 days. I cannot wait until the 2nd of November.

Mr. McDERMOTT. I thank the Speaker for his answer.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to quote the votes of Senators in the other body in the midst of a speech?

Mr. McDERMOTT. In the other body, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I see the Republicans have planned a very busy week. The House passed nearly three dozen bills last night, all without debate. That has to sounds impressive. The House unanimously passed legislation on everything from naming a post office to snake control. It is known as the suspension calendar. It means its Republicans have placed the House in suspended animation until after the election. Does a post office need a name? Sure. But America needs affordable health care first, and is not getting it; America needs consumer confidence, and the Republicans are not providing that; and America needs a plan to deal with the chaos in Iraq. But forget that under this administration. That is why they are changing the story of why we went to Iraq in the first place. America's priorities have been in suspended animation for 4 years. But the wake-up call is coming on the 2nd of November.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the three Rs used to stand for reading, writing and arithmetic. Now the three Rs stand for Republican rhetoric is not reality. Here is the proof. Under this administration, Bermuda has become corporate America's favorite destination. And I am not talking about vacations. The Tax Code encourages and rewards U.S. companies to set up storefronts offshore to exploit their profits, with $75 billion last year alone, and avoid U.S. taxes. And if the administration has its way, it will get even worse. The armored trucks, loaded with U.S. corporate profits, will be lining up at the docks waiting to transfer the money out of our country. It is made to work that way. Policies by the administration and approved by the Republican House are costing the American people between $10 billion and $20 billion a year in exported tax revenue, money that should go for health care, education, senior citizens, and worker retraining. The need is there but the revenue is somewhere else. U.S. companies deserve to make a profit, but America deserves to have everyone pay their fair share to support the country that gave them the opportunity to make those profits. Indeed, the administration has put corporate interests ahead of America's interests. It is a double-edged sword and both sides are hurting the American people. More corporate profits are being shifted offshore and more corporate expenses are being shifted on to the workers. Over the last 4 years, health care premiums paid by American workers have risen three times faster than the average earnings. Today, over 14 million Americans spend at least 25 percent of their earnings on health care costs. And let me clarify something, Madam Speaker, before the Republican rhetoric kicks in. Those 14 million Americans, spending at least 25 percent of their earnings on health care, all of them are under the age of 65. It is the middle class, in other words, that is being struck under the burden of administration policies that put corporate interests ahead of America's interests. Over the last 4 years, health care premiums in 26 States have risen more than 40 percent. What did the administration do in response? Reward the drug companies with more profits and renege on a promise to senior citizens. Americans today, old and young alike, are paying more and earning less. And Americans are going to be paying a lot more in the coming years. When the administration exported the U.S. Treasury into the bank accounts of the rich, America was left holding an IOU that is a black hole on America's future. There is no way to see in it, through it, or out of it. Fully one-half of that massive deficit this year alone is a direct result of the administration's fiscal binge. They have created a mountain of debt and a mole hill of economic progress. Despite the Republican rhetoric, the administration is short at least 100,000 jobs per month. Per month. Despite the Republican rhetoric, the American people know that. Consumer confidence was down again last month because people are not buying the administration's rhetoric. The number of consumers saying jobs are hard to come by went up. Consumers drive the U.S. economy. They are worried, and with good reason. The number of people living in poverty is up. The number of people without health care coverage is up. The number of people who have exhausted long-term employment benefits is dramatically up. And then, Madam Speaker, there is Iraq. Escalating casualties, chaos, and crisis lead the President to conclude things are getting better. That must explain why over one-third of former soldiers called up this month and ordered to report for active duty in Iraq have not shown up. Americans can tell the difference between a photo op in the Rose Garden and a reality check in Iraq. Things are not getting better. At every opportunity to talk straight to the American people, the administration has chosen to sacrifice credibility in hopes of perpetuating its story. Trouble is, the real story about Iraq is every night on the news. The administration can try and change the rhetoric, but the American people are not changing the channel. They know what they see and read. They know it is not what the administration claims. They know that only new leadership will solve the crisis in Iraq and revive the economy at home. The administration had its chance, again and again and again and again. The rhetoric got better, even as the reality got worse, and even as we went further into debt, and even though the debt is the biggest we have ever had in our history in 1 year. That is the choice facing America. Believe the administration's rhetoric about Iraq and the economy, or elect John Kerry to take care of reality.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we are again with one of these election-year bills. I can imagine that there are people out there watching and listening to this debate and trying to make head or tail of what is going on here today, and I intend to vote ``no.'' I was asked by one of the press, why are you going to vote ``no''? And I think that is a really good thing to discuss, because it would certainly be easy to vote ``yes.'' Everybody wants to give tax breaks. Who in the world in an election year, 40 days before election, would not want to give away all of this money and do all of these kinds of things? But I am a child psychiatrist and one of the things you learn in raising children is that sometimes you have to say, no, we cannot do that. We cannot buy that. We cannot have that. And this Republican majority in the House and Senate really does not seem to be able to ever say no. They do not believe that you cannot spend on a credit card forever. A credit card, I have got them in my pocket like everybody else does; you have to pay it back some time. Now, the United States right now, and the reason I do not want to borrow another $149 billion is because this is borrowed money. This is not money that anybody has paid in taxes. This is money that we are borrowing from the Chinese and the Japanese and the Saudis. We go out there selling these Treasury notes. Now, when that lapses, who controls the United States? Us or those to whom we are in debt? If they decide to pull that money out, we go down like a rock. And you think the Chinese are really on our side? Do you think they are really friendly? You think they would not do that to us economically? We are putting ourselves in danger. The Republican majority, if they were trying to destroy this economy, could not have done a better job than they have done in the last 2 years. We thought 350 or whatever it was last year was bad. Now we have got $420 billion. That is over $700 billion that we have gone in debt, we have borrowed from the Chinese, from the Saudis, from the Europeans. We just go and say, Please, we need money. We are the richest country in the world. We have got the biggest army and all that kind of stuff, but we need money. Please give us money so we can keep our economy going. That is not the America that I want. I think we have to have some fiscal discipline in this House, and it has to start in things like this.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record at this point an article from the Boston Globe entitled ``Sticking it to working families,'' that shows how this Congress is raising taxes on 4 million low-income families which support 9 million children. [From the Boston Globe, Sept. 21, 2004] Sticking it to Working Families (By Thomas Oliphant) Washington.--Only in George Bush's privileged America could the following outrage occur: Despite the president's supposed theological objection to tax increases, that is exactly what about 4 million families with roughly 9 million children are about to experience, with Bush's cynical support. The outrage is actually worse, because the shiv is about to be stuck in these hand-working families under the guise of an effort to help them. Congress is about to pass a catch-all measure allegedly designed to deal with several problems affecting middle-income and lower-income working families arising from the tax cuts of recent years. The problems are a graphic illustration of how shoddy legislation written by people who mostly focus on big-shot lobbyists can cause ordinary Americans to plummet through the cracks. At issue is the child tax credit--which first appeared in tax law in the late 1990s in a budget deal between the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress. This provision permits a deduction from income taxes due for each child under the age of 17 in a household. In 2001, the value of the credit was set to gradually increase to $1,000 per child, but in the package of additional tax cuts enacted two years later, the phase-in was eliminated and the full, $1,000 figure was made immediately effective. The problem arises because parts of the law governing the child tax credit are ``indexed'' to remove the effects of inflation and parts are not. The value of the credit itself, for example, is not indexed; neither are the income amounts above which the value of the credit begins to phase out ($75,000 for a head of household, $110,000 for a married couple). On the other hand, the income thresholds above which a working person can claim a ``refundable'' child tax credit--a check from the government if income tax liability is so low to begin with that the person would not get his full credit-- are indexed for inflation. The original legislation permitted a refundable child tax credit for families worth up to 10 percent of their earnings above $10,000. That indexed earnings amount is now $10,750. And there's the rub. An analysis by the Urban Institute and the University of Wisconsin offers the example of a married couple with two children who work at the federal minimum wage of a puny $5.15 an hour. Three years ago, their income of $20,6000 would have produced a child tax credit refund of $1,060. With a higher threshold two years later, the credit's value drops 5 percent to $1,010. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. As ordinary Americans know too well, incomes downscale in the United States have been worse than stagnant in this decade. Not only has the minimum wage not budged in seven years, but family incomes above that have also suffered severely since 2000, and the suffering has been proportionately greater the lower you go on the income scale. Moreover, this decline in earnings (even before inflation in cases like workers with less than a high school education or single parents) has been accompanied by large increases in the cost of necessities--including everything from gasoline to health insurance for those low-income workers lucky enough to have any. In the expert analysis--Leonard Burman of the Urban Institute and John Karl Scholz of the University of Wisconsin--a single parent who got a $109 credit in 2001 would have received nothing last year even though her earnings fell. Looking ahead to next year and beyond, it is helpful that the refund rate will rise to 15 from 10 percent, but it will largely ignore the working families with the lowest incomes. As the analysis sums up: ``The higher phase-in rate will do nothing to abate the underlying problem that arises from stagnant income growth at the bottom of the earnings distribution. Low-income households with earnings that grow slower than inflation will see their child tax credit erode in real terms every year, and at a rate that is even faster than their decline in real earnings.'' Bush and his Republican Congress buddies could fix all this substantially, by simply restoring the original $10,000 threshold. The cost to the government would have been $4.3 billion over five years. The fact that they did nothing is eloquent testimony to the status of working families in today's political culture. The next time Bush trumpets his opposition to tax increases, John Kerry should say something about the 4 million families Bush prefers not to count. Mr. Speaker, low- and middle-income Americans need help. They need help paying for college, health care, and things that every family needs. When I heard the House is going to do this, I thought, oh, boy, I better get my rubber stamp and get out and help the President do it. It sounded like a good idea. The middle class has been pummeled in the last years. Between 1979 and the year 2000, the income of the top 5 percent in this country has increased 200 percent. During the same period, the income of the middle class grew by 12 percent, and low-income families have seen their income actually drop. Roughly during the same period, the top 5 percent saw their income tax rates sliced in half and enjoyed a precipitous decline in taxation of their investment income. Meanwhile, Social Security and Medicare taxes, a burden carried primarily by the low- and middle-class taxpayers, grew 82 percent faster than their incomes did. Mr. Speaker, when President Bush came in, income inequality got worse. The Bush tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the top 5 percent by 8 percent, while our middle class watched their incomes decline during the same period. We have to do something to help the middle class; but after reading this bill, I learned that my colleagues are asking us to play charades today. This bill gives the average middle-class household $169 of tax relief, but guess what, it gives the top 5 percent $2,000 worth of tax cuts. So for every dollar that my colleagues provide in tax relief to the middle income, they provide $10 additional for the top 5 percent of income earners, which happens to include ourselves. Where is the fairness? Where are our priorities if we vote for this thing? New data from the U.S. Labor Department indicates that since Bush took office at least 670,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost to foreign trade. The CRS, the Congressional Research Service, recently estimated that 860,000 service sector jobs were shifted offshore in 2003 and 2004. Mr. Bush went to Harvard Law School or went to business school, I guess; but I do not think it had much effect on him. He has not asked the Congress to do anything to address our competitiveness problem. He just asked us to pass tax cuts for the richest among us. Mr. Speaker, he may have gone to grad school or business school, but it really has done nothing for him. The bill before us is going to add $146 billion to our budget deficit. Where are we going to get that from? We are going to borrow it. We are going to go to the Chinese and say, hey, we have got some notes we want to sell you; would you like to buy some of our notes? How about you, Japanese; would you like to buy some of our notes? That is where this tax cut is coming from. The gentleman says it is coming from our money; it is not. It is coming out of the Japanese if they buy the bonds.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the administration has America leading with its chin. You heard the last speaker talk about it, and I am going to talk about the same thing. We are going to get hurt. This administration has America going hat in hand from country to country looking for money and they intend to just keep on doing it. They cannot make manufacturing jobs, but they have manufactured the largest trade deficit in history. They cannot engineer an economic recovery, but they have engineered the largest budget deficit in history. They cannot extend the lifeline to unemployed workers but they can expand the number of workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits to the highest level in 60 years. It is just 40 days until the election, and the President needs a big win to try to make America forget about Iraq. So instead of setting policy, we are masking massive problems. A lot of Americans here talk about a trade deficit and do not see the connection to their own lives. The administration has run up the largest trade deficit in history and it exports money and it exports jobs right out of the United States economy. It is not called outsourcing. It is called out of control. The mess this administration has made in foreign trade has claimed 670,000 U.S. jobs in manufacturing, farming and fishing, another 860,000 U.S. jobs in service industries have shifted offshore just in the last 2 years. One and a half million jobs is bad enough, but the story gets worse. The administration refused to solve its foreign trade issues. So U.S. exports are being hit by tariffs by the European Union and these penalties will rise 13 percent in the next month. The administration knows what is wrong but it will not act to fix it. Canada, Brazil and other nations have won cases in court about our foreign trade practices. But like so much else, this administration remains in denial and U.S. products could be hammered by another $3 billion in tariffs. These penalties can be avoided, but not by an administration that governs by press release. Instead, the administration's failure to act will make U.S. products more expensive and the U.S. economy less competitive in the world market. That is a formula for losing more U.S. jobs. A new study shows American multi-national corporations booked a record $149 billion worth of profits off shore in countries known to be tax havens. Do not blame the corporations. The U.S. Tax Code rewards U.S. companies for exporting their balance sheets, in effect. The administration knows. The Republican majority knows. They do nothing about it. We need a national policy that puts America first, but we do not have it and we will not get it under this administration. Instead, the administration gives us rhetoric, pledging allegiance to the middle class, but a reality that rewards the wealthy and ignores the consequences. The administration holds up the middle class when talking about massive tax giveaways passed. ``Hold up'' is the right term. The Republicans gave away another $149 billion today. There is no money to pay for it, but they did it anyway. The average middle class household will get a tenth of what the wealthy are getting. It is $169 for average Americans compared to $2,000 for the wealthy; $169 will not make college more affordable for middle class Americans. It will not make a gallon of gasoline less expensive. And $169 will not provide the business with resources to expand or re-training dollars to inspire Americans to embrace a changing global economy. This is another bait and switch tax giveaway. It will reward the rich and mortgage America's future. The administration has America on target to be $10 trillion in debt in the next 10 years. Nations that are not democratic and never will be are buying huge chunks of America's debt. Do not doubt for a moment that nations that do not share our values cannot exert enormous pressure over America when it hold trillions of dollars of our debt. They can and they will. The book ``After The Empire'' by Emmanuel Todd is like a crisis call for emergency action. Every modern nation has three foundation blocks, military, political and economic. Lots of countries have big and well- armed armies. We certainly do. Lots of countries have established and effected political structures, democratic or otherwise. Only America has had an unequaled economic foundation. It is at risk from the crushing debt burden this administration has pursued with abandon. Ten trillion dollars of debt in the next 10 years. What kind of a military can you afford with a $10 trillion debt when you have to borrow across the water to pay for your military? What kind of Social Security can we afford with a $10 trillion debt? What kind of domestic policy? The administration is charting a course that will be the end of us if we do not have a regime change on the second of November.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today, we had hoped to hear a realistic assessment of Iraq, but unfortunately, although the voice was different, the words were the same. We just heard the administration's Iraqi administrator say what the administration says over and over again: Be afraid. With no plan to win the peace and no grasp on the magnitude of the chaos in Iraq, the administration relies on fear and photo ops to divert attention, trying to get Americans to forget the deception, incompetence and outright failure this administration used to turn the country upside down. They cannot stop what Americans see and read, so they try to preempt it, using the two words that define this administration: Be afraid. Be afraid is their answer to the economy, the war, the deficit, the people without health care and Iraq in complete chaos. Be afraid is what they say, but what they mean is, be afraid of them. Do not forget to vote on November 2.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the remarks by the gentleman from South Carolina are quite interesting. He has brought out a bill today that all here wholeheartedly support, through tax incentives, making adoptions less costly. Now, that is certainly a good idea. But it is hard to understand his thinking, because he has introduced legislation here to convert our whole tax regime to one that relies solely on consumption taxes, a sales tax. Now, I do not know why he is supporting this. I guess he wants to keep making it more complicated so his other bill will pass, but that proposal would be a boon to the wealthy elite. It would remove the tax incentives that would make home purchases, college and health care more affordable. His proposal would tax all purchases on goods and services in our economy, including food, health care and home rents. In fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation did an analysis of a similar proposal and indicated that in order for a sales tax proposal to be revenue neutral over 10 years, the estimated national sales tax rate would be between 36 and 57 percent. That is a 36 and 57 percent sales tax. Some of us have a State sales tax of 8 or 9 cents, and we think that is awful. But the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) is proposing that. In other words, the price of a blood transfusion, prescription drugs and a pair of sneakers would increase by 37 to 57 percent. Now, does that sound fair? Oh, and by the way, of course there would be no adoption tax credit under that regime. So if you adopt a child, well, tough luck. Very good to talk about it here today. I am sure he would like to take this home for the campaign. But when you put in bills that make no sense, all those people who have lost their textile jobs in South Carolina due to international trade and qualify for health tax credits, well, they would be out of luck, too. And the gentleman from South Carolina is going to expect to sell this proposal to the baby boomers in this country who are about to go on a fixed income? Let us take the best case, a 36 percent sales tax. How is he going to sell that and get elected to the United States Senate? The Health Insurance Association of the United States states that one of the consequences of a flat tax bill is likely to be a rapid increase in the number of people without private health insurance coverage. One economist estimated that there would be 8 million more people without health benefits if a flat tax proposal was enacted. James Poterba, an economist at MIT, estimated that eliminating the current tax law benefits for purchasing homes could result in a 17 percent decline in the value of the U.S. housing market. What about payroll taxes? A flat tax proposal may eliminate the deduction that employers pay for their payroll taxes, amounting to a massive tax increase on businesses of all sizes. The American public may seem naive to some people running for the other body; but they know what this would mean, which is why the President, the President of the United States, who says he wants to tear the tax structure out by its roots, would not even admit that he supports the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. DeMint) proposals. If you are out here to help families and you want people to adopt children, this bill is flawed. Too much of the money goes to people on the top end like every other proposal that we have brought out here by this administration and this Republican majority. But if you want to make that kind of proposal, then do not put in these silly bills for a sales tax for this country because the people are going to wonder if you are serious about anything. Nobody who is serious about helping people adopt children is going to think that a sales tax on tennis shoes and diapers and all the things that go with kids makes any sense whatsoever. We will all vote for this, but I think the people should know what the proposer actually has in mind.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is correct, we never have enough time to discuss taxes out here. We usually run bills through here with no time at all to think about anything. The fact is, if you really want to understand what this country is doing, there is a wonderful book called ``After the Empire'' by a guy named Emanuel Todd. He is the guy that predicted when the Soviet Union would come down. He is the only one who predicted it before it happened. He is now talking about the chaos that this administration and this Republican majority have put this country in. You are borrowing enough money for the Defense Department. That is what you are borrowing. You are only taking in enough revenue to handle everything but defense, and you are borrowing all over the world, from the Chinese and the Japanese and the Europeans. If some day they say to us, United States, we are tired of funding your Defense Department so you can come over here and hammer us or mess up things in the Middle East or run around the world anywhere you want and start a war, because you have got a President now who says we can start a war any time we want any place we want. The world is afraid economically of the United States. This is a war of economics. It is not a war on terror, it is a war on economics. One of the reasons why we got into this whole business in the Middle East is because the rest of the world is thinking about leaving the dollar as the currency that stabilizes the world and going to the Euro. They were doing it in Iran. Saddam Hussein was talking about doing it in Iraq. If they had done that to the oil economics of this world, we would have had a major catastrophe. So one of the side benefits of this little exercise over in Iraq was that we did not get oil denominated in Euros. You people simply will not look at what you are doing. You cannot fight a war and have 700 bases all over the world and run a deficit of $450 billion every year for the whole future that you can see. This little bill here today is a minor issue; we know that. But it gives us an opportunity to point out that your economics are upside down. You talk great things about, we are going to reform the tax system. We had a chairman on the Committee on Ways and Means for the 10 years he was here, who said he was going to reform the tax system, was going to tear it out by its roots, but he never brought a bill to the committee. So it really is all talk, because you know it is nonsense. You want the American people to believe it. You want the American people to believe that we can get rid of that awful, terrible income tax and we will have this nice, easy sales tax that somebody else will pay. But when you look at it and how it actually works, it does not work, and that is why you will not do it. You have no courage. You own both Houses, both the Senate and the House, and you have never brought that bill out here to be discussed. Why not? Because you know it is nonsense. You know it is nonsense. That is why you have to run these bills through in the middle of the night with 1 hour's debate or 2. So, let us be honest here about taxes. This little one will pass, but do not give us this sales tax or what you are going to rip out by the roots. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is time to declare the Republican Party in breach of contract. A decade ago, the GOP promised the American people they would balance the budget. Instead, they have engineered the largest deficit in history. A decade ago, the GOP promised Americans a fair shake. Instead, average Americans have seen their incomes shrink, their jobs evaporate, Social Security threatened, and health care beyond the reach of 45 million Americans. A decade ago, the GOP promised to help seniors. Instead, the GOP sent plastic cards to senior citizens and big profits to drug companies. Some contract. When it comes to the American people, the GOP, like the President, have been AWOL. The contract is null and void. It is time for a new partnership. Come January, we will stand and say, Madam Speaker, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) becomes the first woman Speaker of the House. The time is now and it is long overdue. It is only 40 days away.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this resolution because I think it is a long time in coming. Our treatment of the first people in this country has been abysmal. We are largely ignorant of what their culture was or that there was a culture, and this is now an opportunity to redress what I think has been a serious error that has been made by the United States. What is amazing about this is that it is not over. At the time of the last 8 years under President Clinton, a number of tribes tried to get their recognition. The Dowamish and Chinook tribes in the State of Washington went through the entire process in the Department of the Interior. They were given their status as recognized tribes in this process. The President signed the order creating this relationship with the Chinooks and the Dowamish, and when the new administration came in, one of the very first things they did was reach back into the desk drawer and wipe out the Dowamish tribe. They do not exist any more, to this administration. Now, I come from a city called Seattle, that is a corruption of the name of the Chief of the Dowamish tribe, Sealth. Chief Sealth was a Dowamish. He lived in this country when everybody arrived. He helped those people who came into Pugent Sound all by themselves. And, in fact, he gave his name to the city. He made a speech once where he said, ``When I met the great white father, I didn't know the land was his. I thought that God gave us, the great spirit gave us the land to live in and to share and to leave it in better condition than when we found it.'' That kind of wisdom is in that museum, and you will see it. However, the fact is there are still wrongs that need to be righted. This Congress needs to advance a bill, which we put in a couple of years ago and no one ever wants to even have a hearing on. We want to be out here glorify the opening of a museum. And it is a good thing the museum was started before this administration got in place, or it never would have happened. I believe that there are these kind of grievances that people need to go and find out about. We took their land. We created treaties with people who did not really understand how skillful we were with words, but they took us at our words and they have tried to live with us. But the fact is that we still continue to leave the Dowamish without their recognition and Chief Sealth is a man without a tribe. That is wrong. We should fix that, too.